Philip’s mother was born at Windsor Castle and was raised in Britain, and Philip’s home country (to the extent that he had one) was Britain.
Queen Mary was born at Kensington Palace to a British mother and was mostly raised in Britain.
No. A small number of countries and territories in the Commonwealth will eventually redesign some of their money and it will be placed in circulation as normal. Banknotes will change quickly because they don’t last very long, and coins will take longer because they can stick around for decades. (The queen only reigns over 16 of them and not all of them have her on their money.)
That didn’t exactly work out for Dipendra in the end; he spend his entire 3 day reign comatose.
Not in the UK, but it’s become the norm in the Benelux countries. Prince Charles even had to go to the Netherlands and represent his mother at King Willem-Alexander’s inauguration after Queen Beatrix abdicated.
I came to this thread thinking that this would be settled with 15-inch cannon on three turrets each at 1000 yards.
“…But, in a surprise attack, George V torpedoed them both into submission! And now for the news from Wales. Today’s celebrity finger-signer for Neds, Chavs, Millies and other intelligence impaired Britons will be… David Hammond…”
It’s funny in a way that longer lifespans effectively ensure shorter reigns. Prince William is already eight years older than his grandmother was when she took the throne; if QEII dropped dead next week and Charles, in an unprecedented move, dropped out of the succession, William would still have to reach the age of 96 before he equalled her. William has the best shot at a Golden Jubilee, but barring an unforeseen tragedy it’s unlikely any of the living heirs will make a Diamond Jubilee.
Not in England/UK. There have been forced abdications (Richard II, Henry VI (twice), Charles I, James II) and sons who were the de facto ruler (John of Gaunt, George IV), but Edward VIII is the only one do it of his own volition (though he may have been forced out if he hadn’t).
Other European monarchies (the Netherlands, Luxembourg) have had their rulers abdicate on their own, but Elizabeth has made it clear that that sort of thing just isn’t done in the UK.
Also Pope Benedict XVI. As medical care gets better at preserving physical health, but not mental health, I wonder if this will become more common. It seems rather like surrendering your driver’s license, at some point, it’s for the best.
Has Elizabeth addressed the issue in that fashion? What if she’s alive but incapable of fulfilling her duties; would she abdicate out of duty to the nation (a matter I hear she takes quite seriously)? Or, since the queen’s duties seem almost purely ceremonial, would her diminished capacities not really have a negative effect?
Abdication is legally messy. The last one was done with legislation (after Edward VIII signed his abdication declaration, Parliament sat overnight to pass a law giving it effect). But legislation is complicated now because the Queen has 16 parliaments, some of them in federal nations where constitutional matters are not the sole prerogative of the national parliament. Not all of them would have to do anything according to their interpretations of their constitutions, but changing the line of succession a few years ago required legislation in seven of the 16 countries and all six Australian states, and the process took three and a half years. That was not an urgent matter at all, so I imagine that could be sped up some, but just finding a time when all those legislatures are available would be a task; for instance, the Canadian parliament is dissolved right now and will not exist again until November.
Maybe there’s an argument that legislation isn’t a necessity, but it’s going to have to get argued out first.
There’s also the option of a regency. She would still be queen but Charles would get all the work, which is kind of a bum deal really.
I believe there aren’t now, but not for the reason you think. Shillings were still circulating for decades after decimalization - they were worth 5p and were the same size as a 5p piece so you didn’t get confused. When the size of the money was changed in 1990, they went.
Recently the Queen passed James I of Aragon to have the 6th-longest reign of any European monarch ever. If she can hold out for 2 more years she’ll pass Ferdinand I of Sicily and get 4th place; and so on. To pass France’s Sun King, Louis XIV (whose reign began at age 4) and get 1st place will be harder.
But that’s just for European sovereigns. The King of Thailand was coronated six years before Elizabeth and is still alive.
When discussing the Olympics and national anthems with my 30-year old English friend, he was suddenly startled and said “Hey, what would Britain do for an anthem if they had a King?” :dubious:
On the “all time, anywhere, ever, dead or alive” list, according to Wiki, Elizabeth is currently only in 49th place. The number one spot is held by Sobhuza II of Swaziland, who reigned from 1899 to 1982, for a total of 82 years and 254 days.
Just twenty more years or so, Lizzie. Hang in there! We’re rooting for you.
I understand that King Edward VII (as he finally became) was seen as being in a similar predicament, vis-a-vis Queen Victoria. It rankled, also, with him – he was seemingly a rather more callous type than Charles, plus he and his mum did not get on well together. Allegedly, one time after the hymn “Eternal Father, strong to save…” had been sung in church, Edward muttered to a few of his cronies: “An Eternal Father is all very well; but I seem to be cursed with an eternal mother, also.”
At that, Edward had to wait only until he was 59 to become king; Charles is 66.
