The Mechanics of Abdication and of Succession to the Throne


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Iain said:
It was you who mentioned Britain and as Scotland is part of Britain it does have something to do with the Scots. I was only pointing out that there are differences in the way the two nations view things. As for Scotland not being able carrying on without England, what makes you think we couldn't?

Can't we please stop going into a political discussion and agree that the claim of the current Queen of the UK is based on her Stuart-Tudor ancestry and that she is a unifying element just like James VI. & I., king of Scots and king of England was?
 
Jo of Palatine said:
Can't we please stop going into a political discussion and agree that the claim of the current Queen of the UK is based on her Stuart-Tudor ancestry...
Quite. To head off the inevitable argument about Stuart legitimists, could those so inclined please discuss this issue in the Jacobite Pretenders thread.

Thanks.
Warren
British Forums moderator.
 
Sigh. Posts continuing the England vs Scotland "are they countries?" and "does a country have to have an army?" line of argument have been and will be removed.

Warren
British Forums moderator
 
Jo of Palatine said:
Britain may be a bit behind the "trend" when it comes to that but I believ the signals from Scandinavia have reached the people of Britain, too. With "signals" I mean the fact that only the heir/heiress of the heir is a "Royal Highness" while the siblings are only "Highnesses" (Norway), that the grandchildren (and future nephews/nieces) of the monarch are not longer Royal Highnesses, but only "Highnesses" like in Denmark or Counts/Countesses like in the Netherlands etc.
I think what people have to remember is that the royal family in the UK has for more to do than any other royal family anywhere in the world. The Scandinavian countries have populations the size of large cities and that would mean other than any constitutional dealings their jobs aren't even as complex as a mayor of any city. The British royals are only the monarch, the children and grandchildren and as soon as the next generation appears they are out. No different to any other family and no titles- such as the Count /Countess to pass on eg Lord Freddie Windsor- his grandchildren throught the male line will be without titles.

The UK needs more royals of the day if we are into charity support and patronages - there is no way four adults could deal with 60 million UK residents, 50 million outside the UK and there are the 2 BILLION Commonwealth residents that the monarch is head of. The British royals need their children and grandchildren as we have see this last generation. The Queen is the monarch of over 100 million people right now- I can't see any valid comparison with any other European monarchy as far as work is concerned. And people need royals in monarchies so why start denying those entitled to the status?
 
What are the mechanics of transitioning from one reign to the next?

When a sovereign dies, what happens to the Personal Aide-de-Camps that they appointed? Do they automatically serve the next monarch, or do they need to relinquish their status?

What about the Royal Household. Do they all need to resign?

Is new currency printed immediately, or do they wait for the next scheduled printing?

Does the Royal Standard stay the same for each Sovereign or does Prince Charles have a new one ready for the day he'll be King?
 
I believe the whole Household offers its resignation to the new Sovereign, who will take it 'into consideration' and requests them to stay on their posts and await furtherer developments.

In my country the same happened in 1980. Even the ministers had to offer their portefeuilles to the new Queen (but she did not accept their offer).
 
Since the passing of the Demise of the Crown Act, 1901, nobody loses their job on the death of the monarch. The Royal Standard stays the same, at least in the UK. (In other realms, the letter in the center will change.) New currency would more than likely be printed at the next scheduled printing, as it would take time to make new images, and cast new dies for coins.
 
The Aide-de-Camps lose their status and are re-appointed if the new monarch wishes them to serve as an ADC to them. The Royal Household members don't resign but there is a swap around - the footmen of the Prince of Wales become footmen to the King and the old footmen, pages etc might be retired or might go into service for the former monarch's consort or serve one of the other members of the family.

Currency is printed with the next batch - so, when new coins etc are minted, they have the new profile on them but the old ones remain legal tender.
 
So whos Contacted first , Like if The Queen Died tomorrow (God Forbid) and The P.O.W. Was in Clarence House Asleep (say its 11:00 p.m.) would he be contacted before Blair ect ect
 
here's my guess

Royal Fan said:
So whos Contacted first , Like if The Queen Died tomorrow (God Forbid) and The P.O.W. Was in Clarence House Asleep (say its 11:00 p.m.) would he be contacted before Blair ect ect

The Duke of Edinburgh would be contacted first. He would get someone to call the Queen's Private Secretary(ies). He would call Princes Charles, Andrew and Edward as well as Princess Ann. One of the Queen's children would notify Princess Margaret's children.

I think the Private Secretary would call Blair, as well as the other Heads of Government for all the Queen's realms. I think one of the Assistant Private Secretaries would call the rest of the extended Royal family, as well as key members of the Royal Household.

Just a guess though...
 
Churchill was notified of the death of George VI by assistant private secretary Edward Ford, who died fairly recently I believe.
 
Was Churchill Told Before or after the Queen
 
wbenson said:
New currency would more than likely be printed at the next scheduled printing, as it would take time to make new images, and cast new dies for coins.

That's true because I found a penny in canadian currency printed in 1952 and there was George VI on it

Royal Fan said:
Was Churchill Told Before or after the Queen

I guess that he might have been told before The Queen...or at least the news reached him before the new Queen. Her Majesty was in Kenya and I recently read in the book Lilibet by Carrolly Erickson that there were no phones to get the news in.
 
Last edited:
The Queen was told by the Duke of Edinburgh, who was told by a staff member, who heard it via BBC radio. A telegram was sent, but it never made it.
 
And there's that truly sad story told frequently by Churchill's daughter, about how Churchill was sitting in his dressing gown, surrounded by papers and letters when the Secretary came in and broke the news. "Prime Minister, I have bad news. The King is dead". Churchill slumped forward and said, "Bad news. It's the worst". He threw the papers into the corner of the room and said, "How unimportant all these seem now".
 
BeatrixFan said:
And there's that truly sad story told frequently by Churchill's daughter, about how Churchill was sitting in his dressing gown, surrounded by papers and letters when the Secretary came in and broke the news. "Prime Minister, I have bad news. The King is dead". Churchill slumped forward and said, "Bad news. It's the worst". He threw the papers into the corner of the room and said, "How unimportant all these seem now".

Told more frequently by Edward Ford, the person who witnessed it.
 
So Say She Passed Away On May 19, When would Charles Be Crowned
 
Royal Fan said:
So Say She Passed Away On May 19, When would Charles Be Crowned

That would depend.

In that past there has been at least 12 months between the death of the monarch and the coronation of the heir e.g. Victoria died Jan 1901 and Edward VII crowned in August 1902 (was supposed to be 6 weeks earlier but he had to have his appendix out instead), Edward VII died in May 1910 and George V was crowned in June 1911, George V died in Jan 1936 and George VI was crowned in May 1937 (the date had been set for Edward VIII) and George VI died in Feb 1952 and the Queen was crowned in June 1953.

There has been some talk about a shorter period for Charles - certainly shorter than between the death of George VI and Elizabeth's coronation.

Things that need to be considered include an appropriate period of mourning, so at least 6 months making it November 19th at the earliest (the day before what would have been his parents 60th wedding anniversary so I would say later than that). That then raises the issue of a Coronation in winter with the problems for the crowds with regard to the cold etc and the troops would be in their grey winter uniforms and not the spectacular red and gold - so the procession would be less spectacular - so maybe they would put it back to the spring - probably next May or June but that is a guess.

I know that royal weddings take place in November, as does the Opening of Parliament but these ceremonies are far shorter in time - the coronation is a long ceremony (three or four hours I think) and with England heading into the shorter days the processions would almost be taking place in the dark.

Therefore I suspect that if the Queen passed away this week we wouldn't have the coronation until June 2008 but that is just me.
 
I am surprised, in retrospect, that Princess Elizabeth would have been sent off on a long tour, given how ill the King was. I can only think that the Queen Mother, and everyone else, must have been in serious denial about his condition. (George VI looked terrible in those photos where he's waving the Edinburghs off.)

Another thing that I think planners would have to consider is the availability of other prominent Royals and VIPS to attend. I know this is a major consideration when planning the great weddings. But it would seem unlikely that the planners would schedule a coronation for a time when bad weather is likely (and the populace not willing to crowd around), so the warmer months are probable.
 
The other thing that is a potential road block to "fast" changes is the members of the family and their staff changing residences. If the Queen dies before the Duke of E., would Philip be willing to move to Clarence House or another residence? (I really can't see him living with Charles for long.) And sometimes the incumbent doesn't want to move, like Queen Alexandra. You also have to consider redecoration matters (although the Queen Mother moved into a relatively well-maintained Clarence House, it seems to have been very run down by the time Charles moved in). At the least BP is going to need some freshening up for Charles, Camilla, staff and whatever children are moving in.
 
Maybe Philip could live at Frogmore House.
 
iowabelle said:
The other thing that is a potential road block to "fast" changes is the members of the family and their staff changing residences. If the Queen dies before the Duke of E., would Philip be willing to move to Clarence House or another residence? (I really can't see him living with Charles for long.)

I'm sure in a place as big as Buckingham Palace, they could avoid each other for days if they wanted to.
 
chrissy57 said:
Therefore I suspect that if the Queen passed away this week we wouldn't have the coronation until June 2008 but that is just me.

Unless the anti-monarchists get their wish and Charles remains POW and the monarchy is abolished and the rest is put out to pasture. Let us hope not!:)


iowabelle said:
At the least BP is going to need some freshening up for Charles, Camilla, staff and whatever children are moving in.

I thought I heard that Charles was going to use St James Palace or Windsor Castle?
 
Maybe the Windsors will decide to keep BP for business and actually live at Windsor or somewhere else. BP doesn't sound very comfortable, but then again how comfortable can a 1,000-year-old castle be?? (But I could believe that Philip would prefer to reside at Windsor since he has been the Ranger and has had such an influence over the development of its environs.)
 
iowabelle said:
Maybe the Windsors will decide to keep BP for business and actually live at Windsor or somewhere else. BP doesn't sound very comfortable, but then again how comfortable can a 1,000-year-old castle be?? (But I could believe that Philip would prefer to reside at Windsor since he has been the Ranger and has had such an influence over the development of its environs.)

Buckingham Palace isn't 1000 years old; Windsor Castle is.
 
An awful lot happens and much has to be done when a Monarch dies. Of course it is teh same everyone dies - there are many arrangements to be made and things to sort out like the funeral and (in the case of royalty) the eventual coronation. However, all these things will have already been decided upon and there will be set precendents in place to ensure everything runs smoothly (almost like a handbook so whoever organised it can look at teh list of things that need doing and how they should be done).
 
I do love these discussions and this particular one is really interesting! It is quite right that the coronation would be held after a suitable period of mourning and a date would be fixed to ensure overseas heads of state can attend. A coronation is likely to take place in the May or June the following year after the previous monarch died. Don't forget that the coronation robes will need to be made and Westminster Abbey will be altered inside to ensure all the guests can fit in. Personally I will be very interested to see whether there will be any changes to the coronation when Charles becomes king. Monarchs in Britain are annointed with holy oil then crowned and the ceremony will last for several hours. It is very likely that the Coronation willbe much the same as the Queens in 1953 - I can't see how else it can be done. As an aside, I much preferred Queen Beatrix' inauguration ceremony.
 
So the Coronation is likely to last about 4 Hours wow!
< ed Warren: irrelevant question > why did you perfer Beatrix Ingaugaration?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I Think he will be a fine King so which does everyone think is easier Presidential Transition in The US Or Monarch to Monarch
 
Back
Top Bottom