Outside my area of expertise, though that was not my implication.
The findings of Lord Durham obviously found a more receptive audience in the wake of American Independence. But nor were they initially accepted and so my thinking is that had the equivalent of Durham’s Report on the Affairs of British North America been delivered some decades earlier on the America question it would have sunk without a trace.
Some independence movements have been traumatic, others rather civil.
In Australia’s case it was more “what the fuck did we just do?”
Not a Briton. But honestly if he doesn’t invade Sealand, annex it to the royal demesne and then build a gigantic statue of himself astride it as a conqueror I’m going to be very disappointed. It’s a rival royal state pissing on his claims to be sole monarch of the UK! Even it’s pretensions can no longer be tolerated!
Despite the enormous symbolism inherent in assassinating the British monarch, the security for the monarch is far lower-key than for any American president of the last 75 years.
Tommy Douglas does it for me. Father of universal medicare system and voted “Greatest Canadian” in an on line vote in 2004. (coincidentally, he’s also Kiefer Sutherland’s maternal grandfather)
Only US Presidents take a 20 strong cavalcade with them every time they step out of the house. The Queen has one extra car and a couple of out riders. It causes no more road chaos than a passing ambulance.
We had freeway closures in the Seattle area when MBS and his entourage were here a few years back, and the same thing when Xi Jinping was in town a few years before that.
The press has always (well, nearly always) been very respectful to the Queen, and consider anybody who disrespects her to be a traitor. But it has been open season on Charles for decades - any complaint (real or made up) is considered fair.
So the question is - is the media respecting/disrespecting the monach or the person? Will they switch to full-resepect mode when he becomes king? I doubt it, there are too many jucy stories to be had. Elizabeth was queen very young, so no skeltons in hre closet, but you cannot put back all that hatred for Charles.
Her Majesty rides public trains fairly regularly. When Biden wanted a private train to travel to Washington for his Inauguration, the Secret Service put the kibosh on it.
Of course, the likelihoods of someone wanting to kill:
an unfailingly polite grandmotherly figure who’s been waving at people, shaking hands, and participating in ceremonies for many people’s lifetimes, or
a man elected in a bitterly-contested election where supporters of the opposition had violently attacked the Capitol a couple of weeks earlier,
How does that work? I can’t imagine Elizabeth, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, sitting on a bench on the crosstown express next to some homeless guy.
This is a nitpick, but Charles wouldn’t be a “His/Her/Their Royal Highness” upon succession. That is a style for the members of the royal family other than the monarch. The monarch himself/herself is a Majesty, not a Royal Highness, so the “HM” abbreviation - which has a long tradition of being used in that abbreviated form, and is also gender-neutral - will work perfectly fine.
Lots of British statutes stipulate that Her Majesty may do this or that (which, of course, effectively means that the government may do this or that, since the monarch always acts upon ministerial advice). But the Interpretation Act 1978 makes it clear that references to “Her Majesty” from the QE2 era (or possibly Victorian-era statutes still in force) have to be read as references to His Majesty during the reign of a King, so there is no legal problem here either.
As to the OP, my personal guess (I’m not British, but I have an interest in British history and constitutional law) is that Charles will struggle a little, at first, to de-politicise his public statements. Elizabeth is famously careful not to say anything remotely partisan in public, up to the point where the public doesn’t quite know what her personal views on political matters even are. Charles has a habit of being more outspoken in the statements that he makes, e.g. on environmental issues. So far this is fine, but when he becomes monarch he will have to tone it down. I suppose the prime minister of the day will rein (pun intended) him in a little.
Not too many homeless people in first class. My understanding is that, when she really travels by public train (not the Royal Train and not the staged bus and Underground rides in Schnitte’s article) she travels first class with a large-enough entourage including security that she doesn’t end up sharing a four-seater with a random passenger.
Oh I think there’s plenty of people who’d like to assassinate the Head of State of their avowed enemy. We are hardly immune to acts of terror, after all. She may be an old grandma, but she’s represents a hell of a lot more than that.
Or he could give in to temptation and order Prof. Edzard Ernst to be drawn and quartered.
If Charles was to confine his activism as King to supporting environmental preservation it’d be nice. More likely he’d use the throne to further promote homeopathy (he’s already extended royal patronage to a homeopathy group) and other medical quackery.
You present this great prediction as if it’s a choice to be made. It isn’t. The Queen will die and Charles will be King, because that is preordained. Charles will then have to break some serious royal protocol to abdicate in favour of William. It’s not how our monarchy works - what do you think this is, The Netherlands??
No, I don’t think, he would though. He need only claim some vague health complication. I should think he could quite easily find a compliant Dr. With his lack of popularity, I don’t think any one would dig too deep, especially if he’s messed something up in some way.
My understanding is that, when she really travels by public train (not the Royal Train and not the staged bus and Underground rides in Schnitte’s article) she travels first class with a large-enough entourage including security that she doesn’t end up sharing a four-seater with a random passenger.