What if the Queen was assassinated?

RNG

Banned
What if the Queen was assassinated? What if Marcus Sarjeant had not just intended to startle the Queen at trooping the colour on the 13th June 1981 however actually kill her and was successful in killing her? How would this change British history and World history? What style of reign would Charles have after the murder of his mother? Wasn't 1981 Britain in the midst of a recession, high unemployment, and riots, how would the death of the monarch affect this? What about nations with the British monarch as their monarch, how would they react?What would happen to Marcus Sarjeant, would the death penalty be called for by the British public, or would he escape this judgement? There would most likely be more security measures of all World leaders, how would this sudden rise in security measures affect future events, for example would these security measures stop famous terrorist like 9/11? Or would it just be a shock event with no ripple effects at all? What you think?
 
Last edited:

Tosueres

Trying to think back to those times. I imagine there would have been a rallying of conservative patriotic sentiment, but we had that a year later anyway because of the Falklands War. So politically the newly-formed SDP doesn't have a year of riding high in the opinion polls before the Falklands factor squashed it.
Interestingly it's only a few weeks before the Charles-Diana wedding. Is it the trigger that scares her into breaking off the engagement, which some have said she considered anyway? If she marries, then she becomes not Princess of Wales but Queen Consort.
I don't think restoring the death penalty was an option at that point because of an EU rule.
 

Forcon

Tosueres said:
Trying to think back to those times. I imagine there would have been a rallying of conservative patriotic sentiment, but we had that a year later anyway because of the Falklands War. So politically the newly-formed SDP doesn't have a year of riding high in the opinion polls before the Falklands factor squashed it.
Interestingly it's only a few weeks before the Charles-Diana wedding. Is it the trigger that scares her into breaking off the engagement, which some have said she considered anyway? If she marries, then she becomes not Princess of Wales but Queen Consort.
I don't think restoring the death penalty was an option at that point because of an EU rule.
Click to expand...

The death penalty was still an option for treason until the Human Rights Act was passed in 1997 so the perpetrator almost certainly gets executed.
 

Marquis

More immediately, the Horseguard who rode up behind her (a friend of my family) would have sabred him. The little idiot fired off all his shots (although in reality it was only a starting pistol). He'd have had to reload before getting run through and trampled under one of HM Government's finest destriers.
 
English Nationalist

English Nationalist

ElMarquis said:
More immediately, the Horseguard who rode up behind her (a friend of my family) would have sabred him. The little idiot fired off all his shots (although in reality it was only a starting pistol). He'd have had to reload before getting run through and trampled under one of HM Government's finest destriers.
Click to expand...
Here Here! Though if Sarjeant was just captured and sent for trial either way he is dead be he executed by the state or by fellow inmates. Either way, he wouldn't see July I think it is safe to say.
As for other matters I think the wedding will be pushed back out of respect and possible security concerns. Expect a long period of state mourning in comparison to other monarchs due to the situation even with the rattled atmosphere across the country. I wouldn't be surprised there is a rise of combined pro-Monarchy, anti-Government sentiment. If Diana does call of the marriage I suspect she will remain a rather long term distraction at least until the war of which I feel will not be averted. Speaking of which, maybe Argentina will invade during the mourning period though I can't say it would be very likely. Not sure about the Commonwealth but the Australian situation could be very varied considering Prime Minster Fraser was out of office in '83.
 

Locke01

Forcon said:
The death penalty was still an option for treason until the Human Rights Act was passed in 1997 so the perpetrator almost certainly gets executed.
Click to expand...

Sarjeant was a 17 year old juvenile at the time of the incident. After 1933, no one under the age of 18 in the UK could be executed even if the offense he was convicted of called for a mandatory death sentence (like murder or treason). Judge issues the sentence, the Home Secretary grants a reprieve, and the defendant is detained at the Queen's pleasure.
 

Cryhavoc101

Forcon said:
The death penalty was still an option for treason until the Human Rights Act was passed in 1997 so the perpetrator almost certainly gets executed.
Click to expand...

No. The death Penalty was abolished in 1965 under British law.

He would get life or sectioned...and get life

Now whether he would get lynched etc or 'commit suicide' is another matter but certainly he would not be executed by the state.

yulzari said:
Queen assassinated, Charles becomes King. The world continues to turn.
Click to expand...

Yep. There was a line of succession. God save the King...and in other news.....
 

Forcon

Cryhavoc101 said:
No. The death Penalty was abolished in 1965 under British law.

He would get life or sectioned...and get life

Now whether he would get lynched etc or 'commit suicide' is another matter but certainly he would not be executed by the state.
Click to expand...

It wasn't an option for under 18s, however, the death penalty remained in place for treason, espionage, piracy and arson in royal dockyards, until the Human Rights Act was passed in 1998. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(Abolition_of_Death_Penalty)_Act_1965 (Obviously Wikipedia isn't the best source but it has links to its sources)
 

Forcon

Locke01 said:
Sarjeant was a 17 year old juvenile at the time of the incident. After 1933, no one under the age of 18 in the UK could be executed even if the offense he was convicted of called for a mandatory death sentence (like murder or treason). Judge issues the sentence, the Home Secretary grants a reprieve, and the defendant is detained at the Queen's pleasure.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I didn't realise he was under 18 at the time.
 

Cryhavoc101

Forcon said:
It wasn't an option for under 18s, however, the death penalty remained in place for treason, espionage, piracy and arson in royal dockyards, until the Human Rights Act was passed in 1998. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(Abolition_of_Death_Penalty)_Act_1965 (Obviously Wikipedia isn't the best source but it has links to its sources)
Click to expand...

Technically correct (and there is only 'technically correct' correct!) but the last people executed in the UK for treason was in 1946 - even longer ago than for Murder (1964) - so while it may have remained 'technically possible' to have handed down a death sentence it would not have happened in 1981 even if he had been older than 17.

And I am absolutely cool with a wiki link - it is a great resource - particulalrly as a first stage in any research.
 

NOMISYRRUC

I seem to remember that when passing sentence at one of the 1980s spy trials the judge said that if the offence had been committed in wartime the sentence would have been death and around the same time having conversations with some of my relatives who said that people could still be hanged for treason if it was committed in wartime.

Does anybody know if that was correct? If it was then Marcus Sarjeant could not have been hanged because the UK wasn't formally at war with another country at the time.
 

Alexpira

Tosueres said:
Trying to think back to those times. I imagine there would have been a rallying of conservative patriotic sentiment, but we had that a year later anyway because of the Falklands War. So politically the newly-formed SDP doesn't have a year of riding high in the opinion polls before the Falklands factor squashed it.
Interestingly it's only a few weeks before the Charles-Diana wedding. Is it the trigger that scares her into breaking off the engagement, which some have said she considered anyway? If she marries, then she becomes not Princess of Wales but Queen Consort.
I don't think restoring the death penalty was an option at that point because of an EU rule.
Click to expand...

As for Charles and Diana, think that the marriage would still move forward, but to be performed only after the lengthy mourning and coronation periods, so something like 1982 or even early 1983. The general pro-Monarchy sentiment and pressures within the Royalty to a kind of return to a "normal situation" after such a traumatic event would be more than enough to avoid any "Diana-out" situation. A longer engagement period and possibility to become the Royal Family's second highest member are also beneficial to Diana, who could mold the Royality in an more friendly environment to her.

After the marriage, guess that Charles & Diana marital life would be something like OTL Spain's Juan Carlos & Sofia marriage: an open secret that the King and the Queen do not share the same bed (or even house) for years but no divorce either....somewhere 2015 Diana could start to push for the idea of a Charles abdication on behalf of William's, in similar style of other European Royal Houses (abdicate before getting to old)...if Charles accepts the idea, then a formal divorce could emerge after that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top