WI the Queen is assassinated in 1981

I just read how Elizabeth II was nearly shot in 1981, so I wondered about the possible consequences, had the attempt been successful. Would a young & passionate King Charles clash with Thatcher (like his fictional counterpart did with FU in the House of Cards series)? Would this and Charles' broken marriage lead to a serious constitutional crisis? Could the monarchy even survive the turbulent 80s and 90s?

If it survived, it might have gotten closer to the scandinavian/central european monarchies in having a more "middle class vibe" today.

I know little about the British monarchy, so I have no clue how ASB my ideas might be.
 
Until 1998, death was the mandatory punishment for high treason in the United Kingdom. But the perpetrator would have been only 17, so he's too young to be hanged (after 1933, the minimum age was eighteen). He gets detained at His Majesty's pleasure, gets a life sentence, and gets killed by someone in prison. Either that, or he's in solitary confinement.
 
Last edited:
Had Marcus Sarjeant got live ammunition and assassinated the Queen on 13 June 1981, the impacts would have been considerable.

Sarjeant himself would, as Aloha has intimated, have not been publicly executed but would have died in prison, whether Broadmoor or Parkhurst, at someone's hand.

It's quite possible the Prime Minister would have offered her Government's resignation to the new King but it would have been refused. However, Home Secretary William Whitelaw would have resigned and never returned to active politics. Other high-ranking security personnel would have been dismissed or sacked as the public outcry over the security failure spread further.

It's possible the riots earlier in the year would have resumed as those on the militant extremes of both Left and Right sought to use the Queen's death to their advantage. The new King, who would call himself George VII (NOT Charles III) would assume the throne just weeks before being due to marry Diana Spencer. Instead, he has to bury his mother in the most tragic of circumstances. Will these events bring Charles and Diana closer, drive them apart or will it make no difference at all? Not sure but the wedding would be postponed and it might be in the circumstances the engagement would quietly be ended.

OTOH, the pressure would be on Charles to marry and produce an heir as he is only 34 at this time so it's likely the marriage will go ahead but did Diana want to be Queen so soon?

I suspect the incident so soon after the attempted assassination of President Reagan would lead to much tighter security so for instance the shooting of Pope John Paul is prevented.

Does it make any difference to politics and foreign relations? Would the Falklands War still happen? Not sure. George VII would be crowned in early 1982 at an event which brings foreign dignitaries to London and at which Foreign Minister Lord Carrington quietly warns off the Argentinean leader not to make any moves on the Islas Malvinas.
 
Either I am hopelessly naive,or some people here have an extremly poor picture of britain in their mind. what is it with this prisons that are effective death sentences?
 

SsgtC

Banned
Either I am hopelessly naive,or some people here have an extremly poor picture of britain in their mind. what is it with this prisons that are effective death sentences?
Someone just murdered the Queen. Even in jails, the Queen would still be personally popular (at least with segments of the population). The killer would likely be shanked within a month. Kinda like putting a child molester into GenPop in the US. It's a guaranteed death sentence
 
Either I am hopelessly naive,or some people here have an extremly poor picture of britain in their mind. what is it with this prisons that are effective death sentences?

If someone shot dead Bill Clinton in 2000 or FDR in 1945, do you think they would be treated nicely by their fellow inmates?
 
Had Marcus Sarjeant got live ammunition and assassinated the Queen on 13 June 1981, the impacts would have been considerable.

Sarjeant himself would, as Aloha has intimated, have not been publicly executed but would have died in prison, whether Broadmoor or Parkhurst, at someone's hand.

It's quite possible the Prime Minister would have offered her Government's resignation to the new King but it would have been refused. However, Home Secretary William Whitelaw would have resigned and never returned to active politics. Other high-ranking security personnel would have been dismissed or sacked as the public outcry over the security failure spread further.

It's possible the riots earlier in the year would have resumed as those on the militant extremes of both Left and Right sought to use the Queen's death to their advantage. The new King, who would call himself George VII (NOT Charles III) would assume the throne just weeks before being due to marry Diana Spencer. Instead, he has to bury his mother in the most tragic of circumstances. Will these events bring Charles and Diana closer, drive them apart or will it make no difference at all? Not sure but the wedding would be postponed and it might be in the circumstances the engagement would quietly be ended.

OTOH, the pressure would be on Charles to marry and produce an heir as he is only 34 at this time so it's likely the marriage will go ahead but did Diana want to be Queen so soon?

I suspect the incident so soon after the attempted assassination of President Reagan would lead to much tighter security so for instance the shooting of Pope John Paul is prevented.

Does it make any difference to politics and foreign relations? Would the Falklands War still happen? Not sure. George VII would be crowned in early 1982 at an event which brings foreign dignitaries to London and at which Foreign Minister Lord Carrington quietly warns off the Argentinean leader not to make any moves on the Islas Malvinas.

Thank you, that's very complex & interesting!

But let's get this straight: Apparently there were two assassination attempts on the Queen in 1981.
At first I thought you made a mistake, as the incident I remembered took place on 14 October 1981, during a visit to New Zealand:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...zabeth-assassination-attempt-new-zealand-1981
So on this date, Charles and Diana were already married and, if I haven't misounted, Diana must have been already pregnant with William. That's why I was confused by your comments on how the wedding is delayed and Charles must produce an heir.

But you're right, earlier in 1981 there was this attempt, on 13 June:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...zabeth-assassination-attempt-new-zealand-1981
That's the one you referred to.

So maybe we should agree on which assassin we let suceed, as it makes a considerable difference ...
 
If someone shot dead Bill Clinton in 2000 or FDR in 1945, do you think they would be treated nicely by their fellow inmates?

they would be in danger probably,but america often and rightly gets mocked and criticized for its atrocious prisons. I had hoped britain would be a less third-wordly shithole in the judicary aspect.
 
I can only imagine what the consequences of this might be in North Ireland...
Why? Unlike the other POD's these assassination attempts have nothing to do with Republicans. I'd imagine rioting from both sides but nothing "major" or out of the ordinary for that time period compared to what could happen if a Provo attack had killed her.
 
Why? Unlike the other POD's these assassination attempts have nothing to do with Republicans. I'd imagine rioting from both sides but nothing "major" or out of the ordinary for that time period compared to what could happen if a Provo attack had killed her.

Sure, but if, say, the Unionists blame the Provos without evidence things might well spiral out of control. Especially given that it's little more than a month after the death of Bobby Sands MP, so anger is already high over the hunger strikes. I don't think much will change in terms of the politics of the issue, but things might get much more violent. And, if Charles proves inept or loses prestige due to the Diana issue, the particularly strong monarchism of the Unionists might start to lose support from England, leading them to lash out in desperation.

Again, it does seem like things will get much worse than OTL even if nothing much changes politically. There's also always a chance that some rogue element of the IRA decides to attempt a bombing either at the funeral or the coronation in revenge for Unionist violence.
 
Sure, but if, say, the Unionists blame the Provos without evidence things might well spiral out of control. Especially given that it's little more than a month after the death of Bobby Sands MP, so anger is already high over the hunger strikes. I don't think much will change in terms of the politics of the issue, but things might get much more violent. And, if Charles proves inept or loses prestige due to the Diana issue, the particularly strong monarchism of the Unionists might start to lose support from England, leading them to lash out in desperation.

Again, it does seem like things will get much worse than OTL even if nothing much changes politically. There's also always a chance that some rogue element of the IRA decides to attempt a bombing either at the funeral or the coronation in revenge for Unionist violence.

First it would be the Loyalists, not the Unionists per say that would escalate things, but their record on such escalation is mixed (and might depend on HM Forces supporting them), if the shooter is taken alive like RL, then it's going to be quickly clear that he has no connection to either side of the issue of NI. As to the issue of Charles, again I really don't see how that would affect them, Unionists tend to put weight on the Crown when the relationship with Westminster is underpressure, given it's unlike that Thatcher would change any position in regards to her NI stance in light of an assassination of the Queen, then I don't see the desperation In fact I'd wonder if the butterflies might kill off the '85 Agreement anyway.

As to an IRA attack during the funeral/coronation, after a successful attack on the Queen I'd bet London would be locked down so tight that no attack would be possible by any of the Groups of NI.
 
Charles would become King.
Until 1998, death was the mandatory punishment for high treason in the United Kingdom. But the perpetrator would have been only 17, so he's too young to be hanged (after 1933, the minimum age was eighteen). He gets detained at His Majesty's pleasure, gets a life sentence, and gets killed by someone in prison.

Someone just murdered the Queen. Even in jails, the Queen would still be personally popular (at least with segments of the population). The killer would likely be shanked within a month. Kinda like putting a child molester into GenPop in the US. It's a guaranteed death sentence

Much more likely that such an infamous criminal is put into solitary confinement, where he's safe from other inmates but bound to get psychological disorders within some months.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Much more likely that such an infamous criminal is put into solitary confinement, where he's safe from other inmates but bound to get psychological disorders within some months.
There's always the possibility of a mix up with the paperwork. That's a favorite reason given as to why a high profile inmate that should be in "protective custody" gets put into GenPop instead
 
This pretty much would set the tone for the 1980s for the UK of being nothing more then grief, outrage, and sadness.

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.

Same for if this also stops the Falklands War. Thatcher's Government falls, and British global reach would simply not exist as the Royal Navy is gutted. (On the plus side, Argentina finally gets the Falklands without a fight.)
 
There's always the possibility of a mix up with the paperwork. That's a favorite reason given as to why a high profile inmate that should be in "protective custody" gets put into GenPop instead

I would doubt that very much . everyone (and I mean everyone) would be quadruple checking everything.

If you get it wrong there will be consequences
 

SsgtC

Banned
I would doubt that very much . everyone (and I mean everyone) would be quadruple checking everything.

If you get it wrong there will be consequences
No, that's not what I mean. I mean a "mix up." Not an honest to God mistake, but something done deliberately than excused by the guards as "a problem with the paperwork." That happens way more often than you might think.
 
If someone shot dead Bill Clinton in 2000 or FDR in 1945, do you think they would be treated nicely by their fellow inmates?

I won't speculate about Clinton, but if someone had managed to murder FDR in 1945, the prospect of them not being treated nicely by fellow inmates will be the least of their problems. The killing happens in say, DC or Georgia (where the President did die in OTL), the killer's gonna fry.
 
No, that's not what I mean. I mean a "mix up." Not an honest to God mistake, but something done deliberately than excused by the guards as "a problem with the paperwork." That happens way more often than you might think.

Its actually mostly a myth peddled by Tv shows and movies,especially since if you aren't very lucky the excuse of "a problem with paperwork" means you are suddenly job less,if you are unlucky you land in prison yourself. Turns out most governments by now have a problem with their employes selectivly deciding what of their laws to follow and which not.
 
Top