Queuing for our Queen

[Silly Moustache]

Originally Posted by Glennwillow

Queuing for our Queen...

You will get a chance to play just a little part in history in the making, Andy. It's a fascinating time for England, the death of a queen and the installation of a new king.

- Glenn

Hi Glenn, I have not gone to the lying-in-state, although I honour the passing of our Queen, and, if I may, our Queen was not the Queen of (just) England but of all four nations of the United Kingdom, and the Commonwealth of Nations.

If interested : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...f_Elizabeth_II

[ewalling]

Originally Posted by Riverwolf

Touchy.

Touchy? Please don't say you thought I was being serious!

[Silly Moustache]

The most incredible assembly of ceremonial marching bands ;

[ewalling]

Originally Posted by Silly Moustache

I'm not normally all that focussed on such things but I've been musing about the line of accession:

If King Charles lives as long as his Mum, he will be 96 in 2044.
William will be 62.
If William lives as long as the Queen it will be 2078, and George will be 65.
If George makes 96, then in in 2109, we'll be looking for another monarch but Charlotte will be 94, Louis will be 90,Harry will be 125 (unlikely!) Archie will be 90, and Lillibet,88. ...

With the modern trend of healthy eating and living, I wonder if the odds for a young monarch have become increasingly unlikely.

[Horsehockey]

This was a beautiful five day respite of civility and dignity. Thank you Brits and thank you to the commonwealth. There hasn’t been this much civility and just plain humanity demonstrated for this long in my memory. Thank you. I needed that.

[frankmcr]

Originally Posted by ewalling

With the modern trend of healthy eating and living, I wonder if the odds for a young monarch have become increasingly unlikely.

Probably not, unless the person ahead abdicates. Which they mostly don't.
Which is kind of how it should be; it's about continuity, not about getting a fresh new face every few years with some wonderful agenda for changing everything.

Incidentally, Harald V of Norway was born in 1937. Ten years or so younger than Elizabeth but probably her closest contemporary among European monarchs.
I wonder if they ever hung out. Although he didn't actually become king until 1991, they would have had stuff to talk about.

[ewalling]

Originally Posted by frankmcr

Probably not, unless the person ahead abdicates. Which they mostly don't.
Which is kind of how it should be; it's about continuity, not about getting a fresh new face every few years with some wonderful agenda for changing everything.

Sure, but I was just thinking that the phenomenon of a monarch ruling for 70 years and becoming a such a momentous figure, as was Elizabeth, may be even more unlikely now. The country may be in line for a series of old monarchs who are on the throne for relatively limited periods.

Actually, some years ago I had wondered if they would somehow get William fast-tracked to kingship. He and his wife are young, popular, attractive and nice, and since the monarchy is essentially an ambassadorial job now, it seemed to make sense that he should take the throne rather than his ageing father with all his baggage. People have talked about revising the monarchy; perhaps one area that might be revised is accession based on eligibility rather than next-in-line. This is a job now, not a divine right.

[Silurian]

Originally Posted by ewalling

People have talked about revising the monarchy; perhaps one area that might be revised is accession based on eligibility rather than next-in-line. This is a job now, not a divine right.

Misses the point really doesn't it?

"Next in line" is the eligibility requirement.

The only real change of any significance is that primogeniture is now through first born child, not just male child.

[Gitfiddlemann]

Originally Posted by Horsehockey

This was a beautiful five day respite of civility and dignity. Thank you Brits and thank you to the commonwealth. There hasn’t been this much civility and just plain humanity demonstrated for this long in my memory. Thank you. I needed that.

I agree. That was a spectacular display of tradition and pageantry. And it never felt overly done.
I was glued to the set taking it all in yesterday. It was like watching "The Ten Commandments", only, it was real time and it went off without a hitch. So many people lined up to watch.
The ceremony at Windsor was truly special, and connected you in real time to the distant past. The choreography and setting were unique. Definitely worth a look if you missed it.
Only the Brits could have pulled something like this off so magnificently, with just the right mixture of pomp, class, common touch and dignity.
Kudos to them! They still got it. And Long Live The King!

[Bob from Brooklyn]

So who can explain to me the whole transfer from the House of Hanover to House of Windsor (via Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) business?

signed,
confused Yank

[619TF]

Originally Posted by Bob from Brooklyn

So who can explain to me the whole transfer from the House of Hanover to House of Windsor (via Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) business?

signed,
confused Yank

Even on this side of the pond we have Google.
https://www.thoughtco.com/the-houses...anover-4069109

[ewalling]

Originally Posted by Bob from Brooklyn

So who can explain to me the whole transfer from the House of Hanover to House of Windsor (via Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) business?

signed,
confused Yank

It was embarrassment incurred by the association of the name 'Saxe-Coburg' to Germany and Germans during WWI, I think.

[ewalling]

Originally Posted by Silurian

Misses the point really doesn't it?

"Next in line" is the eligibility requirement.

The only real change of any significance is that primogeniture is now through first born child, not just male child.

Well, they could do a kind of 'modified' next-in-line system under certain circumstances. If the father/mother is of pensionable age and/or besmirched by scandal, as is Charles, maybe the country or Parliament could vote on who gets prime spot: parent or child.

[619TF]

Originally Posted by ewalling

Well, they could do a kind of 'modified' next-in-line system under certain circumstances. If the father/mother is of pensionable age and/or besmirched by scandal, as is Charles, maybe the country or Parliament could vote on who gets prime spot: parent or child.

Not for nothing but I believe voting for a king/queen is basically the antithesis of a monarchy.

[ewalling]

Originally Posted by 619TF

Not for nothing but I believe voting for a king/queen is basically the antithesis of a monarchy.

It doesn't have to be. Since monarchy has changed so much in the last umpteen hundred years, there's no reason why an element of choice shouldn't be applied under certain circumstances. That choice could also be extended to the next in line themselves. Perhaps Charles could have declined and let William through.

Didn't Juan Carlos of Spain get deposed so that his son Felipe could take over?