Waitie Katie will be eighty!
At least, judging by the present monarch’s longevity, in which Charles will presumably be similar. It does seem like many members of that family live to ripe old ages.
Well, they do have access to excellent medical care.
I’m interested to see if there will be a transmogrification of “Kate” to “Catherine” in the British media when she gets whatever title she gets.
Another question: What would Camilla’s title be if she becomes Queen and then outlives Charles?
I would guess “Queen Dowager”, since she wouldn’t be the mother of the new king.
Her Majesty Queen Camilla. She would be a queen dowager, but wouldn’t need to formally add “the Queen Dowager” to her style unless there were another Queen Camillia to worry about getting confused with.
Maybe he hesitated because he was surprised that a representative of an esteemed broadcaster such as NBC should repeat the common mistake that there is a “Queen of England”. Especially when they’re actually interviewing the heir to the throne of the UK (not England!).
Actually, I’m sure that Charles is not the kind of upper class twit who thinks saying “Queen of England” is some kind of character-revealing act.
Through usage, it has become a common description of the position. Constantly “correcting” people is obnoxious.
Any chance that Charles will take a pass and just let his son assume the crown? He seemed very concerned that his work on energy and sustainability would be hampered by becoming king. Also, if his mother has no plans to give up the crown any time soon, Charles could be nearly dead himself before succeeding.
This question gets asked about once a month and I don’t really know why so many people are fixated on it. I’m guessing there is a lot of wishful thinking on the part of people who hold some kind of grudge against Charles and are fascinated by the young and handsome William. For all we know, Charles is a really good guy and his son is an asshole. It’s all manipulation of their personas by the gossip rags.
Of course, no one can predict the future or read people’s minds, but it’s very unlikely that Charles will do something like this. Their whole existence depends on strict adherence to tradition and form, and rumour has it that Queen Elizabeth, in particular, has never forgiven her uncle, Edward VIII, for his rejection of his duties, because she believes that unexpectedly becoming king sent her father to an early grave.
Charles has waited his whole life to become king. My WAG is that he’ll take his chance at it, even if he drops dead half a minute later. Anyway, it wouldn’t be the first time that a very long reign was followed by a very short one, for example George III/George IV and Victoria/Edward VII.
But he’s from England, where the term “Queen of England” is not used much if at all (cue nitpickers with counterexamples). I can see him doing a mental double take before remembering that Americans commonly use that term.
As far as I know, it hasn’t been asked here. Or at least I’ve never seen it. It’s a logical question, given the recent interview by Brian Williams.
Yep, it’s asked here frequently.
Seconded, I’ve seen it many times, both here and in real life. My mother believes that Elizabeth doesn’t want her son to become king, or else she’d already have abdicated in his favour, which is quite unlikely given the importance her duty has for her. She will never abdicate, and she probably believes it will then be Charles’s duty to serve as king until he dies.
I guess I’ve just never cared enough one way or the other to read most threads on royalty. This one has been interesting, as the question of queen/king’s consort has always been puzzling.
If it hurts your feelings to be corrected when something is wrong then tough shit.
Go ahead and revel in your ignorance.
[Moderator Note]
fortytwo, this kind of personal attack is inappropriate for GQ. No warning issued, but do not do this again.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I am not ignorant of the official titles of the British monarch. I just don’t believe that unofficial terminology is “wrong.”
Things are what people say they are. Language is a ground-up system, not a top-down one.
Yeah, of course, except when you’re substituting an actual proper title with a completely erroneous one, in the GQ forum, on a board dedicating to fighting ignorance.
Yes, “England” is sometimes used metonymically for “the United Kingdom” in ordinary speech. Linguistically, your argument is sound. Politically, however, such a practice helps to disenfranchise the Welsh, Scots, and N. Irish. It may be a minor technicality to you, but it’s a very serious point to some of the non-English Britons. Yeah, it’s easier to go with the shorthand, but do at least think about the implications.
It’s not even metonymy. The monarch of Britain is the monarch of England in a completely literal sense. “Queen of England” should no more offend the Scots than “queen of the United Kingdom” should offend the Papuans. Besides that, there are good reasons to allow formthe usage, one being that the position is essentially the same position held by those whose official title was monarch of England. And the principle is essentially enshrined by the principle that allows the current monarch to be called “Elizabeth II” instead of “Elizabeth II and I”. If the Scots can deal with that, they can deal with Americans who use the term “queen of England”’ informally.