Queen Elizabeth II and the Olympics

[audit1]

Has any thought been given as to what to do if her majesty were to pass away either shortly before or during the games?

[MarcusF]

I've not seen anything made public - but I wouldn't expect to. On the other hand the plans for the death of the monarch are always kept up to date.

I guess you are asking whether it would impact on the Games and, as a Brit, my answer would be no. Flags would fly at half mast and London would have to cope with a royal funeral as well as umpteen thousand athletes, journalists, and spectators but there is too much invested in the Olympics - too many commitments made - for them to be postponed.

[sidecar_jon]

One would expect the funeral to be held after the Olympics. Black arm bands etc and half mast flags etc during. I dont think theres any set wait before burial with royals.

[Dewey Finn]

Originally Posted by MarcusF

I guess you are asking whether it would impact on the Games and, as a Brit, my answer would be no. Flags would fly at half mast and London would have to cope with a royal funeral as well as umpteen thousand athletes, journalists, and spectators but there is too much invested in the Olympics - too many commitments made - for them to be postponed.

And a royal funeral would involve many VIP attendees, so that would be quite a mess on top of the Olympics. But even if they can postpone the funeral, I think they'd have to hold the coronation immediately, and that too involves many VIP attendees.

[silenus]

They wouldn't have to hold the coronation immediately at all. It's not like the UK will cease to function if there isn't a reigning crowned monarch. If Liz kicked off in the middle of the games, there would armbands and observances, but the Games would continue. Then, after everybody had gone home, they would stage a funeral and coronation, probably in the same week.

[Baron Greenback]

There was a gap of over a year between Elizabeth's accession and her coronation. I think they like to leave a decent interval so that the mourning period for the deceased monarch is safely over.

[Little Nemo]

You've got the Munich precedent. The death would be acknowledged but the games would continue.

[md2000]

Elizabeth's coronation was a major extravaganza, which as mentioned above, took place about a year after her father's death. So no danger of a coronation derailing any other plans.

Full state funeral? Probably not until after the Olympics, just to avoid the overlapping events, ensure hotels etc. are empty, prevent clashing venues and traffic problems, etc.

Just like the people who keep obituaries up to date for newspapers, I'm sure someone in the palace has an up-to-date list for the funeral plans; who to invite, what venues will be used, other necessary outlines, appropriate church services, burial plans, rough seating plans even, etc. (And they've had the queen mother to use for practice of some of the minor details)

[Baron Greenback]

Originally Posted by md2000

(And they've had the queen mother to use for practice of some of the minor details)

And, if noted documentary The Queen is to believed, the Queen Mum's funeral plans were swiftly dusted off for Diana's funeral.

[howye]

Don't forget the Paralympics begin in London on August 29th. While not as large, still could cause some scheduling headaches.

[Little Nemo]

It's not like the good old days when you could bump off a monarch to suit the convenience of the morning press.

[Quartz]

Originally Posted by Dewey Finn

But even if they can postpone the funeral, I think they'd have to hold the coronation immediately.

No. Charles would accede to the Throne immediately, and, if he's any sense, abdicate in favour of William.

[md2000]

Originally Posted by Quartz

No. Charles would accede to the Throne immediately, and, if he's any sense, abdicate in favour of William.

Why? William probably is in no more hurry than Charles (probably less) to have his kick at the royal can... I suspect they'll all take their turn. All the hubub about Chuck and Di and Camilla seems to have (and rightly so) died down.

Then we can watch for the next 40 years while Charles starts to dodder and Will and Kate go through their mid-life crises.

Accede, yes. Coronation - not for a few months or more.

[Quartz]

Originally Posted by md2000

Why? William probably is in no more hurry than Charles (probably less) to have his kick at the royal can...

I'm sure you're right but I think it would be better for the nation.

[Northern Piper]

Legally there is no need for a coronation for the new monarch to exercise his/her powers. Edward VIII, for instance, was never crowned.

[Kiwi Fruit]

Originally Posted by Quartz

I'm sure you're right but I think it would be better for the nation.

I think it would further devalue the monarchy if Charles were to abdicate. While it might be normal practice in the Netherlands for older monarchs to 'resign' in favour of their heir, it is only in exceptional circumstances that I can see a British monarch doing so.
(Okay, not really British, but also not English as he/she is monarch of 16 Commonwealth realms as well as UK of GB & NI.)

[rsat3acr]

Nitpick. No personal insult intended. Flags are flown at half staff except on ships where it is half mast.

[alphaboi867]

Don't they also hold an annual dress rehearsal for the funeral of any royal over 80?

[SanVito]

Originally Posted by alphaboi867

Don't they also hold an annual dress rehearsal for the funeral of any royal over 80?

If they do, they must be doing it behind closed doors. Would be rather tacky to see that tramping around London once a year!

[sidecar_jon]

Why would they want to rehearse it anyway? All these shindigs while appearing to be "age old" are in fact made up quite recently, and their forms are changed at every ceremony to suit tastes or expense.

[md2000]

Originally Posted by Quartz

I'm sure you're right but I think it would be better for the nation.

Why? Charles was pressured nto marrying a wacko because she was the only eligible virgin left at the time. The problems with the marriage were hers, his and the system's. It was probably doomed from the start.

Finally he's with the lady he always wanted to be with; but when he was 20 he was not allowed to marry for reasons that appear royally stupid in this day and age.

Diana, meanwhile, coincidentally found the love of her life with one of the few men in Britain who could afford to keep her in the style she was accustomed to. (After he'd unceremoniously and hurriedly dumped his inconvenient paid companions) She died because Dodi's household arrangements were (if it's possible) more lax than the Palace. If anything, her poor choice made it easier for Charles to be king. Plus, the failures of royal marriages probably are a reflection of the state of marriage in the whole of the western world - no better, no worse.

So what? We don't have election for King, which is a good thing. You take what you get. Otherwise, Canada would have elections for head of state, and it would be recycling all the used politicians that we've been glad to get rid of; or like Italy and Israel, we'd be enjoying the specacle of a president under indictment.

William is a breath of fresh air precisely because he's been mainly out of the limelight. Give him 30 years of spouting personal opinions like Charles, and he'll be just as annoying. Or, he could be like his grandmother, smile and wave and say absolutely nothing of substance. At least we know Charles has opinions, even if we disagree. (and they are not SO controversial that we could not accept the guy as king, I hope.)

So everyone takes their turn; and if in 50 years Will and Kate are still fresh, then they'll have another state funeral and we'll have a King Bill.

[Colophon]

Originally Posted by Quartz

No. Charles would accede to the Throne immediately, and, if he's any sense, abdicate in favour of William.

Why on earth should he do that? Apart from a few weeks of stirring by Daily Express readers after the death of Her Holiness the People's Princess of Tarts, and similar grumblings when he married Camilla, nobody in Britain thinks he should pass the buck to William.

[MarcusF]

Originally Posted by md2000

Why? Charles was pressured nto marrying a wacko because she was the only eligible virgin left at the time. The problems with the marriage were hers, his and the system's. It was probably doomed from the start.

Finally he's with the lady he always wanted to be with; but when he was 20 he was not allowed to marry for reasons that appear royally stupid in this day and age.

Diana, meanwhile, coincidentally found the love of her life with one of the few men in Britain who could afford to keep her in the style she was accustomed to. (After he'd unceremoniously and hurriedly dumped his inconvenient paid companions) She died because Dodi's household arrangements were (if it's possible) more lax than the Palace. If anything, her poor choice made it easier for Charles to be king. Plus, the failures of royal marriages probably are a reflection of the state of marriage in the whole of the western world - no better, no worse.

So what? We don't have election for King, which is a good thing. You take what you get. Otherwise, Canada would have elections for head of state, and it would be recycling all the used politicians that we've been glad to get rid of; or like Italy and Israel, we'd be enjoying the specacle of a president under indictment.

William is a breath of fresh air precisely because he's been mainly out of the limelight. Give him 30 years of spouting personal opinions like Charles, and he'll be just as annoying. Or, he could be like his grandmother, smile and wave and say absolutely nothing of substance. At least we know Charles has opinions, even if we disagree. (and they are not SO controversial that we could not accept the guy as king, I hope.)

So everyone takes their turn; and if in 50 years Will and Kate are still fresh, then they'll have another state funeral and we'll have a King Bill.

+1 Well said!

[SpoilerVirgin]

Originally Posted by md2000

So everyone takes their turn; and if in 50 years Will and Kate are still fresh, then they'll have another state funeral and we'll have a King Bill.

50 years? I know some of the royals have been quite long-lived, but do you really expect Charles to live to 114?

[Nunzio Tavulari]

Originally Posted by SpoilerVirgin

50 years? I know some of the royals have been quite long-lived, but do you really expect Charles to live to 114?

I thought Kings could do magic. Like pull swords out of stones 'n stuff. Very disappointed.

[kunilou]

Not to derail this thread by getting back to the original topic or anything, but the royal funeral of Her Majesty the Queen wouldn't necessarily have to be held in London, would it? Suppose she wanted to be buried in Scotland (or for that matter, Barbados.) Couldn't they just transport the royal coffin there, find a suitably large cathedral for the funeral service and leave London alone?

[BarryB]

Originally Posted by kunilou

Not to derail this thread by getting back to the original topic or anything, but the royal funeral of Her Majesty the Queen wouldn't necessarily have to be held in London, would it? Suppose she wanted to be buried in Scotland (or for that matter, Barbados.) Couldn't they just transport the royal coffin there, find a suitably large cathedral for the funeral service and leave London alone?

It's sort of technically possible, maybe, but it won't happen. She will have a state funeral, and it will be in London.

[Lord Feldon]

Originally Posted by rsat3acr

Nitpick. No personal insult intended. Flags are flown at half staff except on ships where it is half mast.

Half staff and half mast are synonyms in 2012. If there ever was a difference (I can find plenty of references to flags being at half mast on land from every decade of the 20th century), there isn't one now.

[Malden Capell]

Originally Posted by BarryB

It's sort of technically possible, maybe, but it won't happen. She will have a state funeral, and it will be in London.

Yeah, I think so too. They'd rush the body down to London as by ceremony Her Majesty will lay in state for three days in Westminster Hall so that the public can pay their respects, followed by a service in Westminster Abbey and then burial in the family crypt in Windsor Castle.

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by Quartz

No. Charles would accede to the Throne immediately, and, if he's any sense, abdicate in favour of William.

Coronation has nothing to do with accession of the throne. (They're basically a formality -- some monarchies don't even have them) He'd be king the very second his mother died. Coronations are typically held a year after one's accessions, after a period of morning anyways.


As for abdication, I don't think that'll happen and it'd be a bad idea for the sake of the monarchy. It was a mess when his uncle did it, why would anyone want a repeat?