The Queen is dead. Long live the King!

Queen Elizabeth II was Queen of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, and most importantly, Canada for all of my short life. She was also Sovereign over a few dozen other places. Hers was an amazing life and reign and it feels, to this American anyway, like an end point in history.

I wonder. Will any of that multitude decide that now is the time to abolish the monarchy? Charles III seems about as popular as his beheaded namesake Charles I.

 

I wouldn't sell Charles short. He may be the one who brings the monarchy into modern times.

It is difficult to assess at this point the impact of the queen's passing. How many things were held in stasis because of her? To your question, how many Commonwealth nations will stay? Will any go specifically because of her passing or, at least, be triggered to now do so? We don't yet know.

At no point in her reign did her position and influence as the head of The Firm fade. Just two days ago she received the new PM to give her permission to form a new government in the queen's name. Everything Queen Elizabeth did--as she promised when she became queen--was in service to her nation. It will likely take years to fully understand the impact of her role...and her passing.

As for Charles, he isn't the out-of-touch fop the tabloids would like to portray. He's intelligent, thoughtful, and has clear aims for the monarchy. He's been waiting in the wings for a very long time. Let's see what he does with all of that contemplation. His popularity has grown over time; it may yet grow further still.

 

One thing is for sure, Queen Elizabeth's record for longest reign in British history is not likely to be broken in any of our lifetimes! Only King Louis XIV has sat on the thrown longer. He beat Queen Elizabeth by about a year and a half.

 

Camilla becomes queen, but without the sovereign’s powers.
Charles’ wife, Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, will be known as Queen Consort — a title that came with Queen Elizabeth II’s blessing after years of contention, dating back to the days before she even married Prince Charles.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/camilla-becomes-queen-without-sovereign-182743794.html

 

He is about to turn 74. He will never be able to portray a young and dynamic monarchy because his age is an impediment towards that endeavour.
It's like the USA sees Biden: an old man babysitting a country.
The Queen was accepted and celebrated, even into old age, because she had been on the throne since she was in her prime time (25) so people never knew anything different.
Charles however will be seen as a bridging figure between Elizabeth II and William.
The nation needs William and Kate: a breath of fresh air in the Windsor sails, would do that institution well.

Charles and Camilla have been mocked by the nation for decades.
He portrayed with giant ears and Camilla portrayed as a witch with wraths. Literally every souvenir shop in the UK sold mugs and other curiosa of him and Camilla in that fashion.
William and Kate however have always been portrayed in a classy, serious way.
Just like the Queen has always been portrayed in a classy and serious way.
Camilla will always be seen as the woman who wrecked another woman's marriage.
She is a greatgranddaughter of a mistress of Eduard VII.
Camilla will always be seen as the woman who stole Diana's place.
Charles has always been mocked for his long time in waiting town, as a crown prince.
Just like Biden will have been a bridging figure between Trump and Kamala Harris, Charles will have been a bridging figure between Queen Elizabeth II and William.
The people want a young and dynamic monarchy.
William and Kate are cut out for this role.
They are popular, free of scandals, young, and they could give the nation what it wants: a modern, every day monarchy that reaches further than age old protocols.

 

That's what saddens me most.
That homewrecker becomes queen.
Hopefully people will never forget what a shameful person she was, having caused Diana to undertake a suicide attempt while pregnant with William.
The greatgranddaughter of the mistress of Eduard VII (it stays in the family, doesn't it?).

 

I never had the least use for Diana. But the real "shtinker" is Chuck himself. He married the girl while still in a long term relationship with the current Queen Consort.

 

A decent woman with morals and values doesn't wreck a marital union up. This says a lot about the "Queen Consort's" values.
But true, that incompetent misfit is the real culprit. He should have been excluded from ascending the throne.
William is a much better fit.
Let us hope Charles' reign will not last too long.
If we're lucky it's a matter of 5 years.

 

Not my circus and not my monkeys thank heaven.

 

He waited 70 years for it - now the crown will weigh on the head of King Charles III 73-year-old Charles has been waiting for his turn on the throne since he was three, one of the longest wait for an heir apparent in the history of the British monarchy.
Now, he will have to answer the question of what kind of king he is going to be - will he continue to live in the shadow of his revered mother or stick to his principles?

Now begins a new chapter in Charles' life, even if shorter in light of his age.
Yesterday, with the news of the Queen's death, the Prince became King of the United Kingdom, which includes England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as the 56 countries of the British Commonwealth of Nations, whose population is 2.4 billion people.
The king is also the head of state of 14 of the 56 countries. These countries are Australia, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, St. Christopher and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, New Zealand, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.
In June, amid reports that Charles had expressed views opposing the government's immigration policy, the House of Clarence issued a statement saying he would "remain politically neutral" as king.

He has now stepped into the role of king to represent stability in a time of political and social change and upheaval, but with decades of public activity behind him as the Prince of Wales, he hopes to be up to the task.
I read that Charles also marks a new achievement for the royal family: he is the first royal to attend school.

 

IIRC, she is no longer the Duchess of Cornwall because that dukedom goes to the heir apparent (along with the Duke of Rothesay title). If they want to avoid calling her "Queen Camilla," she'll need another title. I suspect it will be the Duchess of Edinburgh, which was supposed to go to Edward when Philip died, but didn't. Or they could make her a princess consort. But no matter what they do, she is queen.

 

Not quite. He's the firs heir to do so--to be educated outside the home and to graduate from university. But not the first royal.

 

Over at CNN:

LIVE UPDATES
The death of Queen Elizabeth II

Does anyone read this before it goes live? "Live updates"? Seriously?

Yes, I miss Garrett Morris' announcements, too.

 

How about it, Canada? Gonna stick with the Windsors? Or what?

 

Hm. Queen Victoria's rather remarkable hubby Albert was Prince Consort. How does Camilla get to be "Queen Consort"?

 

Sheer force of will. No- not really. Google says:

Camilla will be formally known as Queen Consort now that her husband Charles is King. For years it was believed she would become princess consort — which would have been a first in British history. But in February 2022 the late Queen Elizabeth II gave her backing for her son's wife to adopt the queen consort title."

And yes - Prince Albert was indeed a remarkable man. I used to think he had visited Canada and that was why we had our border-straddling city - Prince Albert, Saskatchewan and Prince Albert, Alberta. But no - that was named for Prince Albert's and Queen Victoria's son - Prince Albert Edward, who visited in 1860.

 

Dang that 10 min timer. THERE IS NO PRINCE ALBERT AB. Prince Albert is smack in the middle of Saskatchewan. Some Canadians (e.g. moi) make a terrible hash of their own geography. My apologies.

There's not even a Prince Albert in British Columbia - that's Prince RUPERT. Again, my apologies. Inexcusable.

 

It's automatic for the wife of the king.

The husband of the queen is not king, so he must have some other designation. (Kings outrank queens.) "Prince consort" is the easiest since it doesn't come with a territory. (Although they can make one up, like they did with Edward VIII after he abdicated.)

Camilla is "queen consort" to distinguish her from "queen regnant," which is a queen ruling as a monarch (like Elizabeth II). Camilla became queen consort when Charles became king. The Firm may decide to use a different title for her, but it's not clear what that would be. (As I said earlier in this thread.)

 

Typical Toronto dweller. Canada west of, say, Winnipeg is a semi mythical place full of cowboy hats, pickup trucks, and Conservative voters.