WI the Queen is assassinated in 1981

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.

You are correct, but as the recent case of Whitey Bulger shows, it can and does happen on occasion.
 
You are correct, but as the recent case of Whitey Bulger shows, it can and does happen on occasion.
There is a real difference between a crook and an asssin of the Queen.

They might well be in a prison of their own eg the tower of London.

And at that time capital punishment existed for some things which including killing the monarch.
 
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.
When you say her government falls, do you mean Labour wins the next election or her own party conspires against her?
 
When you say her government falls, do you mean Labour wins the next election or her own party conspires against her?

Could be either, even she might not escape the fallout of an assassination of the Queen, and even if she does I'd say pretty much all the political capital she has within her party/electorate would be used up, any more damaging issues like perhaps the fall of the Falklands or the Unionist outrage over the '85 Anglo-Irish Agreement (or any of the events in NI at the time) might push it over into either a leadership challenge or a General Election that the Tories would lose.
 
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.)
On the plus side? They finally get some islands they've never owned and that has NO indigenous Argentinian population?

The reality is, it was the Conservative government that was cutting the RN in 1981 following John Notts Defence Review White Paper - it should be noted that this was issued 2 weeks after the assassination attempt on the Queen. If Thatchers govt falls, the defence cuts don't get implemented, HMS Endurance stays in the south atlantic, and if anything Argentina is deterred from invading in the first place.
 
Could be either, even she might not escape the fallout of an assassination of the Queen, and even if she does I'd say pretty much all the political capital she has within her party/electorate would be used up, any more damaging issues like perhaps the fall of the Falklands or the Unionist outrage over the '85 Anglo-Irish Agreement (or any of the events in NI at the time) might push it over into either a leadership challenge or a General Election that the Tories would lose.
Assuming that Thatcher remains leader of the Conservative Party, when would she call the next General Election?
Would Labour still go for a very left-wing campaign?
 
Having the NZ assasibaassas attempt work would be interesting as there was an election the next month and this would be so crazy that it could go anywhere
 
While I don't doubt that he wouldn't use Charles as his Regnal name, what makes you say he would go with George VII?

It makes more sense. Using the name Charles in the UK usually draws up images of Charles I (who started the English Civil War, and was executed in 1649), Charles II (who ruled over the Great Fire of London, had Catholic sympathies, and wasn't terribly good), and the Jacobite pretender Bonnie Prince Charlie (Charles Edward Stuart, who called himself Charles III; was the grandson of James VII/II) who had a role in the 1745 Jacobite uprising.

Prince Charles' full name is Charles Philip Arthur George. Charles is out, with all the baggage from the Stuarts and the Jacobites. Arthur very quickly brings out images of the mythohistorical King Arthur, and that's no good. There's never been a King Philip in the UK, so that's a possibility, but there have been six King George's. Plus choosing the name George VII honors his grandfather and it's a name within the family.
 
... the name Charles in the UK usually draws up images of Charles I (who started the English Civil War, and was executed in 1649), Charles II (who ruled over the Great Fire of London, had Catholic sympathies, and wasn't terribly good), and the Jacobite pretender Bonnie Prince Charlie (Charles Edward Stuart, who called himself Charles III; was the grandson of James VII/II) who had a role in the 1745 Jacobite uprising.
Makes you wonder why they called him Charles in the first place, with all the negative connotations.
... Arthur very quickly brings out images of the mythohistorical King Arthur, and that's no good ...
Come on, that would be badass!
 

SsgtC

Banned
Makes you wonder why they called him Charles in the first place, with all the negative connotations.
Because no one really cares about the personal name of the Prince. It's only when you put "King" in front of it that it becomes an issue.
 
Makes you wonder why they called him Charles in the first place, with all the negative connotations.

Personal names are distinct from regnal names.

Come on, that would be badass!

Yes, but if you say "King Arthur", people will automatically think of the King who wanted to find the Holy Grail and had a bunch of his friends sit around his round table, and the figure that modern society has assumed in fiction. It would be exceptionally difficult to separate the mythohistorical figure from the figure of King Charles-as-Arthur. And would Charles be Arthur I or Arthur II? It's easier to have him choose a different name other than that one.
 
I'd say that at 70, Prince Charles has been Prince Charles for too long for the public to call him anything but King Charles III when he ascends the throne.

Chances are we will find out in the next few years.
 
I think back in the 80s or 90s he might have chosen George VII, but now he probably leans towards Charles III. Charles is his brand as it were,s nd the negative connotations of the previous Charles' are probably far out of the public conscience.
 
Because no one really cares about the personal name of the Prince. It's only when you put "King" in front of it that it becomes an issue.
Personal names are distinct from regnal names.
Yeah, but nevertheless, keeping your personal name as regnal name still is the most consequential thing to do. I am aware that, for example, George VI was called Albert or Queen Victoria's first name was Alexandrina. But when those people were christened, nobody expected them to reign in the future. Victoria only became queen because there were no male heirs left, and Bertie ascended to the throne after his elder brother's more or less unexpected resignation.
My point is, that, when someone is christined as a future king, and Charles certainly was, then it's only reasonable to give them a first name that's suitable as a regnal name, even if personal names and regnal names are not the same thing. George V has done this with his eldest son, the heir apparent Edward, who became Edward VIII, and George VI has done it with his daughter Elizabeth, who became Elizabeth II.
So that's why I found it odd that Charles' parents, being aware he'd be king someday, gave him a first name with a rather unfortunate history.
 
Last edited:
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.

Or be killed by some weirdo on the way to the hearing, as happened in 1963.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Yeah, but nevertheless, keeping your personal name as regnal name still is the most consequential thing to do. I am aware that, for example, George VI was called Albert or Queen Victoria's first name was Alexandrina. But when those people were christened, nobody expected them to reign in the future. Victoria only became queen because there were no male heirs left, and Bertie ascended to the throne after his elder brother's more or less unexpected resignation.
My point is, that, when someone is christined as a future king, and Charles certainly was, then it's only reasonable to give them a first name that's suitable as a regnal name, even if personal names and regnal names are not the same thing. George V has done this with his eldest son, the heir apparent Edward, who became Edward VIII, and George VI has done it with his daughter Elizabeth, who became Elizabeth II.
So that's why I found it odd that Charles' parents, being aware he'd be king someday, gave him a first name with a rather unfortunate history.
Except! It's not really that common for a monarch to keep their given name upon ascending the throne. The fact that Edward VIII and Elisabeth II did, is kind of a rarity. Neither George the V or VI did (and George V older brother was named Albert Victor, so I highly doubt he would have kept either name had he become King). Nor did Edward VII. The Hanover's did tend to keep their personal name as their Regnal name (they were also exclusively named either George or William as well, so take that for what it's worth), but the Hanoverian dynasty ended with Queen Victoria in 1837.
 
Let's give it a last try and see if anybody is interested in this ...

Any guesses from you whether 80s' Charles as King would cause some constitutional trouble by not keeping his mouth shut?

Could be either, even she might not escape the fallout of an assassination of the Queen, and even if she does I'd say pretty much all the political capital she has within her party/electorate would be used up, any more damaging issues like perhaps the fall of the Falklands or the Unionist outrage over the '85 Anglo-Irish Agreement (or any of the events in NI at the time) might push it over into either a leadership challenge or a General Election that the Tories would lose.

Coming back to this, who would Thatcher face in an early 80s' leadership challenge? If it's Michael Heseltine and he wins, the Tories could take a turn towards a cosy, europe-friendly One Nation conservatism ITTL.
 
Top