The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f44/)
-   -   Will Charles Ever Reign? Part 3 (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f44/will-charles-ever-reign-part-3-a-9668.html)

Royal Fan 04-28-2007 09:17 PM

That could still give him 25 Years on the Throne

Royal Fan 05-21-2007 12:57 PM

Give me a Play by Play of what will Happen btween the Queens Death and Charles Being Crowned who Contacts who and when? Thank You in Advance

Iluvbertie 05-21-2007 04:57 PM

On the death of the Queen Charles instantly becomes King and William instantly becomes Duke of Cornwall.

Who contacts whom would depend on who was with the Queen when she died e.g. if she died quietly in her sleep like her father did then the first person to be told would be the Duke of Edinburgh who would arrange for Charles to be contacted - either directly or through a member of staff. Not knowing how Philip would react to the death of his wife is why I say that - some people simply can't make that contact. The same with the other members of the family. If the Queen had been ill for awhile, and therefore the family were there when she died then arrangements would be made to contact the PM and make the appropriate public announcements.

Within a day or so an Accession Council would be held for the new King to accept the government (in days passed this would be a signal for a new election so the handing over of the officials seals of office had real meaning but now it is symbolic). Various people will also swear allegiance to the new king e.g. the new heir, the PM, the Archbiship of Canterbury etc.

There will a ceremony in various parts of the UK (London and Edinburgh) to proclaim the new king.

At some time after that (in the more recent past at least 12 months after the death of the previous monarch) the coronation will take place. The time frame relates to the official end of court mourning, which lasts 12 months and the timing of the death. e.g. Queen Victoria died in January 1901 and Edward VII crowned in August 1902 (was supposed to be June but due to his appendicitis it was delayed), Edward VII died in May 1910 and George V crowned in June 1911, George V died in January 1935 and George VI crowned in May 1937 (date originally scheduled for Edward VII) and George VI died in January 1952 and Elizabeth crowned in June 1953. The coronations appear to take place during the warmer months with the longer days - a consideration for the crowds that gather.

There have been reports that the powers that be want a shorter time between the death of the present Queen and the coronation of Charles but appropriate times do have to be observed so the coronation shouldn't take place less than 6 months after the death but also has to consider the climate in London. If the Queen died today for instance I wouldn't expect the coronation before this time next year but if she died in November this year I could still see a coronation next summer rather than wait until the following summer.

From what I have said you can see that there are no simple direct answers because a lot would depend on the circumstances of the Queen's death.

Royal Fan 05-21-2007 07:40 PM

I Understand now What name do you think he will pick George VII or Charles III

Lady Bluffton 05-21-2007 07:57 PM

I think Charles will opt for George. We all know what happened to Charles I, and Charles II? Well, he's got my vote for the most lascivious monarch in British history. Will Charles want to follow in those footsteps. I think not.

So why George? Having eliminated Charles, Arthur is too, well, storybook. And Phillip? I'm not sure that Charles will want to follow in the footsteps of the fellow who launched the Spanish Armada...

As far as this Defender of the Faith title, wasn't it the Pope who gave it to Henry VIII before the whole divorce business? Talk about irony...

If Charles could figure out some way to do so, I think he would convert to something else. He has been quite interested in Orthodoxy in recent years; after all, his grandmother became an Orthodox nun.

I'm not sure though that the British establishment (whoever you want to define that as being) will allow Charles or anyone to tweak the coronation ceremony too much, if at all, including and most especially any part that sets the Monarch as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Avalon 05-22-2007 05:10 AM

A couple of Georges were not too beloved or too great Kings as well. :rolleyes:
I believe Prince Charles will reign under his own name, that is he will be King Charles III. The 'unfortunate' previous Kings with that name are not that much of an issue, imo. When Princess Elizabeth was naming her eldest son 'Charles', she surely knew all about the history of her ancectors and being an Heir Presumpative, she knew her son would one day become King (by the time it was obvious the King and Queen would not have any more children).

Lady Bluffton 05-22-2007 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avalon
A couple of Georges were not too beloved or too great Kings as well. :rolleyes:
I believe Prince Charles will reign under his own name, that is he will be King Charles III. The 'unfortunate' previous Kings with that name are not that much of an issue, imo. When Princess Elizabeth was naming her eldest son 'Charles', she surely knew all about the history of her ancectors and being an Heir Presumpative, she knew her son would one day become King (by the time it was obvious the King and Queen would not have any more children).

So, I guess it's up to Charles to reform the image of his name as far as preceding monarchs go. Wow, what a responsibility in and of itself!

HRH Kerry 05-22-2007 11:01 AM

Don't forget about the future. So I guess there will never be another King Henry.

Elspeth 05-22-2007 11:48 AM

Charles II was the monarch who presided over the restoration of the monarchy after Oliver Cromwell's little interlude, remember. I don't think he deserves to be remembered simply as the out-of-wedlock father of half the current aristocracy.;):biggrin:

It's possible that Charles would have opted for George VII if he'd become king in his younger days. But now he's nearly a senior citizen and has been called Charles for so long, it seems to me to be less likely that he'd change his name to George at this stage in his life.

Lady Bluffton 05-22-2007 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth
I don't think [Charles II] deserves to be remembered simply as the out-of-wedlock father of half the current aristocracy.;):biggrin:

Oh, but it's so easy to remember, and so hard to forget! :lol: Cheers, Elspeth!

Royal Fan 05-22-2007 07:41 PM

O So true How Many Illegitimate Children did he have

sirhon11234 05-22-2007 07:58 PM

Both the Princess of Wales,Countess of Wessex, and even the Duchess of Cornwall are descended from Charles II's illegetimate children.

Sister Morphine 05-22-2007 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royal Fan
O So true How Many Illegitimate Children did he have


Charles II of England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HRH Kimetha 05-22-2007 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royal Fan
O So true How Many Illegitimate Children did he have

Counting my own family in that mess! And, probably many many more!

Iluvbertie 05-23-2007 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth
Charles II was the monarch who presided over the restoration of the monarchy after Oliver Cromwell's little interlude, remember. I don't think he deserves to be remembered simply as the out-of-wedlock father of half the current aristocracy.;):biggrin:

It's possible that Charles would have opted for George VII if he'd become king in his younger days. But now he's nearly a senior citizen and has been called Charles for so long, it seems to me to be less likely that he'd change his name to George at this stage in his life.


Yet there is the precedent of Edward VII who was known as Prince Albert Edward throughout his time as Prince of Wales. He chose to be known as King Edward, which surprised many people at the time.

Who knows what Charles will choose. I suspect at this stage he isn't even sure himself.

kpusa1981 05-23-2007 03:48 AM

I think he would chose either his first name Charles and be Charles III, however, I think he might also chose to use George which is one his middle names and becoming George VII. It would not entirely suprise me he chose George in honor of his Grandfather. However, Charles will most likely use first of Charles since he has been HRH The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales for so long.

Elspeth 05-23-2007 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrissy57
Yet there is the precedent of Edward VII who was known as Prince Albert Edward throughout his time as Prince of Wales. He chose to be known as King Edward, which surprised many people at the time.

I wonder if he was trying to differentiate himself from his father, although since his father had been dead for so long, that shouldn't have been necessary.

I remember having to explain to one of my American friends about why Edward VII and George VI were both known as Bertie before they became King - she seemed to think it was a term of endearment for the eldest son or something (and yes, I know one of them wasn't an eldest son, but she didn't!).

Iluvbertie 05-23-2007 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth
I wonder if he was trying to differentiate himself from his father, although since his father had been dead for so long, that shouldn't have been necessary.

I believe there may be something in that - the reported reason that I have seen when researching his life is that he wanted to have his father's name stand alone. That was the official reason but I suspect there might also have been an element of also showing that he was finally out from his mother's shadow as she had said that she wanted him to reign as Albert Edward.

Quote:

I remember having to explain to one of my American friends about why Edward VII and George VI were both known as Bertie before they became King - she seemed to think it was a term of endearment for the eldest son or something (and yes, I know one of them wasn't an eldest son, but she didn't!).
I have had some similar discussion with people as well. In fact, in the last 6 British monarchs 3 have chosen a different name to their first birth name and another used his first birth name but that wasn't the name by which he was called in the family (Edward VIII was called David remember). Only George V and Elizabeth II have used their first given names since 1837 and also the name by which they were known within the family even if the family used a diminutive form (Georgie and Lillibet respectively).

love_cc 05-23-2007 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth
I wonder if he was trying to differentiate himself from his father, although since his father had been dead for so long, that shouldn't have been necessary.

I remember having to explain to one of my American friends about why Edward VII and George VI were both known as Bertie before they became King - she seemed to think it was a term of endearment for the eldest son or something (and yes, I know one of them wasn't an eldest son, but she didn't!).

From what I have read, it is said that Bertie was unwilling to stay in either of his parent's shadow any more after Queen Victoria's death, so he chose Edward VII instead of Albert I. Queen Victoria wanted that but certainly Bertie did not choose to do so. Sorry I forgot my source for this information.

Warren 05-24-2007 10:08 AM

Posts discussing the Queens's abdication or retirement have been moved to the Abdication or Retirement? thread.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:18 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018
Jelsoft Enterprises