Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

Do you think Charles becoming King is very imminent?

218 replies

crochetmonkey74 · 12/02/2022 22:54

The Mail are going mad on stories about exactly what will happen, and how it will happen. Now I know it's The Mail but we also know they do seed stuff out to the public

OP posts:
EishetChayil · 12/02/2022 23:07

Well it can't be too far off! The queen is ancient.

fallfallfall · 12/02/2022 23:08

in the next 10 years maybe.

dipdye · 12/02/2022 23:09

Probably.

Will they skip to William instead?

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

The royal family
Emmelina · 12/02/2022 23:12

It really could be any time and not be a shock, given the Queen is almost 96. Within 5 years is a certainty I would say.

Original poster
crochetmonkey74 · 12/02/2022 23:12

I know she is really old, but it just seems like it might happen very soon from all the stories that are out

OP posts:
Original poster
crochetmonkey74 · 12/02/2022 23:13

@Emmelina

It really could be any time and not be a shock, given the Queen is almost 96. Within 5 years is a certainty I would say.
Yes definitely, I meant much more imminent than that. There was a weird story yesterday about them not confirming if she had covid or not.
OP posts:
amiafreakofnature · 12/02/2022 23:16

@dipdye

Probably.

Will they skip to William instead?

Nope. The queen has made it crystal clear Charles will be the next monarch
1Week · 12/02/2022 23:17

I'm not in the UK but I hope the Queen lasts a bit longer.
When she dies its going to set off a lot of handwriting about succession, about constitional monarchy, and the last thing you guys need another 50:50 disruption.

1Week · 12/02/2022 23:18

*handwringing- sorry

BeMoreGoldfish · 12/02/2022 23:19

@dipdye they can’t. It simply isn’t an option. Charles wouldn’t abdicate in a month of Sundays. He’s been desperate to be king all his life - and man has he had to wait a long time for his role! 🙄

ClariceQuiff · 12/02/2022 23:19

It's going to be a huge cultural shock for most people - just saying 'king' instead of 'queen'. 'The King's Speech' is a Colin Firth film, not what happens at Christmas.

I wonder if journalists are subconsciously trying to prepare themselves and us for this. A bit like I have been saying since I was 47 'I'm nearly 50' so it won't come as a shock when I have to say I'm 50.

paname · 12/02/2022 23:21

Charles would have to abdicate for it to pass to William and that seems to have a probability of zilch. I'm not sure people realise this isn't a reality show. You don't get to phone in a vote.

Sarcobaleno · 12/02/2022 23:21

@dipdye

Probably.

Will they skip to William instead?

No, nor should they
UserBot9to5 · 12/02/2022 23:23

Why do so many people think they might skip to William. I'm Irish but I understand the concept of succession. I can't believe that people think they'd skip one!

Gilead · 12/02/2022 23:27

I’m up for no monarch I’m afraid. They cost the government a fortune and I’m a citizen, not a subject.

Frazzled2207 · 12/02/2022 23:30

I am fairly sure it is not imminent.
But fairly likely within a couple of years.

ificouldgobackintime · 12/02/2022 23:31

Could she have made it any clearer that Charles will be next? Confused

UserWithNoUserName · 12/02/2022 23:31

@dipdye

Probably.

Will they skip to William instead?

They can't; the second the Queen passes, Charles becomes King. He'd have to abdicate after the fact if he didn't want it. I can't see him doing that. I think I read somewhere that all Commonwealth nations would have to agree to the abdication, and we'd need an Act of Parliament to agree, so it's not a quick thing if thats true.
paname · 12/02/2022 23:32

Fairly sure that even if Charles didn't want it he wouldn't saddle William with the responsibility while he has such a young family. It's just not going to happen.

Comedycook · 12/02/2022 23:33

and the last thing you guys need another 50:50 disruption

If there was a referendum in the UK on the monarchy, it would not be a 50/50 split. The UK public would vote overwhelmingly to keep the royal family

UserWithNoUserName · 12/02/2022 23:34

Also, here is a precedent for this; when Edward abdicated, it was writ that any children of his were removed form the line of succession. That said, he didn't have any children, so it would probably be a very different scenario for Charles or William if it ever came to it, as they do have heirs already.

justasking111 · 12/02/2022 23:41

She appears to be putting her house in order. Maybe because of Philips death, time for reflection during covid lockdowns. I was wondering though . I hope not soon though

TooTiredForAdventure · 12/02/2022 23:41

It crossed my mind that there could be other reasons for rushing into lifting all restrictions. But then I realised that I was letting my imagination get ahead of me..

Cam2020 · 12/02/2022 23:43

It's the monarchy, not the bloody X Factor. If people want this institution, then they have accept how it works!

Wasn't there a press slip up a while ago when somewhere reported the Queen had died in an exercise? They do practice these things behind the scenes. Prince Phillip having died and given her age, they're obviously stepping up the preparations.

ClariceQuiff · 12/02/2022 23:45

@UserWithNoUserName

Also, here is a precedent for this; when Edward abdicated, it was writ that any children of his were removed form the line of succession. That said, he didn't have any children, so it would probably be a very different scenario for Charles or William if it ever came to it, as they do have heirs already.
Yes - completely different scenario. William and George have an established place in the line of succession - an act of parliament would be needed to remove them.

Unborn heirs have no place in the line of succession and will simply never have one if the terms of the abdication preclude it.

Edward and Wallis didn't have any. There was a theory that Edward was infertile following a childhood bout of mumps. Wallis was 40 by the time she married Edward and hadn't had children in her previous marriages, so it's likely she either didn't want them or couldn't have them.