Which was my point - it would have been awkward to differentiate between her and her husband’s grandmother.
Elizabeth II’s mother was also a Queen Elizabeth. People managed.
I don’t think that it would have been awkward to differentiate. It was that it might have been seen as a bit presumptuous and/or inviting an unflattering comparison for someone who started out as penniless German princess to use the same name as her late Majesty of glorious memory who, remember, was only about 10 years dead at the time.
Is someone who was born in England, and whose mother was born in England, and who was a great-grandaughter of the British King, and who lived in Britain all her life, really a German princess?
Nitpick: her mother was born in Hannover (and her father in what is now Croatia). she was a German princess because her princessy style and title - the thing which at the time was considered to qualify her to be married to someone in line for the UK throne - came from Germany. As far as English titles were concerned, she was a granddaughter of a Royal Duke, through the female line. That gets her exactly zero in terms of styles and titles. Marina Ogilvy (who?) would have the same status today.
re the OP…I distinctly recall during the aftermath of the divorce between Charles and Di, the death of Di, the entrance of Camilla…
…that the Crown should “skip” going to Prince Charles and instead go straight to Prince William.
Often discussed; never likely to happen.
Wishful thinking on the part of people who don’t like Charles. That’s not how it works.
Whoops ! quite right! I misread her UK place of death in the wiki article as her birthplace. :smack:
Would need the consent of all 16 Commonwealth realms. Not going to happen, as SanVito says. The Queen can’t just decide who will succeed her; statutes have to be passed, agreements made. The fact that Charles was personally unpopular compared to Saint Diana of the Media doesn’t mean there will be a constitutional change of that sort.
But what can happen is Charles abdicating his crowns. He could continue as the Head of the Commonwealth.
Abdication would require a statute being passed, as happened when his great-uncle abdicated.
The succession is governed by law. When Her Majesty moves on, the law will say that Charles is king, as the eldest successor of the issue of Electress Sophia.
He has no power to change that law unilaterally. Only Parliament can do it, and only with the consent of the Commonwealth realms.
What Northern Piper said. Plus, the statute required to give effect to the abdication would require the assent of all the Commonwealth realms. They would not be please to have to faff about with this nonsense.
And it is wildly unlikely, in that scenario, that Charles would retain his “head of the Commonwealth” title.
I find it hard to imagine abdication meaning anything other than abdicating from the lot, and I certainly can’t imagine other Commonwealth countries accepting the idea that they can be the subject of a pick’n’mix.