I’d feel a good deal of pity for him and his family if he were to die at a comparatively young age. As to not getting his turn at the throne, though, that’s the way it works, and he has known this all his life.
If Betsy lives as long as her mother, Chaz’ll be in his dotage. He’d be wheeled on a gurney up the aisle in Westminster Abbey to be crowned King of the Britons.
It might be two state occasions in one: his coronation on the way in and his state funeral on the way out, with oor Wullie jumping up and down at the door, screaming “It’s my turn! It’s my turn!”
The island would sink under the weight of commemorative tea cups.
Thanks everyone. Good perspectives all. Being an American it’s hard to gauge how seriously people take the monarchy these days, and Charles certainly had his shot at the title… for better or worse.
I’m more likely to get annoyed at people for caring.
She get’s a decent chunk of his personal estate, a stipend from the Civil List, one of his country houses, and a grace & favour apartment in one of the London palaces. It’s not like William is going to banish her to the Outer Hebrides or anything.
I wouldn’t care. I would probably be pleased to get a bonus day off for the funeral (which I wouldn’t watch if it was televised). Apart from that, not a single stuff would be given for the whole thing.
Honestly, I don’t think he really wants the job - at an age when others are retiring he’s probably content to continue doing what he’s doing now for as long as he can.
In general I don’t think the British would be heartbroken if he died before his mother, even among people who like him (as I do). And I agree that whatever sadness they might feel would soon be swept away by the prospect of getting King William and Queen Kate that much sooner.
That wouldn’t exactly necessarily make William the king any sooner.
Wills will become King when both Charles and Elizabeth are gone. Whichever of them dies second will be the day William becomes King.
I like the idea of Princesses Beatrice and Eugenics sharing the throne - 7th and 8th in line now.
Long shot I know but that’s the kind of weird I could live with.
Lots of people would ‘care’ for a very short period of time. Then very few would care at all.
I think it might be a bit late for that. He’s 66½ (male life expectancy for UK men is 79½). I don’t think grandfathers who die in their late 60s are usually thought of as “comparatively young,” even if they could be compared to their ancient mothers.
I think that’s the key take away here.
And still more ancient father, and centenarian grandmother… moreover the number of healthy 80-year-olds in modern society is quite something too, enough that 66 would indeed be “comparatively” young.
Yes, no (but maybe a mildly regretful curiosity that we wouldn’t know what he would have been like), not very much (apart from a few fans with far too little else in their lives). Expected heirs have failed to make it in the past without being much missed.
I’d shrug my shoulders and regard it as a bit of a shame, in the same way I do when someone dies very soon after retiring - after saving for that retirement for their entire working life. A bit of a bugger, but it happens.
I have nothing against anyone in the Royal Family as an individual - I just don’t see the relevance of a monarchy in this day and age. (I always refer to the national anthem as basically being “One entity I don’t believe in, save another entity I don’t believe in”). The fact that a baby can be born bearing the title “Her Royal Highness” is just bonkers.
One would have to assume Charles would have made a will on the disposition of his private wealth and income, and would make provision for his widow (presumably at least a lifetime interest in Highgrove and a lifetime income to support it). On the assumption that he hadn’t become king, then present queen’s will would dispose of her private property. On past form, most of that (e.g., Sandringham and Balmoral) would pass to William, but who knows, she might make some disposition for Camilla. They don’t have the same freedom in respect of the Crown properties (Windsor and the London palaces), or of the “Sovereign Grant” (there is no Civil List any more) from the profits of the Crown Estates: Camilla would only get direct support from that to cover expenses for any public duties she would undertake on behalf of the Crown (presumably less and less as time goes by). The end result might be much as you suppose, but my guess is it would be accounted for as part of their private finances.
Wouldn’t care. If anything, I would be slightly relieved that we dodged having that loopy bastard sit on the throne. Primogeniture’s a bitch.
Wouldn’t care, wouldn’t even really notice.
The Royal Family is great for tourist £££’s, but let’s face it, it’s not like they actually do anything of any consequence these days. It’s almost entirely ceremonial.
Having Charles on the throne would make as much difference to my life as having Elizabeth, William or Justin Beiber on there - none at all.
ETA:
A free day off would be nice though.
You would see Princess Diana levels of public grief, masses of heartbroken people weeping openly at mountains of flowers and teddy-bears, TV presenters and celebrities completely losing their minds with the trauma, the entire nation grinding to a shuddering halt with a spontaneous outpouring of emotion, a new Elton John song…
Then again, maybe not, but I didn’t like Diana either and thought that the reaction to her, admittedly untimely, death was one of the most bizarre things I’ve ever seen.
I think Charles has done a good job in doing his royal duties like handing out medals and representing England.
From this Americans view its actually nice to have a figurehead who is there for life and is your countries representative. The US has its president and first lady but those change every 4-8 years.