More celebrations if HM the Queen makes it to 2026 and 2027?

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
5,992
Location
UK
For those who want to see an end to the monarchy, Charles will be a godsend. As you say, he is likely to meddle and cause a constitutional crisis before long. The one thing that worries me is that a change to a republican system would come all too quickly, rather than taking a sufficiently long time for the options and pitfalls to be thought through.
I can think of no faster way to turn Commonwealth realms into republics than for Charles to ascend to the throne.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

8A Rail

Member
Joined
6 Dec 2012
Messages
823
Location
Far away
I think it is one day, one week, one month (one year) at a time with the Queen and nothing further is the best approach. Any further celebrations should be also low key too.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
4,059
Can we not just crown an actual King Charles Spaniel as monarch when the time comes? It'll be cuter, more appealing to tourists, cheaper... and no more silly 50-year-plus jubilees as even a doggo with royal family levels of veterinary care and the poshest food available will be lucky to make 20.
A king Charles spaniel might actually bite Boris as well, which would be considerably more effective head-of-stating than the current queen has managed recently
 

philjo

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2009
Messages
2,774
I suspect anything would be based on Trooping the Colour which takes place each year on the Queen’s official birthday anyway and also a church service similar to the one held at St Paul’s on Friday.
 

satisnek

Member
Joined
5 Sep 2014
Messages
727
Location
Kidderminster/Mercia Marina
I wish the rules were tweaked to bypass Charles and go straight to William as next in line for the throne
Me, I wish that the rules were tweaked so that either Anne or Edward became the next monarch (Andrew is now toxic). As has been mentioned above, Charles is a twit (who has nailed his political colours to the mast) and William is the product of a twit and someone who was never suitable to be a member of the Royal Family in the first place.

Sadly, I can't see the Queen living as long as her mother.
 

gg1

Established Member
Joined
2 Jun 2011
Messages
1,364
Location
Birmingham
What's perhaps interesting is if the present succession rules were in place in the Victorian era, we'd have had Kaiser Wilhelm before long as king.
Yes and no.

Based on the real royal marriages and births of the 19th century, the British succession would have gone Victoria I> Victoria II (for all of 8 months)> Wilhelm I, but if this line of succession was in place at the time the younger Victoria wouldn't have been permitted to marry the heir to the throne of Prussia. By that point the various European royal families were careful to ensure no one found themselves in position where they could be the monarch of two major powers simultaneously.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
15,845
Location
No longer here
I always think that the suggestion that the succession should jump over Charles and go straight to William has not been thought through. I am not a supporter of the monarchical system, but accept that it has one argument in its favour: you know who you are going to get as there is a clear line of succession.
True, although William would be a better choice of monarch if one could ever be chosen.

William is much more reflective of what a modern monarchy could mean for Britain - seems much more accessible without being "one of the lads".

In time, we may come to think that Elizabeth's reign was too aloof and that her main weakness was stoicism and devotion to duty at the expense of her family.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
14,723
Location
Another planet...
Me, I wish that the rules were tweaked so that either Anne or Edward became the next monarch (Andrew is now toxic). As has been mentioned above, Charles is a twit (who has nailed his political colours to the mast) and William is the product of a twit and someone who was never suitable to be a member of the Royal Family in the first place.

Sadly, I can't see the Queen living as long as her mother.
What do you mean by "never suitable to be a member of the Royal Family in the first place"...?

Only things I can think of are that she wasn't prepared for being so in the public eye (hardly her fault); or that her family tree wasn't a monkey-puzzle (also not her fault).
 

satisnek

Member
Joined
5 Sep 2014
Messages
727
Location
Kidderminster/Mercia Marina
What do you mean by "never suitable to be a member of the Royal Family in the first place"...?

Only things I can think of are that she wasn't prepared for being so in the public eye (hardly her fault); or that her family tree wasn't a monkey-puzzle (also not her fault).
Don't worry about it, it was just me trying to be diplomatic ;)
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
2,768
If you get to 96 you really want to reach the ton and get your name on the honours board.



I wish the rules were changed to put me on the throne!

King Darlo doesn't quite have the right ring to it :lol:
:lol:
 

Hadders

Established Member
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Messages
9,792
If there is a 75 year Jubilee then there ought to be an additional Bank Holiday. The only issue is that Bank Holidays are normally declared a couple of years ahead by the Government and it would be a brave decision by the relevent Minister to commit to an additional Bank Holiday for a 99-year old, hoping that they're still with us when they're 101.

I'm sure we'd get an additional Bank Holiday for the Queen's funeral (if it's a weekday) and Charles's Coronation (again, assuming it's a weekday) but then we're not likely to get any additional Bank Holidays as Charles is highly unlikely to see a Silver Jubilee.

The Queen will never abdicate but I do wonder if there will be a sensible conversation about what length of a monarch's reign once the Queen has passed. I could see Charles reigning for 5-10 years and then standing aside in favour of William, who could then reign for 25 years before stapping aside for George. Goinf forwards I do wonder whether expecting someone in their 90s to carry on is the right thing to do.
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
6,279
If there is a 75 year Jubilee then there ought to be an additional Bank Holiday. The only issue is that Bank Holidays are normally declared a couple of years ahead by the Government and it would be a brave decision by the relevent Minister to commit to an additional Bank Holiday for a 99-year old, hoping that they're still with us when they're 101.

I'm sure we'd get an additional Bank Holiday for the Queen's funeral (if it's a weekday) and Charles's Coronation (again, assuming it's a weekday) but then we're not likely to get any additional Bank Holidays as Charles is highly unlikely to see a Silver Jubilee.

The Queen will never abdicate but I do wonder if there will be a sensible conversation about what length of a monarch's reign once the Queen has passed. I could see Charles reigning for 5-10 years and then standing aside in favour of William, who could then reign for 25 years before stapping aside for George. Goinf forwards I do wonder whether expecting someone in their 90s to carry on is the right thing to do.
It is not the UK tradition for a UK monarch to abdicate. Also I think that some people underestimate Prince Charles; he may be controversial at times - as was his late father - but I think he will have learned a lot from The Queen, and will act wisely if/when he becomes King.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
11,952
Surely what will happen now is that the Queen simply makes a complete withdrawal from public life and Charles becomes Prince Regent. I foresee no more pageants regardless of whether she lives to be 105, or whatever. The only duty she will probably retain for now is the Christmas Message, which might get recorded in the Dunreigning Home for Distressed Gentlefolk if she gets fed up with Windsor Castle. ;)
 

windingroad

Member
Joined
16 Jun 2022
Messages
234
I dread to think about what comes next; the last couple of days have been unbearable and I'm looking forward to when I can watch a news channel and see actual news.
I suspect when she dies it'll be an order of magnitude worse even than the jubilee.
I am also not in favour of any change to the rules, however I do think that Charles should abdicate in favour of his son. One of the few benefits of a monarchy over a presidential system is longevity of term and the stability that brings and, even in the best of cases, Charles is unlikely to reign for much over 15 to 20 years. William is going to be 40 in a few days, so there's a good chance that he would be able to reign for 40 to 50 years.
Is there any real reason why we would even need a separate president if the monarchy was abolished? The monarch serves no real function, so any stability feels pretty illusory to me.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
27,120
Location
Scotland
Is there any real reason why we would even need a separate president if the monarchy was abolished? The monarch serves no real function, so any stability feels pretty illusory to me.
The idea is that the head of state and head of government aren't the same person - so that, in the event that the Government falls the state continues.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
4,059
I suspect when she dies it'll be an order of magnitude worse even than the jubilee.

Is there any real reason why we would even need a separate president if the monarchy was abolished? The monarch serves no real function, so any stability feels pretty illusory to me.
The fact that we have a non-functional head of state is one of the primary causes of Boris being able to get away with being such a loathsome law-breaker with no checks and balances whatsoever. The opportunity to replace the monarch with a real functional head of state is the main reason for abolition in my opinion.
 

Gloster

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
4,416
Location
Up the creek
The fact that we have a non-functional head of state is one of the primary causes of Boris being able to get away with being such a loathsome law-breaker with no checks and balances whatsoever. The opportunity to replace the monarch with a real functional head of state is the main reason for abolition in my opinion.

Which would suggest that the head of state would have to be elected on a different timescale and method to the House of Commons, otherwise you could get a Mini-me situation (Putin and Medvedev, anyone?) You would also have to decide how much power the head of state has to interfere with the PM and government’s action, without creating a situation where the president can meddle in matters without justification.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
4,059
Which would suggest that the head of state would have to be elected on a different timescale and method to the House of Commons, otherwise you could get a Mini-me situation (Putin and Medvedev, anyone?) You would also have to decide how much power the head of state has to interfere with the PM and government’s action, without creating a situation where the president can meddle in matters without justification.
So in essence you'd have to do exactly what the vast majority of mature democracies already do?
 

PTR 444

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2019
Messages
1,380
Location
Southampton
If there is a 75 year Jubilee then there ought to be an additional Bank Holiday. The only issue is that Bank Holidays are normally declared a couple of years ahead by the Government and it would be a brave decision by the relevent Minister to commit to an additional Bank Holiday for a 99-year old, hoping that they're still with us when they're 101.

I'm sure we'd get an additional Bank Holiday for the Queen's funeral (if it's a weekday) and Charles's Coronation (again, assuming it's a weekday) but then we're not likely to get any additional Bank Holidays as Charles is highly unlikely to see a Silver Jubilee.

The Queen will never abdicate but I do wonder if there will be a sensible conversation about what length of a monarch's reign once the Queen has passed. I could see Charles reigning for 5-10 years and then standing aside in favour of William, who could then reign for 25 years before stapping aside for George. Goinf forwards I do wonder whether expecting someone in their 90s to carry on is the right thing to do.
I may be a bit naive to predict the deaths of royals based on the age of their predecessors, but assuming that the Queen passes at the same age as her mother did (101), Charles would become king in 2027 at the age of 78. He could potentially reign for 20 years if upon becoming monarch he receives the same quality of healthcare that the Queen has had throughout her life, although I doubt that he will live to see a Silver Jubilee of his own (he would be 103 by then).

If Charles dies at the same age as Prince Philip did (99), William would be 66 when he ascends the throne (in 2047), therefore he could be the oldest ever monarch to have a Silver Jubilee. This of course all assumes that both William and Charles remain in good health throughout, but then nobody knows what could happen within intervening years.
 
Last edited:

windingroad

Member
Joined
16 Jun 2022
Messages
234
The fact that we have a non-functional head of state is one of the primary causes of Boris being able to get away with being such a loathsome law-breaker with no checks and balances whatsoever. The opportunity to replace the monarch with a real functional head of state is the main reason for abolition in my opinion.
If the elected head of state is the final arbiter for these things, doesn't that just move the same issues up the chain, given any elected politician is incentivised to act in naked self-interest? I'm happy to be proved wrong on this, but my instinct is that I'd prefer the checks and balances to be invested in a (massively reformed) representative legislature. The US seems to survive without two separated roles.
 

Ediswan

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2012
Messages
1,707
Location
Stevenage
The US seems to survive without two separated roles.
The US federal government has three branches; executive (presidential), legislative (congress), and judicial (courts), all with their own powers. The theory is that they will all keep each other in check.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
27,120
Location
Scotland
The US seems to survive without two separated roles.
They do, in effect, have separated roles. The Speaker of the House has a lot more power than our Speaker does. They basically control the legislative agenda and pretty much control what has the potential to become law. To a lesser extent, the President of the Senate does too - though Mitch McConnel has basically made it his life's work to ensure that no law comes out of the Senate.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
3,203
Diamond, from 60, is re-used for 75.

I do think it's slightly odd (and inconsistent) that platinum is marked at 70. 70 isn't an especially 'round' number, apart from being a multiple of 10; numerically similar to 30, perhaps, and we didn't have a 1982 jubilee. Indeed, 40 is probably a more 'round' number (more factors) than 70, and likewise, there was no Ruby Jubilee in 1992.

75 would seem logical for platinum. Multiples of 25 for the precious metals.
 

Butts

Established Member
Joined
16 Jan 2011
Messages
10,751
Location
Stirlingshire
Especially as it gives us a win over the French!

Technically we already have as "The Sun King" Louis X!V was a boy for the first few years of his reign until he reached the relevant age of majority - 13.

A regent ruled on his behalf until then so the Queen has already eclipsed him.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
27,120
Location
Scotland
I do think it's slightly odd (and inconsistent) that platinum is marked at 70. 70 isn't an especially 'round' number, apart from being a multiple of 10; numerically similar to 30, perhaps, and we didn't have a 1982 jubilee.
I suspect that it's got to do with "three score and ten" more than 'roundness'.
 

kristiang85

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2018
Messages
2,243
Technically we already have as "The Sun King" Louis X!V was a boy for the first few years of his reign until he reached the relevant age of majority - 13.

A regent ruled on his behalf until then so the Queen has already eclipsed him.

Yes I read that the other day - but if the Queen decided to make Charles a Prince Regent for her last couple of years, it would still count, so I guess we need to give Louis those years too.

I do think it's slightly odd (and inconsistent) that platinum is marked at 70. 70 isn't an especially 'round' number, apart from being a multiple of 10; numerically similar to 30, perhaps, and we didn't have a 1982 jubilee. Indeed, 40 is probably a more 'round' number (more factors) than 70, and likewise, there was no Ruby Jubilee in 1992.

75 would seem logical for platinum. Multiples of 25 for the precious metals.

What's weird is that diamond is reused at 75...
 

Top