What if the Queen of England died in early 1998?

Who would have taken over if Queen Elizabeth died in early 1998?


  • Total voters
    95

Asami

Banned
It is true that the heir becomes monarch at the instant of the previous monarch's death. But recognition of the new monarch is not automatic.

The new monarch is recognised by the Accession Council, which is a meeting of the full Privy Council that takes place as soon as possible after the death. The new monarch must also swear an accession declaration relating to their duties as head of the Anglican church: this declaration is made in Parliament at the next State Opening.

So if you are looking for a way to prevent Charles being recognised as King, those are your openings.

Additionally, the Commonwealth Realms other than the UK have to recognise the new monarch. I think this is done by the High Commissioners attending the Accession Council, but happy to be corrected.

https://www.royal.uk/accession.

Yes, but there is legitimately no reason anybody at the Accession Council would stop Charles from ascending to the title of King. Infidelity does not disqualify one for succession.

Also: If Elizabeth dies, it would generate a significant amount of sympathy for the Royal Family, and make those braying that she didn't show up at Buckingham to pay her respects look like fools. "The Queen didn't show up because she was busy dying you tossers"-- or at the very least it'd make the people attacking QE2 look like assholes.
 
Yes, but there is legitimately no reason anybody at the Accession Council would stop Charles from ascending to the title of King. Infidelity does not disqualify one for succession.

Also: If Elizabeth dies, it would generate a significant amount of sympathy for the Royal Family, and make those braying that she didn't show up at Buckingham to pay her respects look like fools. "The Queen didn't show up because she was busy dying you tossers"-- or at the very least it'd make the people attacking QE2 look like assholes.

Indeed. I was pointing out a route. I wasn't saying it would be successful.
 
Yeah, the Acts of Settlement is still in effect, which means Charles will automatically be king. Heck, if King Edward gets to be King for a few weeks for having pro-Nazi leanings who married a divorcee, I doubt that Charles would get ousted for a lesser reason.

Here's the Line of Succession by 1998:

  1. Prince Charles
  2. Prince William
  3. Prince Henry
  4. Prince Andrew
  5. Princess Beatrice
  6. Princess Eugenie
  7. Prince Edward
  8. Princess Anne
  9. Princess Zara
  10. Princess Margaret
Prince Philip (as a Prince of Greece) is waaaay down the list, somewhere after the King of Norway. And I don't think the Queen Mother is even on the list.

Two small corrections: 1 you've omitted Zara's brother Peter, and 2 Zara isn't a princess (and Peter isn't a prince) for reasons of misogyny (their 'royal' parent is a woman and therefore cannot pass on the title).
 

Asami

Banned
Prince Philip (as a Prince of Greece) is waaaay down the list, somewhere after the King of Norway. And I don't think the Queen Mother is even on the list.

The Queen Mother is likely not on the line of succession at all, since she's not a descendant of Sophia of Hanover, as far as I'm aware. Prince Philip's claim to the throne is... way way down.

Also as a follow up to my previous post: Trying to stop Charles from succeeding to the crown is legitimately treason. Treason Act of 1702 (or 1703) is a thing.
 
Zara isn't a princess (and Peter isn't a prince) for reasons of misogyny (their 'royal' parent is a woman and therefore cannot pass on the title).

As far as I can recall Princess Anne declined titles for her offspring, she wanted them unencumbered by titles.
 
Two small corrections: 1 you've omitted Zara's brother Peter, and 2 Zara isn't a princess (and Peter isn't a prince) for reasons of misogyny (their 'royal' parent is a woman and therefore cannot pass on the title).

  1. This is 1998; Peter wasn't born yet, and Zara was still a princess.
  2. You're probably thinking of Japan. The UK allows this.
 
I think the public might get over Diana faster if Charles becomes King; at least diminishing the cult of Diana. He probably will not wed Camilla (and she's savvy enough about the rules at that level to play Alice Keppel).

PS: Edward VIII was not ousted, he was running from the responsibility looking for a way out (long before his father died) but failed to mention this plan to Wallis, who wanted to be Queen. He forced the government to tell him Wallis wasn't acceptable (and, since he didn't know his role as King - he thought it would give him more power in government), he played the moral outrage card and quit. Like the spoiled brat he was, after the abdication, gobsmacked to learn he had placed himself outside the society he wanted to adore Wallis as a perfect woman, just as he did.

That’s an interesting take on Edward VIII that I haven’t heard before: A spoiled brat running away from his responsibilities.
Given his actions during the Battle of France(i.e. desertion!), I think your right.
 
Last edited:
As far as I can recall Princess Anne declined titles for her offspring, she wanted them unencumbered by titles.
She and Mark Phillips turned down a title for him (probably Earl as in Princess Margaret's husband) so her children are plain Mr and Ms. Even if Mark Phillips had taken a title they would only have been viscount X and Lady X. They could never be prince or princess, those titles can only be inherited down the male line (as in princesses Eugenie and Beatrice, daughters of prince Andrew).
 
  1. This is 1998; Peter wasn't born yet, and Zara was still a princess.
  2. You're probably thinking of Japan. The UK allows this.

Peter Phillips was born in 1977, Zara Phillips (now Tindall) was born in 1981. I have no idea who you are thinking of.
 
Next Question: What if the Queen knocked over a liquor store?
She'd probably get away with it. She's handy with a shotgun and can get a top-of-the-range Jag. She'd have no problem with getting rid of the drink because of her mother's connections. Plus if she's caught she can always pardon herself... :)
 
What other answer would there be? Of course Charles would be king. It is the law. I think too many people are getting into the anti-Charles, Saint Diana crusade. In real time, all kinds of things happened. It wasn't just his fault. He is a good chap, he does a good job supporting the nation and his mother, and his turn will come and I hope William does the same for his father that Charles does for his mother.
If I recall, while there was a lot of publix mourning and recriminations for the monarchy, in private, there was quite a bit of sentiments of "Get a load of these people acting as if she was the second coming" and feeling that the whole thing was being overblown.

And I don't think Charles ever did anything publicly that would have caused much of an issue. His messy sex life aside, I am not sure there was quite as much there to go on.
 
She'd probably get away with it. She's handy with a shotgun and can get a top-of-the-range Jag. She'd have no problem with getting rid of the drink because of her mother's connections. Plus if she's caught she can always pardon herself... :)

Not likely. Her drink of choice Sauvignon Blanc. Specially Sancerre.
 
As far as I can recall Princess Anne declined titles for her offspring, she wanted them unencumbered by titles.
Any title they would have had most likely would have been a courtesy to a title the queen would have granted to Anne's first husband, Captain Mark Phillips. Like Princess Margaret husband was given a title, Earl of. Snowdon, and their children were given courtesy titles, David, Viscount Linley, (he is now Earl of Snowdon), and Lady Sarah. Captain Phillips refused a title so Anne and his children would not have been given a title. Courtesy or not.
 

Baby Kata

Banned
As far as I can recall Princess Anne declined titles for her offspring, she wanted them unencumbered by titles.

How on earth is having a title "encumbering" or in any way a bad thing?

I'd kill to be Sir FIRSTNAME or Lord SURNAME. (not revealing my real name here)
 
How on earth is having a title "encumbering" or in any way a bad thing?
When you have the media following you around, and reporting your every last indiscretion like Princess Anne did then I can see why she didn't want to pass that on to her children.
I'd kill to be Sir FIRSTNAME or Lord SURNAME. (not revealing my real name here)
That was the traditional way of obtaining a title if you weren't born to it I think. Apparently it's gone out of fashion now.
 

Baby Kata

Banned
When you have the media following you around, and reporting your every last indiscretion like Princess Anne did then I can see why she didn't want to pass that on to her children.

Either way, you're still the Queen's grandchild, so you'd still get attention. A title wouldn't make that worse, and it must be utterly humiliating for your mother and cousins to have very prestigious titles but for you to have none.

If I were Princess Anne's children, I would have told her "either you let me have a title, or I will never talk to you or your family again".
 
Top