If Diana was still alive, would she have some official title as the mother of an heir to the throne? Would she have had a title when William became King?
Is Camilla’s title connected with Charles being King? Or will she retain a title if she outlives Charles? I’m assuming she won’t be referred to as the Queen Mother. Is Princess Dowager a title?
The two factions are: minimalist - basically replace the Queen’s representative, the Governor General, with a President appointed in much the same way - hopefully with the input of Parliament rather than by personal choice of the Prime Minister, as it is now. And a fully-elected President.
We had a referendum on it in 1999 which went down because the PM at the time made the question “which form or republic do you want, if any” rather than “do you want a republic”. Widely thought to be done deliberately to undermine the whole push as he was, and is, a staunch royalist.
We still have an active republican movement, but I don’t get the impression they are making headway in the public space at present.
This bears repeating. If the Queen tried issuing a proclamation on her own initiative (Americans would know it as an “Executive Order” from the US President), it might trigger a constitutional crisis at worst, or a psychiatric exam at best. As a constitutional monarch, the Queen knows her constitutional limits, and knows that she cannot proclaim anything without the consent of Parliament. Yes, she does have some extraordinary powers, but they have never been needed (in Canada or the UK, at least) during her reign.
Charles knows this. He’s watched and studied his mother’s reign, her constitutional limits, and will step into his mother’s role when necessary, and likely will do so seamlessly. Nobody in the UK, or indeed the Commonwealth realms, will notice anything different when Charles ascends. Except, perhaps, the portraits on the money.
It has been in the past, I believe.
If Charles does wind up ascending to the throne, he will be, by a fair amount, the oldest person to become monarch of the UK. Charles is currently 73 years old; the oldest person to be crowned ruler of Britain to date was William IV, who ascended to the throne at age 64, in 1830.
And William succeeded his brother. Charles will be succeeding a parent.
Has any monarch in history succeeded a parent to the throne at an older age than seventy-three?
I actually feel sorry for the guy.
He’s literally been conceived for one and only one job. How many people dream of being the “lost” heir to the British throne (they even make movies about it) yet in all the billions of people in the world, he’s number one on the ramp.
And yet, he isn’t king. He’s waited his entire life and he sits idle, trying to look busy. He’s already at retirement age, and still QEII stubbornly continues to not die.
It reminds me of George C Scott’s Patton: waiting, training all his life for war, and being sidelined. It isn’t like another war or another throne is going to be coming along soon.
As noted above, coins, currency notes and stamps will have new designs. It’s not impossible that various formal ceremonials will be tweaked here and there, certainly to look more diverse, and possibly a bit less stiff and bling-encrusted*, but given Charles’s proven tendencies, I wouldn’t expect anything too dramatic or radical. They survive by staying somewhere close to the centre of gravity in public expectations and not getting too far out in front.
He has said he expects to be expressing opinions more than his mother (no doubt on things like the environment), and already has a record of bombarding ministers with his ideas (not to much effect), but he knows better than to get caught up in party/parliamentary politics. I’d expect any such interventions to be fairly broad generalities.
I think the question as to whether Camilla gets the title of Queen isn’t necessarily closed - apply a bit of “Kremlinology” to HM’s Christmas message, and it seems to signal that Camilla is fully accepted as part of the core team on whom the focus should now be (Charles has been said to want to slim down the “Firm” in numbers and presumably also range of activities)
*The coverage of the last Coronation is almost unwatchable now for the mediaeval hang-overs, but, like reforms of the oaths of office and the honours system, any changes will need the involvement of the government of the day.
Zippo, nada and diddly squat. Squared.
And having burnt out the public face of the old Republican movement (Malcolm Turnbull) the only ARM banner leader standing is Peter Fitzsimmons.
And as a direct election republican he’s got no alternative to the reserve powers questions save “we’ll work it out after we win the election”. Nice enough guy, but he’s on the wrong horse.
They are both exquisitely aware of, and will abide by their constitutional roles.
QEII will finish her role as monarch on her death.
And Charles has no interest in ascending to the monarchy in any other circumstances.
Your Mum has been wrong for 40 years.
Not automatically. Titles don’t flow uphill. I guess it’s possible, given her close relationship to a future king, that she’d have been given a peerage in her own right or something, to give her some kind of title that wasn’t a ghostly apparition of her marriage.
“Princess Consort” is an invention of a single press release in 2005, so any solution in a future reign would be similarly made up. It’s not even clear how she’ll become Princess Consort. Will it just be announced informally in another press release, will there be letters patent, will they try to get an act of Parliament? Nobody knows, it’s just floating in the ether.
In Prince Albert’s case, there were letters patent (and the title came long after his marriage), which involved the Privy Council, as a formality, but meant that senior politicians were involved, though not Parliament.
In this case, there wouldn’t be much time, since traditionally there’d be a coronation ceremony for a queen at the same time as a king - and decisions on planning for the ceremonies need to be taken fairly quickly. I’d guess there are alternative contingency plans already.
A lot comes down to whether there’d be any serious public noise about the question: as of now, my guess is “not”, but they might be better advised to stick with the position already announced. I don’t suppose either of the principals is particularly bothered either way.
Plus, my understanding is that Queen consort is a position recognized by British law, so Camilla would be Queen even if she doesn’t use the title.
But asking if the people want a republic is the easy question. The hard question is : « what do you replace the monarchy with? » That question has to be addressed. If the people want a republic in the abstract, but can’t agree on a replacement, nothing can change. The 1999 referendum wasn’t just a big public opinion poll. It was a referendum on a constitutional amendment, which the people rejected, because the proposed replacement for the monarchy did not have enough popular support.
Britons; what are you expecting when Charles becomes King?
I expect that Her Majesty’s Theatre will change its name to His Majesty’s Theatre.
Beyond that, the British monarchy has its most influence through the use of soft power. They choose charities and causes to support, but don’t get directly involved in politics. Charles III will probably take special interests in environmental issues and youth programs, and will surely try to continue his parents’ legacies, but will most likely avoid active political stances. Charles main goal will be the continuation of the monarchy, rather than rocking the royal yacht.
We had a good discussion exactly five years ago, where the difficulty about replacing the monarchy in Australia and Canada was discussed:
Bit of a hijack to the thread, but the way I recall it is that the Australian PM at the time, John Howard, constructed the referendum to being a vote between a constitutional monarchy with a head of state as the Queen represented by the Governor General, or a republic with the head of state being a President appointed by the PM. So there were no impactful political implications from the referendum; it was essentially a question of whether the voters liked the Queen.
After the referendum was decided for the status quo, there was a bit of noise about having another referendum after the Queen’s passing. My guess is that noise will come up again, but I’ve no idea if future Australians will be bothered enough to worry about it.
You act like the monarchy is sacrosanct, and that there never has been an abdication. Like in 1936. Edward didn’t think too much about “constitutional roles”, except that one time.
You think my mom was serious? Like she believed Liz has some power to avert death by pure stubbornness? Do they not have hyperbole where you are? Anyway, my mom has been dead for 15 years and yet Lizzie continues to reign (they would be the same age). I guess HRH got the last laugh.
Here’s the question that was posed:
I think that’s more than just a « Do you like the Queen? » question. It would create a presidency elected by the Parliament of Australia, which would have been a fundamental change and certainly involve political considerations, every time the President’s term expired snd a new President had to be elected.
PS - I don’t see this discussion as a hijack, because it illustrates why I don’t think much will change with Charles. It’s difficult to make fundamental changes to a Constitution, particularly in federations with rigid constitutions and amending formulas. The Australian proposal didn’t carry a single state, and was defeated nationally by about 55%.
Thank God for Chuck’s kids — can you imagine the shit show if Charles became King and Andrew were heir apparent?