Queen and Prince Charles

[Fatnorthernwoman]

The Queen is 94 Prince Charles is 71 if the country goes into lock down with over 70s self isolating who is in charge of the country? Can the Queen work remotely from one of her homes or is it Prince William who will need to do any royal meet and greet

The younger ones don't need to be in happy isolation, do they? They could take a more active role surely? But obviously it wouldn't be appropriate for the Queen or even Charles (over 70s are supposed to self isolate after all).

Yes, I know that Kate won't become Queen Mother without being Queen first. And I don't think it's at all likely that William will die before he becomes King, there's nothing to suggest he has underlying health issues, does he? It's more likely that both the Queen and Charles will both die of COVID-19 and William will be King.

Sorry, I think all three of them dying now is more in the region of flying pigs, unless William dies in a helicopter crash.

If he were to die later, before George becomes an adult, then Kate would be Queen Mother and would probably act on George's behalf. I don't think it likely that Harry would even want the role.

I don't mind really, as long as it isn't Andrew.

The current order of sucession is:

Charles
William
George
Charlotte
Louis
Harry
Andrew
Beatrice
Eugenie
Edward
then Edward sprogs, etc.

The question of whether Camilla will be crowned a queen consort or made a princess consort is open.

The title "Queen Mother" was a unique one granted to Queen Elizabeth on the death of George VI because there was already a dowager Queen.

And Royal Assent is a formality which means it must take on a form. The papers must be signed by someone, and if not the monarch then laws must be passed to that effect.

The Queen remains at BP according to BP- was only at Windsor for the weekend. DM story on Saturday was wrong- surprise, surprise!

Many well-known people are over 70 - Charles and Camilla, Helen Mirren, Judi Dench, Maggie Smith, Alan Bennett, Ian McKellen, many of the actors in soaps (particularly Corrie), many day-time tv people, the Dimblebys, about 20 MPs, many of the House of Lords, Jeremy Corbyn and John O'Donnell, Jenni Murray, John Humphreys, Mick Jagger, the rest of the Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney, Rupert Murdoch and so on.

It does make you wonder if they will all be confined to their homes and self-isolated within them like everyone else. How will Charles manage without his butler, maids, footmen and valet? He might have to put his own toothpaste on his toothbrush. Lessons may be needed.

At least with a leader who is elected then you have a chance to change them.

This sounds great until you realise we could end up with someone like Trump.

This sort of crap response is always wheeled out when the idea of an elected head of state is proposed - usually it's Thatcher who is used as an example. However, Trump/Thatcher/whoever would have a limited term in office, and then after that we wouldn't automatically then get Ivanka Trump/Mark Thatcher/Pea-brained overindulged offspring of whoever.

Mockers You forgot Archie.

Mockers You forgot Archie.

I did. He's new. Please insert Archie between Harry and Andrew.

And Anne, Peter and Zara have formally renounced their places in the sucession, as have the Linleys, so after Edsporgs, we're into the Kents and Gloucesters.

Or maybe if I such a scenario arises, it will be time to reassess whether we have a Monarchy at all, and put it to a referendum? It's a subject that should be discussed at some point. And it doesn't need to lead to a President Trump (or rather, in this country, a President Johnson) ouch!) , the Irish President is merely ceremonial and isn't a politician.

The Nepalese Royals had a family massacre a while back. The crown passed to an obscure uncle who promptly abdicated declaring a republic.

The UK would be very reluctant to call itself a Republic. There is the precedent of the Commonwealth of Cromwell pere and briefly fils, not an encouraging one. As things stand, the most likely candidate for non-executive president would be the Lord Speaker.

The thing is, we're in charge of the country. That's what voting is all about.

Well that explains a lot. As does this thread.

If he were to die later, before George becomes an adult, then Kate would be Queen Mother and would probably act on George's behalf. I don't think it likely that Harry would even want the role.

Kate can't be regent for George without an act of parliament. If Harry declined being regent then the next in line to do it is Andrew. If he bypassed it would be Beatrice.

The title "Queen Mother" was a unique one granted to Queen Elizabeth on the death of George VI because there was already a dowager Queen.

It wasn't a unique title for her, she's just one of the few to use it.

Queen Alexandra never needed to use it as there was no confusion between her and Queen Mary. Likewise Queen Mary didn't need to use it as there was no confusion between her and Queen Elizabeth.

QEQM was known by it to differentiate her from her daughter.

Weregoingonanadventure

There isn’t any figures that prove they come here purely for the royals. None at all, our tourism doesn’t depend on the monarchy. In fact if France is anything to go by we’d get more if they were gone....

And not everyone loves the queen at all. Far from it.

I love the video of Charlie currently doing the rounds, forgetting he can't shake hands

The queen may be a figure head but she is the one person who can if necessary stop Boris so in reality she is in charge

I'm not a monarchist although I'm not a rabid republican (I'm for absolutely streamlining the monarchy and making the rest work for their money). The reasons for keeping the monarchy have always been given to me as:

a) they bring in more money than they cost (I'm not entirely convinced by this but I can let it go)
b) she (Queen) is our last line of defence against a parliament that is up to no good (eg. Proroguing parliament illegally…)

We've seen how well scenario b went recently. So basically she has absolutely no point at all since she cannot and will not withhold her assent.

We absolutely don't need them bowing and scraping to each other, people bowing and scraping to them televised weddings of irrelevant princesses (nice enough though Eugenie seems) and all the rest of it. I mean, they're not even worth working for (as a toothpaste-putter-on or whatever) because the salary is shit.

Mockerswithnoknockers
I didn't know that Anne, Peter and Zara had renounced their places in the succession. When was that - and why?

Alexandra and Mary were both known as dowager Queens. When G6 died, there was already a dowager queen, Mary, and so a unique new style was created for QEQM.

Regency is uncharted territory. Queen Vic was 18 and so below the age of majority at the time. Before her, you have to go back to E6, who did not have a regent.

And Anne, Peter and Zara have formally renounced their places in the sucession, as have the Linleys, so after Edsporgs, we're into the Kents and Gloucesters.

Anne, her children and grandchildren are all still in the line of succession.

Autumn Philips converted from being Catholic before marrying Peter Philips prescisely so he didn't lose his place.

The Linleys/Armstrong-Jones are still in line as well.

Eddie Windsor, Lord Downpatrick, Grandson of the Duke of Kent is the first person who is out of the line of succession and that is because he chose to become Catholic.

she (Queen) is our last line of defence against a parliament that is up to no good (eg. Proroguing parliament illegally…)

I'm not a fan of royalty, but that was the final nail in their coffin really.

And Anne, Peter and Zara have formally renounced their places in the succession, as have the Linleys, so after Edsporgs, we're into the Kents and Gloucesters

Anne, Peter and Zara are still in the line of succession according to the royal family's website. Wikipedia still has the Snowdons and Linleys in as well - the royal family's website stops with Zara who is 18th in line so doesn't confirm it one way or the other.

Yes, of course, they used to be called dowager queens, thank you for the correction. But dowager queens have historically been regents in the event of a Monarch being a minor.

But I don't think this is likely to be an issue anyway, and if it does there will be broader discussions about the future of the Monarchy.

Hmmmm

The official Sucession website shows the Phillps, so there has been no formal removal by act of parliament, but they have indicated that they would not take the job if ever asked.

www.royal.uk/succession

I hope so - a monarchy in the 21st Century? It's bananas.

Regency is uncharted territory. Queen Vic was 18 and so below the age of majority at the time. Before her, you have to go back to E6, who did not have a regent.

The Regency Act of 1937 was brought in because Elizabeth was under 18 when her father took the throne.

The issue with Harry as potential regent is because as well as being over the age of 21 and eligible to succeed to the throne the Regent has to be domiciled in the UK.

If Harry is domiciled full time elsewhere then the Regent would be Andrew.

Kate, as Queen, would be a Counsellor of State, but without an amendent to the regency act she would not be Regent. In 1953 the Regency Act was amended to make PRince Philip the Queen, or Charles', Regent rather than Princess Margaret. That's the kind of change that would have to be made for it to be Kate.

Alexandra and Mary were both known as dowager Queens. When G6 died, there was already a dowager queen, Mary, and so a unique new style was created for QEQM.

The Queen mother title has been in English use since the 1500s

Alexandra and Mary chose not to be known as Queen Mother as there was no need.

And not everyone loves the queen at all. Far from it.

I'm a republican. I dislike the institution. However, I have a grudging admiration for Elizabeth. She does the job well. And for her EU hat, I almost love her.