Buckingham Palace - what's going on?

Darat said:
And I'm assuming he'll only be eligible for the basic pension since he only worked for a few years back in the 1950s.
Click to expand...

He was an officer in the RN from 1939 up until the coronation, although a 12 year long service annuity when you topped out at Commander isn't substantive. Maybe he can get a medical annuity for any injuries attributable to his military service.
 
ddt said:
Why that? Don't you in Australia - and in Canada as well - already have a suitable model. I mean, basically you have two figurehead/reserve powers heads of state - the Queen and the Governor-General. When you scrap the Queen, rename the GG to "President" and done!
Click to expand...
Not sure how it is in the other commonwealth countries, but in Canada, I suspect such a change would require a change in our constitution.

At this point in our history, making any change to our constitution is a minefield. (We've beaten back Quebec separatists twice so far... last thing we need is separatists saying "We want more than that" to cause a big stink.)

And even if was really easy to simply rename "GG" to "president", the big question is, why bother? How exactly would the average citizen benefit from all the paperwork that would be necessary?
 
TragicMonkey said:
Perhaps she's just worried he'll end up like Charles I?
Click to expand...
What will his regnal number in fact be? He's Charles III of England, and Charles III of Scotland, but the last Charles reigned before Great Britain or the UK existed, so he should be Charles I of the UK. Bad omen.
 
Craig B said:
What will his regnal number in fact be? He's Charles III of England, and Charles III of Scotland, but the last Charles reigned before Great Britain or the UK existed, so he should be Charles I of the UK. Bad omen.
Click to expand...

A complication pretty much ignored by Edwards and Williams
 
Craig B said:
What will his regnal number in fact be? He's Charles III of England, and Charles III of Scotland, but the last Charles reigned before Great Britain or the UK existed, so he should be Charles I of the UK. Bad omen.
Click to expand...

But Liz 2 was after Union of Crowns as well. I think the precedent is now for the monarch to be next in the higher of the two sequences, is it not? And that follows the minting of some coins featuring Liz 2 if I recall correctly from another thread.
 
Craig B said:
What will his regnal number in fact be? He's Charles III of England, and Charles III of Scotland, but the last Charles reigned before Great Britain or the UK existed, so he should be Charles I of the UK. Bad omen.
Click to expand...

Is there any reason he has to take the regnal name Charles? He's got plenty of others to choose from IIRC.

Dave
 
angrysoba said:
But Liz 2 was after Union of Crowns as well. I think the precedent is now for the monarch to be next in the higher of the two sequences, is it not? And that follows the minting of some coins featuring Liz 2 if I recall correctly from another thread.
Click to expand...
It seems simply to follow the English sequence as if the Union had not occurred. That caused some unhappiness in Scotland back at the accession of the present Queen, and I think Charles might want to avoid unpleasantness on this issue. But how? Have I read somewhere that he intends to reign under the name George? That would avoid the problem, of course.
 
Craig B said:
It seems simply to follow the English sequence as if the Union had not occurred. That caused some unhappiness in Scotland back at the accession of the present Queen, and I think Charles might want to avoid unpleasantness on this issue. But how? Have I read somewhere that he intends to reign under the name George? That would avoid the problem, of course.
Click to expand...

I think there is the possibility that if a king was called Robert, he would be Robert IV and if a David then David III.
 
You know, you could get rid of this silly royals nonsense and turn the palaces into Museums. Except Kensington Palace, that should be turned into a home for wayward boys which is what it looks like already.
 
Craig B said:
I had never heard of that. Do you have a source? It's interesting.
Click to expand...

I looked around quickly and have come up with this. It's probably not the most authoritative source, just a letter to a newspaper, but interestingly the writer uses the same examples as I did, and also says that a future James would follow Scottish practice and would presumably be James VIII.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/opini...ch_as_Elizabeth_II__even_north_of_the_Border/

The claim was made in Parliament by Churchill, it seems, and can presumably be found in Hansard.
 
Craig B said:
I had never heard of that. Do you have a source? It's interesting.
Click to expand...

Here is what Churchill said in Parliament. I don't know how binding it is, however.

46. Lieut.-Colonel Elliot asked the Prime Minister whether, in advising the Sovereign to assume the title of Elizabeth II, he took into consideration the desirability of adopting the principle of using whichever numeral in the English or Scottish lines of Kings and Queens happens to be the higher.

§The Prime Minister The decision to assume the title of Elizabeth II was of course taken on the advice of the Accession Council and the form of the proclamation was approved by Her Majesty's Government.
Since the Act of Union the principle to which my right hon. and gallant Friend refers has in fact been followed. Although I am sure neither The Queen nor her advisers could seek to bind their successors in such a matter, I think it would be reasonable and logical to continue to adopt in future whichever numeral in the English or Scottish line were higher. Thus if, for instance, a King Robert or a King James came to the throne he might well be designated by the numeral appropriate to the Scottish succession, thereby emphasising that our Royal Family traces its descent through the English Royal line from William the Conqueror and beyond, and through the Scottish Royal line from Robert the Bruce and Malcolm Canmore and still further back. Her Majesty's present advisers would for their part find no difficulty in accepting such a principle. From this it naturally follows that there should not in their view be any difficulty anywhere in acknowledging the Style and Title of Her present Majesty.

§Lieut.-Colonel Elliot Will my right hon. Friend have a special note taken 200 of this matter for the archives in future years so that a point of great interest to many people and one of much historical importance should never be overlooked?

§The Prime Minister I cannot conceive that it will be ignored by the regular methods of reporting, and not remembered by all who take a special interest in it.

§Mr. Woodburn Is the Prime Minister aware that however trifling it may seem to people on this side of the Border, the handling of this thing has caused a certain amount of irritation among the population of Scotland and that it would be very useful if some courtesy were shown to Scotland when they ask for information? The Prime Minister has gone some way towards that.

§Mrs. Mann Is the Prime Minister aware that this decision has set Scotland one terrific problem because the Mint has decided to issue the coins with "Elizabeth II," and Scots who object to this title are placed in an awful dilemma?

§The Prime Minister I hope that theoretical refinements will not prevent the normal conduct of business.

§Mr. Gower Can the Prime Minister state what course will be followed if a future British monarch should bear the name Llewellyn?

§The Prime Minister I hope I may ask for long notice of that question

§Mr. Manuel Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate, in connection with the adoption of the title of Elizabeth II, what discussions he had with the Secretary of State for Scotland and what his attitude was?

§The Prime Minister I had long and searching discussions with the Secretary of State for Scotland who has gone up, I believe, on some political engagement in the North at the present time. We searchingly examined the whole problem, and it was with his full concurrence, and even on his advice, that I gave the answer which I have just read to the House.
Click to expand...
 
Craig B said:
What will his regnal number in fact be? He's Charles III of England, and Charles III of Scotland, but the last Charles reigned before Great Britain or the UK existed, so he should be Charles I of the UK. Bad omen.
Click to expand...

I heard Charles intends to cash in on popular culture to seem hip so he's going to assume the throne under the name King Joffrey.
 
@angrysoba

This doesn't look too decisive
The Prime Minister: I had long and searching discussions with the Secretary of State for Scotland who has gone up, I believe, on some political engagement in the North at the present time. We searchingly examined the whole problem, and it was with his full concurrence, and even on his advice, that I gave the answer which I have just read to the House​
They searchingly examined the problem, and the best Churchill can say he came up with is the "concurrence" of his own government's representative in "the North". That presumably means they could find nothing authoritative enunciating the "principle" they claimed had been applied.

Which means you won't find it either, ransack the Internet as you may.
 
It's actually quite logical to use max()+1, because it avoids confusion which ruler is being referenced. Similar situation arose in Bohemian kingdom where king Charles the Fourth has such number because he was also ruler of Holy Roman Empire.
 
Craig B said:
@angrysoba

This doesn't look too decisive
The Prime Minister: I had long and searching discussions with the Secretary of State for Scotland who has gone up, I believe, on some political engagement in the North at the present time. We searchingly examined the whole problem, and it was with his full concurrence, and even on his advice, that I gave the answer which I have just read to the House​
They searchingly examined the problem, and the best Churchill can say he came up with is the "concurrence" of his own government's representative in "the North". That presumably means they could find nothing authoritative enunciating the "principle" they claimed had been applied.

Which means you won't find it either, ransack the Internet as you may.
Click to expand...

I think we'll just have to wait and see if the next monarch takes it seriously. Aside from that I have found a court case citing royal prerogative which presumably means the monarch can call themselves what they like and which was also hinted at in Churchill's reply. I doubt Charles will opt for Charles I any more than even less well-omened regnal name of Edward II, though. Not unless he's an idiot. Oh wait...
 
Klimax said:
It's actually quite logical to use max()+1, because it avoids confusion which ruler is being referenced. Similar situation arose in Bohemian kingdom where king Charles the Fourth has such number because he was also ruler of Holy Roman Empire.
Click to expand...

"In a surprise move, Queen Elizabeth II abdicated today in favor of an American whose internet posts she enjoyed. He's taking the throne in the name of King Max Plus One, which seemed silly until people realized the alternatives the new monarch considered were King TragicMonkey, King Kingy I, or King You Feel The Magic I Can Feel The Magic Let's Feel The Magic Tonite."
 
ISTR (but can't be bothered to go searching now) that Charles is unlikely to take the regnal name Charles III. He'll probably be a George but I really hope, in a nod to Private Eye, he calls himself King Brian.

He's not the Messiah, etc...
 
Yes I too recall Charles saying something to that effect, though I too can't be bothered to look it up.

I've also read that it's Prince Philip, rather than the Queen herself, who has declared a determination that she outlive their eldest son so he won't ever be king.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom