Well, if Georges eldest is a son, then it’s a certainty.
I was sorry to hear the news, but not terribly surprised. Elizabeth II lived a long and fruitful life; may she now rest in peace.
My condolences to our British and Commonwealth Dopers upon the death of Her Majesty the Queen. I’m now in a jury trial, and we observed a moment of silence in the courtroom. She was a remarkable woman, a great friend of the United States, and she will be missed.
May God save King Charles III.
I was thinking of a way that Trump could attend, if invited, without causing undue angst on such a somber occasion:
May he defend their laws and ever give them cause to sing that with heart and voice.
He certainly has no shortage of rebellious Scots lounging around.
They’d probably sooner dig up a King Ralph.
The BBC and the other terrestrial public service channels switched to news/memorial content for pretty much the entire evening, but the other channels are pretty much as normal. But I did notice that one of them that was running archived sitcoms had switched to a display just telling people to tune into BBC news, at least for that slot.
I once saw an article about the line of sucession, and nobody has to worry about the lack of an heir. At the time I was reading, over ten years ago, it had been plotted out to the 500th in line. Of course a lot more kids have been born to those higher in line, so I imagine #500 is a lot further down now.
I think most of the current European monarchs are in there. This would include the Norwegian and Spanish monarchis. Although the latter might be problematical as they are Catholic, and the monarch may not be Catholic, or even a former Catholic.
This youtube video is a short and interesting explanation about the monarchy and the succession. It’s also funny. How to Become the British Monarch - YouTube
And here is a chart about the related royals.
Somewhere online some obsessive has listed out about a thousand including the Jacobite heirs.
Not even that obsessive, I imagine Debrett’s is busy just about now, working it out even forther for those who care.
Princess Elizabeth was just 13 years old when war broke out on September 3, 1939. On BBC Radio she spoke directly to the children who had been separated from their families as part of the evacuation. The young Princess helped lift British spirits during the terrible times of WWII (as, of course so did Winston Churchill’s inspiring speeches).
When Princess Elizabeth turned 18 in 1944, she insisted upon joining the Auxiliary Territorial Service (ATS), the women’s branch of the British Army.
Princess Elizabeth, pictured in her ATS uniform, April 1945:
Princess Elizabeth, as a 2nd Subaltern in the ATS:
Despite your feelings about monarchy, this Queen was something special.
[Aside]That Useful Charts channel on YouTube is mind-blowing![/Aside]
NPR is reporting that Charles will take Charles III as his regnal name. Given the reputation of the Nos. I and II, I’m surprised.
Presumably he’s considered the history at some point.
Maybe he’s figured that Britons might have forgotten a few things about Charlies One and Two, in the last 337 years.
I think “James” would have been even worse.
The news was not unexpected, perhaps, but Elizabeth II was an inspiration to millions and represents a gracious way of life, duty and diligence and a refreshing lack of scandal and desire for attention increasingly rare in public life. May Charles live long and rule wisely.
Don’t forget. there has only been one John, and that was in the 13th century.
Yes, but thanks to Walt Disney, Erroll Flynn, and possibly Carey Elwes, he’s still fighting bad PR.
I suppose Charles could have gone with “Richard”; I imagine most Britons would think “Coeur de Leon” before “My kingdom for a horse!”
speak for yourself, youngster! I remember when Wills was born…
The regnal name Charles III is confirmed, it’s already given as such on the website of Buckingham Palace. Makes him the first male monarch since 1688 who’s not a George, Edward, or William.
James would have been a nice test case for regnal numbers, incidentally. Sol far all British monarchs since the Union between England and Scotland have used the regnal number under the English count. Churchill once justified that with the claim that the rule was that the regnal number would be the higher of the English and Scottish counts, but since this has, so far, always given effect to the English count, it’s impossible to say if the rule isn’t actually to give priority to the English one. A James VIII would have disproved such doubts.
Fighting ignorance. It’s taking longer than we thought.