As I understand it, he’s already stepping in for his mother all the time to do ceremonial duties like knighting and presenting other honors. He’s done it for an Australian award:
Which illustrates the point I’m making: opting for a republic is the easy question. The hard question is what type of republic you want. The Aussie Republican Movement could not agree on the answer to that question, so Liz is still Queen of Australia.
What I wonder is (and I’m pretty sure I’ve asked this question before, even here), when the Duke of Cambridge will succeed to the throne, whether he’ll be known in French as William V or Guillaume V. Traditionally, monarchs’ names tended to be translated, and indeed King William IV is known in French as Guillaume IV, but it’s less common today (witness for example Kings Juan Carlos and Felipe, not John Charles and Philip). And Cambridge is typically called William, even in French. But (whether or not I like this state of fact), as a French-speaking subject of King William V in one of his realms where French is an official language, I also feel that his regnal name should have a French version. Not a big deal all told, but I find it an interesting question.
No and no.
She once made a comment about being called the ‘King Mother’ She had to have it explained that this isn’t how Royal titles work.
He wouldn’t be heir apparent. If Charles had no children, and ascended to the throne, his brother would be heir presumptive.
Since the Act of Settlement and the enthronement of the Hannovers, the only ones to make it to the throne before their 40th birthday have been George III, aged 22; Victoria, aged 18; and E2, aged 25 (and George IV’s stint as Regent started after he was already in his mid 40s).
With modern life expectancies it should be assumed that absent some accident or sudden fatal malady, or the UK adopting the Dutch practice of making retirement the norm, any future monarchs of the UK will at best ascend to the throne well into middle age, with perhaps a regency if the old monarch becomes too disabled for even the bare minimum of duties.
For a well-maintained institution, it would only take one change of a text field in a database from “Queen” to “King” and some more for pronouns. But who am I fooling, in reality it will be a big hassle for everyone involved that’ll cost ten thousands of dollars/pounds and a lot of paper work.
Start here;
Frederick Banting
Terry Fox
Ken Taylor
Nope. The statutes for each of the courts have provisions that say during the reign of a Queen, it’s the Queen’s Bench, and during the reign of a King, it’s the King’s Bench. As well, pleadings filed in one name don’t need to be changed. Should be seamless.
QC’s will have to have their letterhead updated.
Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about. The best case scenario would be that the database entries were changed from “Queen” to “King” and “Her” to “His” and automatically, all the letterheads of all offices would be correct again. But it never works that way. Just a bit of IT guy geekery or frustration from my part, respectively.
I’m not expecting much change, but then we really don’t know. In theory, the Governor General can withold royal assent from any bill Parliament in Canada passes. Then the Sovereign can annul the bill in 2 years.
This has not happened in our lifetimes, but then we have had only this Queen for our lifetime, (unless you are in your 80’s or older), and she has been extremely hands-off. No guarantees that Charles will feel the same way.
Yes, the formal witholding of Royal assent would trigger a constitutional crisis. But that might not stop Charles, as he is kind of a flake and has hinted at being a more activist monarch. There’s a reason Elizabeth doesn’t want him to be King.
Yeah, that’s also causing the current drive to ‘thin out’ the herd of royals. You used to be able to count on general infant mortality or the Plague of the Decade to keep their numbers in check. (And wars helped, back when kings and such actually showed up on battlefields.)
A considerably shorter reign that Queen Elizabeth’s.
Whoops. I’m not British. Never mind.
It would be an opportune time to replace all the pronouns with gender-neutral ones. No more “His Majesty’s This” and “Her Majesty’s That”. It will always and forever be “Their Royal Highness” and “Their Majesty’s Whatever”. Long Live TRH King Charles!
OTOH, as it is, it’s convenient that the gendered pronouns “His” and “Her” both start with H, so at least all the HRH and HMx don’t have to change.
ETA: It make sense too. Monarchs have long referred to themselves in the first person plural, so why not do likewise in the second and third persons?
Have you considered the possibility of a non-binary monarch who uses “they / them” pronouns? Not the case for Charles or William, but too early to call the monarch after that.
Easy: change the name of the text field from “pronoun” to “preferred pronoun”, and let the monarch decide which pronoun to fill in.
ETA: this is rather tongue in cheek. In reality, it would be catastrophe programming-wise, because you had to change the reference to the “pronoun” field in every single application that addresses that field. No programmer would do that.
Whilst he draws breathe, or the improbability that the UK Republican Movement gains power, this has been true for 73 years.
Whilst he draws breathe, this has been false for 73 years
What are these “former empires” of which you speak?
When dealing in Constitutional matters, precision of language is rather more important than a “nice to have”.
To which Ken Taylor are you referring? Wiki shows multiple ones.
Probably Kenneth D. Taylor.
I don’t have easy access to the French versions of the federal statutes from 1900 onwards, but the French version of the constitutional statutes passed during the reign of Edward VII are cited to Édouard VII:
The two Georges are cited to “George” not “Georges”, and the Queen is cited to “Elizabeth”, not “Élisabeth”.