WI: Marcus Sarjeant assassinates Queen Elizabeth II in 1981

I know that in OTL he only had blanks, but he did attempt to get real bullets. What if he successfully obtained ammunition for his Father's .455 Webley revolver, and then on 13th June 1981, assassinated Queen Elizabeth II? How would this affect the UK and what would the reaction of the foreign powers be?
 
Probably there is strickt gun laws earlier. Might be that there is demands about taking death penalty again to usage at least for assassination of royalties. Thatcher's politics might be even more hard liner.

When Charles now becomes king this might has intresting affect for marriage and divorcing of Charles and Diana. Probably Charles will not be so popular as Elizabeth.
 
Is this the guy who got into HM's bedroom ?

IIRC, she had a revolver aimed at him beneath the bedding and, given she was a disconcertingly good shot...
 
Is this the guy who got into HM's bedroom ?

IIRC, she had a revolver aimed at him beneath the bedding and, given she was a disconcertingly good shot...

I think it was a different guy, but that raises another question, what if the man you're referring to had been shot and killed by HM. Could you imagine how that would play out, hell there could even be a cover-up.
 
Different guy. He tried to pull a Franz Ferdinand on the queen while she was trooping the colours in 1981.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
I know that in OTL he only had blanks, but he did attempt to get real bullets. What if he successfully obtained ammunition for his Father's .455 Webley revolver, and then on 13th June 1981, assassinated Queen Elizabeth II? How would this affect the UK and what would the reaction of the foreign powers be?
To get back to the point of the thread, obviously Charles would have become King (likely becoming George VII rather than Charles III), but the fallout on the national psyche would have been interesting. 1981 was already not a great year. Unemployment was soaring, there was a recession, Brixton had exploded in rioting only a few months prior, inflation was high, and there was a general sense of malaise and cynicism permeated this period, and this isn't even going into Northern Ireland. The death of a sitting monarch in such a violent fashion would have been the cherry of the top of this cake.

Consider that, in the midst of this national depression, many clung to the Summer Wedding of Charles and Diana, as they had done in 1973 with the Wedding of Princess Anne, as a way of coping. Think about how this lifted the spirit, strengthened resolve, and injected some well needed happiness and joy back into the public conscious as the Firm is thrown back into the limelight. In this scenario, that happiness and optimism won't be there, and will be replaced by grief, outrage, and sadness on a national level. The wedding, merely a month away from the PoD, will be overshadowed by the shooting. So 1981 will be a year of utter misery, and will set the tone for the next decade.
 
Most likely, Charles delays his wedding to Lady Spencer. What we, the public, think is temporary (and stated as so) is indefinitely. Lady Spencer due to her doubts (as confirmed in this timeline) and her family's reputation, doesn't push the issue. She marries well. She has four sons and one adopted daughter from a third world country. She suffers from bipolar and an eating disorder. That she only find out about after her suicide attempt (in this time she harms herself A LOT, I'm going to assume she does in that timeline but due to being in a more loving marriage and not famous something is done). Charles is dating proper ladies public after a year or so of his mother being dead. Camilla is his love, but she and he agree she will not divorce. Also, she doesn't want her current children to usurped by their royal half siblings. Charles closely monitors who Andrew marries, but doesn't care who he carries on with in private. Camilla is a presence at private royal functions, but as a “friend”. She is treated well. Andrew marries a lesser princess of a foreign country. Maybe Japan? As in this time line, he produces only female children. Charles grooms them from a young age, as Camilla is getting too old have bio children, to be heirs to the throne. Andrew dies after getting a bad spot with people who unsavory and want access to his family. His death is very similar to Diana's in this time line. Charles dies in 2010 after all the smoking and drinking he's done due to Camilla's influence. Either lung or esphoical. The throne is again inherited by a long living female was never “supposed” to reign much like her grandmother.
 
Does it matter who has the title? Royals are in endless supply and interchangeable. It's not as if they run the place after all.
 
Ridiculous!

In the aftermath of the murder of the Queen, Australians are not going to vote to become a republic.

I believe they would have. In this time line, I don't believe Charles would marry Diana Spencer. The tour they took our line quieted Australia's cry for a republic. Partly due to Di Mania. In the OP's timeline, there wouldn't be an Australian tour so soon after the Queen's death.
 
Top