WI Queen Elizabeth Dies before/during Financial Crisis

[Plateosaurus]

Imagine its announced Queen Elizabeth's health is starting to deteriorate quickly due to being diagnosed with a terminal illness in the the second half of 2006 or early 2007. Depending on what point at which she dies, what implications will this have for the world?

EDIT: Got rid of that implausible suggestion.

 

[Pretaporter]

Imagine its announced Queen Elizabeth's health is starting to deteriorate quickly due to being diagnosed with a terminal illness in the the second half of 2006 or early 2007. Depending on what point at which she dies, what implications will this have for the world? For one, just about every country in the commonwealth is about to have it currency rendered worthless or close to it.

Er, no.

Despite what it says on the bank notes, Her Majesty does not actually need to personally provide the bearer of a fiver/tenner/score/nifty with anything.

And even if Sterling were backed by HMQ's personal gold stash, rather than being a fiat currency, the seamless nature of Monarchy ("The Queen is dead, long live the King") means the backer never went away, they just changed faces.

 

[Scerus]

What?

New Zealand and Australia measure their currencies in dollar units instead of Pound Sterling, New Zealand dropped it in 1967. The only influence she has is her face being on the $20 bill here.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

Buckingham Palace may have pressed to get a quick resolution to the coalition negotiations in 2010 given that the financial crisis was still ongoing, but the civil servants would have done that (if they did) regardless of the personality of the monarch.

 

[Ian_W]

Imagine its announced Queen Elizabeth's health is starting to deteriorate quickly due to being diagnosed with a terminal illness in the the second half of 2006 or early 2007. Depending on what point at which she dies, what implications will this have for the world? For one, just about every country in the commonwealth is about to have it currency rendered worthless or close to it.

Charles becomes King.

The Commonwealth countries keep being governed by their respective governments without reference to the Palace.

Next.

 

[Jellico]

What?

New Zealand and Australia measure their currencies in dollar units instead of Pound Sterling, New Zealand dropped it in 1967. The only influence she has is her face being on the $20 bill here.

Clearly. After all it took the best part of 15 years to convince the Americans to let the antipodean Dominions peg their currency to the USD after Georgie died. Just imagine the fun getting it tied to the yuan if Elizabeth died. Luckily she is a vampire so it should all be fine this time.

 

[Kaiser Chris]

Imagine its announced Queen Elizabeth's health is starting to deteriorate quickly due to being diagnosed with a terminal illness in the the second half of 2006 or early 2007. Depending on what point at which she dies, what implications will this have for the world? For one, just about every country in the commonwealth is about to have it currency rendered worthless or close to it.

What the heck is this kind of nonsensical backwards logic? Why would the international market not accept a form of paper currency just because the person who is on the currency suddenly dies? By that logic, if Barack Obama were to somehow become the face of the $20 bill and die a year later, that's not going to cause an economic depression because the world can't accept $20 bills anymore. All faces on the dollar have been dead for at least over a century, there is nothing about them being dead that will affect the American economy. The assumption that the death of a popular Queen would cause a global recession is simply ludicrous.

Queen Elizabeth dies, King Charles is crowned, everyone goes on with their lives while being temporarily consumed by the next piece of royal intrigue every other year, life goes on. With the currency, Elizabeth would still probably be the face of some Pounds due to her popularity, but they just print Charles on some new ones then still accept the Elizabethan Pound, no one gives a damn. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing about the British Royal family that makes them matter in Britain's current government. The Royal family solely exists now for national prestige and cultural pride. The British Prime Minister can do whatever they want so long as they have the support of their party and a majority of the British people, the monarch's support is solely for show.

 

[Mike D]

Elizabeth would still probably be the face of some Pounds due to her popularity, but they just print Charles on some new ones then still accept the Elizabethan Pound, no one gives a damn.

They'd change the designs of coins and notes to replace her head with Charles fairly quickly (it's a long time since we actually changed the person on the money, obviously, but there's been at least two or three different portraits of Liz on our cash) but the Elizabeth cash would remain legal tender for a period anyway. We change the design of our notes fairly regularly, usually with a lot of bickering about who's going to be on the back, and there's always a period after the new one comes in where the old one is accepted to give people a chance to get rid of the old notes/coins and to give the Mint a chance to get new coins/notes into circulation. I think it was about six months after the new pound coins came in recently.

Certainly our currency wouldn't become worthless overnight anyway, probably a dip in the market for a few days but no worse than what happens whenever May opens her mouth or somebody fucks another round of Brexit talks up.

 

[Cockroach]

For one, just about every country in the commonwealth is about to have it currency rendered worthless or close to it.

No.

Paper and metal currency are not rendered non-legal tender because the person on the back died. And besides, the amount of money in circulation as cash is usually dwarfed by the amount of money floating round as entries on a ledger/in a database...

 

[HARRY]

In the USA the Treasury Secretary has their signature on dollar bills but US paper currency does not become worthless when there is a new person in this position. The same is true in commonwealth countries where the current British monarch is on their coins or notes they are still worth the same and the next batch minted or printed will just have a new persons portrait who will be facing in the other direction.

Outside of the currency thing it may actually be beneficial financially for Britain with potentially millions of extra tourists coming into the country for the Queens funeral and then the coronation of Charles.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

For one, just about every country in the commonwealth is about to have it currency rendered worthless or close to it.

Can you explain what you mean by this? What do you imagine the effect of the death of the monarch will have on the money of the Commonwealth?

 

[von Mises]

They'd change the designs of coins and notes to replace her head with Charles fairly quickly (it's a long time since we actually changed the person on the money, obviously, but there's been at least two or three different portraits of Liz on our cash) but the Elizabeth cash would remain legal tender for a period anyway.

I'm fairly sure Victorian coinage was legal up until decimalisation, so I can't see coins being changed. Notes, I imagine would remain valid until they get the next series of notes out, but most would probably fall out by wear and tear before then.

 

[Mike D]

I'm fairly sure Victorian coinage was legal up until decimalisation, so I can't see coins being changed. Notes, I imagine would remain valid until they get the next series of notes out, but most would probably fall out by wear and tear before then.

True enough, and actually even after decimalisation - I remember getting shilling and two shilling coins in my pocket money in the late 80s, long after shillings were in use. They were kept on until the new, smaller 5p and 10p coins came about in 1990(?).

 

[The Wooksta!]

I occasionally got shilling and two shilling coins with George VI head on them and at least one George V coin came my way in 1989 just as they were finally being withdrawn. I might still have is somewhere as I kept if for the rarity factor.

The recent changeover of pound coins had more to do with removing all the fake ones from circulation. IIRC they reckoned about 30% in circulation were fake.

 

[Bernard Woolley]

I occasionally got shilling and two shilling coins with George VI head on them and at least one George V coin came my way in 1989 just as they were finally being withdrawn.

I remember some KGVI shilling coins during the period when they were the equivalent to decimal 5p (basically before the modern tiny 5p was introduced). I'm pretty sure I've got some somewhere.

A change of Monarch would have zero effect on the currency of the UK and Commonwealth Realms.

 

[melpax]

Here in Australia, it's not unusual to get 5/10/20 cent coins as change that were minted in 1966 for the start of decimal currency. The only banknote that has the portrait of The Queen here is the $5 note. As per the UK, etc, I'd imagine that the Reserve Bank would have a 'Charles' portrait ready to go fairly quickly for the coins & fiver. After 2-3 years it would be unusual to see an 'Elizabeth' $5 note, but the coins would still be in circulation into the next century, barring any any major changes such as the 5c coin being withdrawn from use (1 & 2 cent coins were withdrawn from use in 1992) or major design changes, etc.

 

[Beetle63]

Pre-decimalization (Feb 1971) I remember getting George VI, V, Edward VII and occasionally Victoria pennies in my change. Traditionally the new monarch uses the opposite profile to the previous one on the coinage; the only exception in the 20th century was Edward VIII and that reign didn't go too well.

 

[Ramontxo]

It was quite common back in the eighties, in the Jesuit university for example, for people to refuse small change coins with Franco head (or Patxi as we use to call him...) But it was legal enough

 

[49ersFootball]

How would King Charles handle the economic crisis ?

 

[Bernard Woolley]

Not his job to handle the crisis.