dead Queen Elizabeth II

[Donald 182]

Charles would already be 6th oldest British monarch ever.

[Donald 182]

9 hours ago, msc said:

Well, duh she should be on the 2022 DL, and the 2023 DL. She's old enough, famous enough and while her health isn't "she'll die tomorrow", she's clearly starting to age. By her standards, which is glacially, of course. 

 

Bigger question for me is not will the Queen be dropped. It's "when does Pope Francis get on the list"? I feel like he's going downhill at a faster rate than even Benny.

No real reason to be put in the deathlist just because she is " starting to age ".

She ages slowly and steadily.

If nothing more comes out until the end of the year I don't think that there is a big probability of death in 2022.

[Donald 182]

5 minutes ago, Fergie86 said:

Depends how long the Queen goes on for if she lives as long as her mother did she will be around until late 2027 or early 2028 meaning Charles will 79 going on 80 when the Queen finally goes, if that is the case I can’t see Charles lasting 10 years on the throne as he won’t live as long as his parents have as I don’t think Charles is as healthy as Philip or the Queen were at the same age. 

In that case the throne will immediately go to William in my opinion...

[Windsor 2,235]

2 hours ago, Donald said:

In that case the throne will immediately go to William in my opinion...

It’s not possible for the throne to pass immediately to the second in line.

 

Charles becomes King at the very instant of his mother’s death. The instant. The only ceremony involved is her doctor pronouncing her dead.

[Toast 16,234]

3 hours ago, Fergie86 said:

Depends how long the Queen goes on for if she lives as long as her mother did she will be around until late 2027 or early 2028 meaning Charles will 79 going on 80 when the Queen finally goes, if that is the case I can’t see Charles lasting 10 years on the throne as he won’t live as long as his parents have as I don’t think Charles is as healthy as Philip or the Queen were at the same age. 

 

Why do you think that?  I can't call to mind any reports of ill health or hospitalisations.

[Ulitzer95 12,846]

9 hours ago, Windsor said:

It’s not possible for the throne to pass immediately to the second in line.

 

Charles becomes King at the very instant of his mother’s death. The instant. The only ceremony involved is her doctor pronouncing her dead.

He could take the thrown for one day and then immediately abdicate in favour of William but Charles is such an out of touch egotistical type he wouldn’t do so even if it was best for the monarchy and what the majority of the public would want.

[RoverAndOut 4,755]

9 hours ago, Toast said:

Why do you think that?  I can't call to mind any reports of ill health or hospitalisations.

 

Agreed. There seems to be plenty of belief that Charles has no chance of reaching a really old age, but I've not seen much to suggest that to be the case. I think 90 is very manageable, 95 and beyond is realistic at the moment based on what we know. With the obvious caveat that things can change if he suffers some health issue.

 

I think the real question Is how long he intends to rule for when he becomes King. I doubt, having given up his life to be heir, he will be looking to move on quickly, but I also don't think he'll serve "his whole life" as the Queen pledged, as the world has moved on (The Pope abdicated, Emperor Akihito, the Dutch have been doing it for years, Belgium and Spain have done it recently for more scandalous reasons). I'd suspect he'll serve around 10 years before abdication, depending on when he gets it, but I also think the Royal Family is going to go through considerable upheaval when the Queen dies, both internally but also with the public.

[msc 18,540]

2 minutes ago, RoverAndOut said:

 

Agreed. There seems to be plenty of belief that Charles has no chance of reaching a really old age, but I've not seen much to suggest that to be the case. I think 90 is very manageable, 95 and beyond is realistic at the moment based on what we know. With the obvious caveat that things can change if he suffers some health issue.

 

I think the real question Is how long he intends to rule for when he becomes King. I doubt, having given up his life to be heir, he will be looking to move on quickly, but I also don't think he'll serve "his whole life" as the Queen pledged, as the world has moved on (The Pope abdicated, Emperor Akihito, the Dutch have been doing it for years, Belgium and Spain have done it recently for more scandalous reasons). I'd suspect he'll serve around 10 years before abdication, depending on when he gets it, but I also think the Royal Family is going to go through considerable upheaval when the Queen dies, both internally but also with the public.

 

I think a number of people are going to be surprised when Charles eventually becomes a really dull and uncontroversial King for about 7-12 years before snuffing it and passing the crown to his son. 

[RoverAndOut 4,755]

13 minutes ago, msc said:

I think a number of people are going to be surprised when Charles eventually becomes a really dull and uncontroversial King for about 7-12 years before snuffing it and passing the crown to his son. 

 

Probably the best case scenario all round for The Firm.

[Imelda 626]

Anyone who thinks that the crown will go straight from Brenda to Wills is living in cloud cuckoo land.

 

The only way it'll possibly pass early is if Brian goes properly ga-ga. Not much sign of that in his recent bloodline, so dream on!

[YouOnlyDieOnce 89]

15 hours ago, Fergie86 said:

Depends how long the Queen goes on for if she lives as long as her mother did she will be around until late 2027 or early 2028 meaning Charles will 79 going on 80 when the Queen finally goes, if that is the case I can’t see Charles lasting 10 years on the throne as he won’t live as long as his parents have as I don’t think Charles is as healthy as Philip or the Queen were at the same age. 

On my father's side... both grandparents (77/81) didn't live as long as my four great grandparents (83/86/94/101) and my father (72) didn't live as long as both grandparents, so I'd better start digging my hole ASAP. Too much stress on the modern World me thinks, and Liz doesn't have much to stress about apart from that evil granddaughter-in-law that Philip is now unable to deal with.

[openviews 334]

The Queen is 'totally committed' to hosting Christmas at Sandringham after she has rested following a week in hospital on the advice of royal doctors. 
 

'This year, more than ever, it is incredibly important to Her Majesty to be surrounded by her loved ones.‘
 

Articles from the Daily Mail seem to want to nudge people towards what they know but can’t say. This quote is framed as a need due to her having to cancel engagements this year but she also had to cancel them last year and has probably been able to do more this year as well.
 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10149629/Queen-totally-committed-hosting-Christmas-Sandringham.html

[roaming_comrade 471]

15 hours ago, Windsor said:

It’s not possible for the throne to pass immediately to the second in line.

 

Charles becomes King at the very instant of his mother’s death. The instant. The only ceremony involved is her doctor pronouncing her dead.

He can refuse the throne right?

Different monarchy of course, but I remember in Russia in 1917, when the tsar abdicated his son and the Grand Duke Michael were the successors but they both refused the throne which effectively ended the monarchy in that case but would just pass the title to the next in the UK's case.

[roaming_comrade 471]

17 hours ago, Donald said:

No real reason to be put in the deathlist just because she is " starting to age ".

She ages slowly and steadily.

If nothing more comes out until the end of the year I don't think that there is a big probability of death in 2022.

Friendly reminder of how quick decline can happen.

[Toast 16,234]

1 hour ago, openviews said:

The Queen is 'totally committed' to hosting Christmas at Sandringham after she has rested following a week in hospital on the advice of royal doctors. 
 

'This year, more than ever, it is incredibly important to Her Majesty to be surrounded by her loved ones.‘
 

Articles from the Daily Mail seem to want to nudge people towards what they know but can’t say. This quote is framed as a need due to her having to cancel engagements this year but she also had to cancel them last year and has probably been able to do more this year as well.
 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10149629/Queen-totally-committed-hosting-Christmas-Sandringham.html

 

I read it as being important because

1.  The family couldn't be together last Christmas

2.  This will be the first Christmas after Philip's death

 

I don't read it as the Queen expecting it to be her last Christmas, if that's what you're hinting at.

[Slackhurst Broadcasting 377]

There's no way Charles will abdicate or refuse the crown when it comes. It'd mean accepting that his whole life had been a failure, a decades-long wait for a position he wasn't good enough to hold.

[SovietJohnny 95]

9 hours ago, Ulitzer95 said:

He could take the thrown for one day and then immediately abdicate in favour of William but Charles is such an out of touch egotistical type he wouldn’t do so even if it was best for the monarchy and what the majority of the public would want.

That crass comment alone proves the monarchy is doomed.

 

The whole point of the monarchy’s existence is that it is unelected and above politics. Your comment “what the majority of the public would want” has another word….and that word is ‘republicanism”

[Ulitzer95 12,846]

2 minutes ago, SovietJohnny said:

That crass comment alone proves the monarchy is doomed.

 

The whole point of the monarchy’s existence is that it is unelected and above politics. Your comment “what the majority of the public would want” has another word….and that word is ‘republicanism”

Crass?! Bore off you spineless snowflake.

[SovietJohnny 95]

10 hours ago, RoverAndOut said:

 

Agreed. There seems to be plenty of belief that Charles has no chance of reaching a really old age, but I've not seen much to suggest that to be the case. I think 90 is very manageable, 95 and beyond is realistic at the moment based on what we know. With the obvious caveat that things can change if he suffers some health issue.

 

I think the real question Is how long he intends to rule for when he becomes King. I doubt, having given up his life to be heir, he will be looking to move on quickly, but I also don't think he'll serve "his whole life" as the Queen pledged, as the world has moved on (The Pope abdicated, Emperor Akihito, the Dutch have been doing it for years, Belgium and Spain have done it recently for more scandalous reasons). I'd suspect he'll serve around 10 years before abdication, depending on when he gets it, but I also think the Royal Family is going to go through considerable upheaval when the Queen dies, both internally but also with the public.

The Coronation vow is a solemn vow…made in church….for life.

 

Charlie breaking his coronation oath would be the same as his breaking his marriage vo

……hang on a sec

[The Old Crem 3,631]

4 hours ago, Toast said:

 

I read it as being important because

1.  The family couldn't be together last Christmas

2.  This will be the first Christmas after Philip's death

 

I don't read it as the Queen expecting it to be her last Christmas, if that's what you're hinting at.

I wouldn’t be surprised if we find out she is terminally Ill.

[SovietJohnny 95]

6 minutes ago, Ulitzer95 said:

Crass?! Bore off you spineless snowflake.

Dictionary definition of crass “showing no intelligence”

 

Your response to my comment…Q.E.D.

[RoverAndOut 4,755]

24 minutes ago, SovietJohnny said:

The Coronation vow is a solemn vow…made in church….for life.

 

Charlie breaking his coronation oath would be the same as his breaking his marriage vo

……hang on a sec

 

Oops, the Coronation Oath talks about conduct as monarch, there's no pledge about life service. On her 21st birthday, QEII pledged that her whole life, whether long or short, would be in service to her country. She intends to fulfil that pledge, hence she won't abdicate. Charles is not bound by that pledge and will do what he thinks is best.

 

23 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

I wouldn’t be surprised if we find out she is terminally Ill.

 

Well you keep waiting champ, one day you just might be right.

[Toast 16,234]

42 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

I wouldn’t be surprised if we find out she is terminally Ill.

 

We know you wouldn't be surprised.

[Windsor 2,235]

7 hours ago, roaming_comrade said:

He can refuse the throne right?

Different monarchy of course, but I remember in Russia in 1917, when the tsar abdicated his son and the Grand Duke Michael were the successors but they both refused the throne which effectively ended the monarchy in that case but would just pass the title to the next in the UK's case.

 

Incorrect in the British system.

 

It would require an Act of Parliament for Charles to Abdicate. You cannot simply refuse the throne. 

[RoverAndOut 4,755]

8 hours ago, roaming_comrade said:

He can refuse the throne right?
Different monarchy of course, but I remember in Russia in 1917, when the tsar abdicated his son and the Grand Duke Michael were the successors but they both refused the throne which effectively ended the monarchy in that case but would just pass the title to the next in the UK's case.

 

Not quite right, Nicholas abdicated on behalf of both himself AND his haemophiliac son and heir and bestowed the throne on his brother Michael. He refused to accept until the Provisional Government ratified his elevation, which he knew wouldn't happen. Worth pointing out Nicholas was an absolute monarch, not a constitutional monarch, which was half the reason for the revolution in the first place.

 

As Windsor points out, the UK is in a very different place. And, as Slackhurst said, abdicating immediately would mean his life's purpose had been meaningless. He'll be a good bridge monarch between Elizabeth and William with any luck.