What Will Happen Wen Queen Elizabeth ll Dies

fuzzybuddy said:
There is no doubt the Queen is a much beloved woman. She will have had a long, long reign. And that means a succession of very old men in their late 70s and 80s, 90s. If they have inherited the Windsor long live gene. I'm not a Brit, so I don't know how the nation will adjust to extremely elderly men on the throne, vs. a long reigned Queen. Also I wonder if the Queen's passing will be an impetus for other states to dissolve ties to the British Monarchy.
Click to expand...
I think the republican movement would make a comeback in Australia. The Royal Family knows this very well. They won't miss us one bit.
 

Queen Elizabeth will be missed by Australians of my vintage, monarchists and republicans alike. I was nine years old when her father died and have watched her progress over the years.

IMO and in the opinion of many Australians she is "a class act". She has kept her vow to the British people to serve them until her death. She knows what is required of her as the national leader. This piece from Harpers Bazaar shows her gracious style on the 20th anniversary of 9/11.

Queen Elizabeth Pays Tribute on the 20th Anniversary of 9/11

Queen Elizabeth honoured Americans impacted by the 9/11 terrorist attacks today.

The guards at the queen's royal residence, Windsor Castle, played "The Star Spangled Banner" during the Changing of the Guard at around 11 a.m. local time to mark the 20th anniversary of 9/11.

The tribute echoes the monarch's actions in the immediate aftermath of the attacks in 2001, when she asked for the U.S. national anthem to be played at Buckingham Palace.

The queen also issued a statement to President Joe Biden.

"As we mark the 20th anniversary of the terrible attacks on 11th September 2001, my thoughts and prayers — and those of my family and the entire nation — remain with the victims, survivors and families affected, as well as the first responders and rescue workers called to duty," she wrote.

She continued, "My visit to the site of the World Trade Centre in 2010 is held fast in my memory. It reminds me that as we honour those from many nations, faiths and backgrounds who lost their lives, we also pay tribute to the resilience and determination of the communities who joined together to rebuild."

The full ceremonial Changing of the Guard ceremonial duty returned to Windsor Castle in July, after the longest pause since World War II, due to pandemic restrictions. The duty also returned to Buckingham Palace, St James’s Palace, and the Tower of London in August.

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/...niversary/
Click to expand...
 

RadishRose said:
If Prince Charles dies before the queen, many speculate his brother, Prince Andrew will become king.

However, that is not entirely true. While anything is possible, the line of succession won’t change should Prince Charles die before the queen.

That means, Prince William will take his father’s place as heir apparent and become King of England once the queen passes or steps down from her role (another possibility, according to The Sun).

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertai...if-prince-charles-dies-before-the-queen.html/
Click to expand...
It's not speculation, it's the law the monarch can only be succeeded by her/his eldest son and if Charles is dead he can't succeed and if he doesn't succeed he can't pass the crown to his son. It's not rocket science, it's just Primogeniture. If it happens we will have a King Andrew to be followed by Queen Bea.

The law of Primogeniture is immutable and it cannot be changed by earthly laws.

As I've said in these columns before, the Comte de Paris is still King of France, Prince George of Prussia is still the Kaiser, Prince Nikolai is still Czar of all the Russias. No doubt there is a a descendant of King Zog of Albania, King Peter of Romania and the King of Italy still floating around Europe and they are still sovereigns in their own right.

They could be removed from power but they cannot be removed from that title, and they could be invited back at any time like the King of Spain was.

Charles dies before the Queen the succession changes, it's as simple as that.

On the subject of Camilla's title, if Henry the eighth collected six wives who were all Queens, I see no reason why we should not allow Charles a couple! She will certainly make a better Queen than the bimbo would have done (The sexist term is deliberate. She did womankind no favours.).
 
Every Head-of-State in the world, probably, would
be in London for the funeral.

Which will cause problems and headaches for the
police and security services, if we still have any
military left, they would also be required to look
out for them, we locals would not be allowed to
be anywhere near the proceedings.

Mike.
 
horseless carriage said:
When King George the 6th died February 6th 1952, Princess Elizabeth became Queen, but her coronation wasn't until June 2nd 1953. It's not something that would be admitted but the long gap between the two dates was to make sure that George's wife wasn't in the early stage of pregnancy. Had she been so and given birth to a son, that baby would have been the monarch. The law of succession equality came into force as late as 2012.
Click to expand...
Wasn't the Queen Mother in her 50s when King George died? Also, waiting 18 months doesn't correspond with the biological timeframe of pregnancy ...not to mention, unless there are menstrual irregularities, most women know within 30 days. Sounds like tall tale.
 
Laurie said:
It's not speculation, it's the law the monarch can only be succeeded by her/his eldest son and if Charles is dead he can't succeed and if he doesn't succeed he can't pass the crown to his son. It's not rocket science, it's just Primogeniture. If it happens we will have a King Andrew to be followed by Queen Bea.

The law of Primogeniture is immutable and it cannot be changed by earthly laws.

As I've said in these columns before, the Comte de Paris is still King of France, Prince George of Prussia is still the Kaiser, Prince Nikolai is still Czar of all the Russias. No doubt there is a a descendant of King Zog of Albania, King Peter of Romania and the King of Italy still floating around Europe and they are still sovereigns in their own right.

They could be removed from power but they cannot be removed from that title, and they could be invited back at any time like the King of Spain was.

Charles dies before the Queen the succession changes, it's as simple as that.

On the subject of Camilla's title, if Henry the eighth collected six wives who were all Queens, I see no reason why we should not allow Charles a couple! She will certainly make a better Queen than the bimbo would have done (The sexist term is deliberate. She did womankind no favours.).
Click to expand...
Us folks over here in the Colonies don't really have a dog in this fight, but according to the source below, "primogeniture" is not absolute when it comes to picking who ascends to the throne.

Succession: The Royal Family
 
Last edited:
when it comes to picking who ascends to the throne.

We don't "pick" a monarch.

That would make us a republic.

The monarch is the nest in line of succession, and that is decided by birth.

That is Charles. If he is not around it will be Andrew.

It's quite simple. Why try to complicate it?

You can quote all the authorities you want, the law is the law.

The constitution may not be written but it is fixed nevertheless.
 
Laurie said:
when it comes to picking who ascends to the throne.

We don't "pick" a monarch.

That would make us a republic.

The monarch is the nest in line of succession, and that is decided by birth.

That is Charles. If he is not around it will be Andrew.

It's quite simple. Why try to complicate it?

You can quote all the authorities you want, the law is the law.

The constitution may not be written but it is fixed nevertheless.
Click to expand...
Sorry, didn't mean to get your knickers in a bunch. I'm sure you know better than the Royal Family
 
The way that the order of succession works is that it exhausts one line of descent before moving to the next. The first child, and all his descendants, then the next.

That’s the current Sovereign and the next three, the order set by the laws of the kingdom and primogeniture. Nothing, nothing, nothing but unexpected death will change that, and even then, it doesn’t change the order. Prince Andrew is currently 8th in line.

Laurie, I respectively suggest that your interpretation of primogeniture is incorrect.
 
spectratg said:
The way that the order of succession works is that it exhausts one line of descent before moving to the next. The first child, and all his descendants, then the next.

That’s the current Sovereign and the next three, the order set by the laws of the kingdom and primogeniture. Nothing, nothing, nothing but unexpected death will change that, and even then, it doesn’t change the order. Prince Andrew is currently 8th in line.

Laurie, I respectively suggest that your interpretation of primogeniture is incorrect.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I should have made it clear that I was only dealing with primogeniture as it affects the British Royal family.

Different Houses have modified rules, just as we have recently modified ours so from the next generation eldest females can succeed.


In my own country, Wales, men joined the tribe of their wives. If she was the Prince's daughter, her husband or son became the next Prince! Thus the succession was down the female line. Then the English conquered us and installed there own, male only, line!


I repeat the bottom line in the UK - the eldest surviving son of the Sovereign succeeds. This can only be changed by an Act of Parliaments.

Any so-called reference is almost certainly invalid as our constitution is unwritten and cannot be quoted, though it can be "interpreted"!
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top