WI: Prince Charles Dies in Ski Party Avalanche-March 10th, 1988

So I was looking through some old news articles, and it turns out that Prince Charles nearly died while on a ski trip in Switzerland on March 10th, 1988. Apparently, a large avalanche almost swept him and his party away. One person died and another was injured. So, what if Prince Charles hadn't been so lucky, and died that day in an avalanche in Switzerland?

What would the reaction be in the Uk be to his Death, and the reaction around the world? How do the rest of the Royal family react?

What effect, if any, would this have, or could this have on British politics?

How would the next twenty or so years be different for the British monarchy?

Any other thoughts?
 
Well, Diana and he were still married etc, so I can see her being quite a good grieving widow. The divorce is gone. The scandals etc might not come out, and if they did, I think they would be low key, even with the UK media vultures (speaking ill of a dead Prince and heir etc. doesn't make good paper sales).

It would be interesting to see the impact on the younger princes, without Charles influence and completely under Diana's.

William leaps up a step as heir to the thrown - a better outcome given the Queen is unlikely to die any sooner - Charles is knocking on in OTL, so skipping a generation would mean a younger successor.

An interesting idea for a small TL.
 
I'm not sure how the environment and architecture would be different. Should something happen to Her Majesty, who would rule in Prince William's stead? Prince Andrew?
 
I'm not sure how the environment and architecture would be different. Should something happen to Her Majesty, who would rule in Prince William's stead? Prince Andrew?

Yes. Should the Queen and Prince Charles pass before Prince William reaches his majority, the Regent would be the next eligible royal in line, who would be Prince Andrew. (There are other criteria, namely being a British subject domiciled in the UK and eligible under the Act of Succession 1701.) Barring someone in the line of succession having passed between 1988 and now (I can't find a list from the exact date), should Prince Andrew become incapacitated, the Regency would pass to Prince Edward, and then Princess Anne.
 
Thoughts...

Yes, I'm pretty much in agreement. I do think William's future education and a wife would be higher priorities as indeed would those of Harry.

Diana is the interesting person here - she would doubtless remain in the UK looking after her sons as a dutiful mother and would be an even more influential figure who would be much harder for the Royal Family to marginalise.

We can probably butterfly away her death in 1997 as a result of this earlier POD.
 

Ak-84

Banned
There is no cult of Diana. I suspect that William would still go to St Andrews as he did historically; so he might still end up with Kate Middleton. He might be created Prince of Wales by now.
 
Yes. Should the Queen and Prince Charles pass before Prince William reaches his majority, the Regent would be the next eligible royal in line, who would be Prince Andrew. (There are other criteria, namely being a British subject domiciled in the UK and eligible under the Act of Succession 1701.) Barring someone in the line of succession having passed between 1988 and now (I can't find a list from the exact date), should Prince Andrew become incapacitated, the Regency would pass to Prince Edward, and then Princess Anne.

How about the Duke of Edinburgh? If both Queen and Charles were dead by 1988 while he is still alive couldnt he become Regent?
 
There is no cult of Diana. I suspect that William would still go to St Andrews as he did historically; so he might still end up with Kate Middleton. He might be created Prince of Wales by now.

With regards to universities and stuff it's all butterflies really. In terms of royal succession unless something were to strike down Mrs Windsor before William is 18 (so, 2000) we wouldn't be playing around with regencies and stuff. What piece of legislation determines who the regent is - does it have to be the next royal in line or does the Prime Minster pick or something? If the latter, they'd probably just pick an inoffensive political elder statesman that's been out to grass for a while (in the Tory case, Major, David Steel and Shirley Williams being other options) just to sign things.

EDIT : The Regency Act '37 says next in line. If Wills were to be under 18 (so early 2000 or before), Harry's younger than him, so it's straight to Andy as regent.
 
Last edited:
How about the Duke of Edinburgh? If both Queen and Charles were dead by 1988 while he is still alive couldnt he become Regent?

I don't think so as he's pretty far down the succession in terms of direct line, and I'm pretty sure that the position of ex-Consort has no official duties, roles or benefits.
 
Nope.

The order is. Star denotes born after 1988 so butterflies could appear. Info from Wikipedia

Charles
.William
.Harry
Andy
.Beatrice*
.Eugenie*
Edward
.James*
.Louise*
Anne
.Peter Phillips
..Savannah Phillips*
.Zara Tindall (married after '88, this year).

It would have to go in ASB, but a TL where Zara becomes queen and Mike Tindall consort, please, that would be hilarious.
 
Top