King Charles III Coronation

[brad465]

To give a highly unlikely scenario. Charles starts to get a bit doddery and William, possibly for the best of reasons, suggests he either hands him the regency or abdicates. Charles does not like this and the relationship between them deteriorates. Eventually Charles thinks, ”One has a rotten pair of sons”, and in a fit of petulance abdicates for himself and ‘for My descendants’. That cuts out all of numbers 1 to 7 of the succession and leaves Andrew to be crowned.

Edward VIII did not have any descendants at the time, but he was also cutting out any that might come later. Charles does have descendants, but I believe he could still abdicate and include them, although he can abdicate just for himself.

Yes, it is unlikely in the extreme, but I believe it is legally and constitutionally possible.

I might be wrong, but I heard during what ended up being the late Queen's last year that if Charles died before the Queen then in theory it could skip to Andrew on the basis that it follows the direct descendance. Obviously regardless of whether that is true or not it won't happen that way now.

 

[Yew]

If he didn't say that then it would be Franz, Duke of Bavaria, who would be on the throne!

I don't think it quite would, if the 1701 act had not been implemented ever, then perhaps, but that doesn't mean that getting rid of it now would mean that.

Either way, Wittelsbach or Saxe-Coburg and Gotha doesn't make much difference to me personally.

 

[Gloster]

I might be wrong, but I heard during what ended up being the late Queen's last year that if Charles died before the Queen then in theory it could skip to Andrew on the basis that it follows the direct descendance. Obviously regardless of whether that is true or not it won't happen that way now.

That I can’t say. However, I don’t think that the Queen could have cut out just Charles’ sons and grandchildren: it would have to be all her children, grand-children and great-grand-chilldren. Which would make Lord Snowdon, her sister’s eldest son, King.

 

[DarloRich]

The Dam Busters has just been on channel 5 - they flew their Lancaster's quite low and in the dark. The modern RAF is put off by a bit of rain.

 

[dangie]

The Dam Busters has just been on channel 5 - they flew their Lancaster's quite low and in the dark. The modern RAF is put off by a bit of rain.

You know that’s not true so why say it…..

 

[Enthusiast]

There were some quite difficult problems assembling a flypast of a number of disparate aircraft to fly over central London at low speed in low cloud. By contrast all the Dambusters had to do was cross the North Sea in the dark at low level to avoid German radar, avoid German AA fire once over the mainland, descend to 60 feet over the reservoirs, fly at an exact speed over the water and release the bomb at a precise distance from the dam. Oh, and then climb away before further groundfire caught up with them. And I nearly forgot - then fly back, possibly damaged and again avoiding German AA batteries. All the while navigating mainly by "dead reckoning" and ground observations. Piece of Cake!

 

[DarloRich]

You know that’s not true so why say it…..

I wasn't being serious for goodness sake.

By contrast all the Dambusters had to do was cross the North Sea at low level to avoid German radar,

100 ft or lower all the way there and all the way back - most importantly it was a clear night.

 

[AlterEgo]

Read Edward VIII’s abdication letter and you will see what I mean.

The letter mentions he renounces it for his descendants precisely because at the time of writing it he had none and the throne would pass to his brother.

It is worded to extinguish any potential future Edward VIII descendants' claim to the throne. It does not set any precedent for a monarch with living descendants to abdicate in this way.

 

[36270k]

All theoretical and speculation but my preference for the future would be Princess Ann as Queen.

 

[Ashley Hill]

I watched it from 1100 to 1330 and rather enjoyed it. I caught the Balcony appearance and fly past whilst in the pub.
My mother in law refused to watch it as she doesn’t believe Charles should be King because he’s married a divorcee. If he had still been with Diana that would have been ok though. See my previous posts on that…..

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Glad it wasn't just me then! Yes that was rather irritating. Kept restarting my sound bar as thought it was that giving up the ghost.

Deepgreen said:
Yes, but I was amazed at the frequent sound drop-outs - surely for an occasion like this, the technical side has to be bullet-proof. I don't know if other channels suffered this but it was very poor.

Which channel was this?

I was watching on BBC1 and the sound was good throughout ( although, ironically, being cloth eared I'm relying on the subtitles anyway )

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

All theoretical and speculation but my preference for the future would be Princess Ann as Queen.

Yup the only sensible one

 

[AlterEgo]

Which channel was this?

I was watching on BBC1 and the sound was good throughout ( although, ironically, being cloth eared I'm relying on the subtitles anyway )

There were moments in the Abbey where the King could not be heard on a mic, acknowledging quietly “amen” or whatever. I’m not sure if this was by design or accident or whether the mic near him failed. I didn’t notice any general drop out in sound and I watched the whole thing.

I suspect those moments may have been by design as the King had to give small off script prompts about things like whether his crown was satisfactorily on his head (!) or whether he needed assistance to move from kneeling etc.

Overall a very well presented occasion in my view surpassed only the the state funeral last year.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I suspect those moments may have been by design as the King had to give small off script prompts about things like whether his crown was satisfactorily on his head (!) or whether he needed assistance to move from kneeling etc.

That makes sense, so I think what you noticed was probably planned.

Wouldn't it be more likely a broadcast technician manually intervening to suppress the sound at such moments? There is a slight delay of a few seconds on a "live" broadcast isn't there?

 

[najaB]

Why do people think it will be the last.

Trends and demographics. Support for republic status has been steadily increasing, extend that line out another 40 to 50 years and it's difficult to see it not having majority support.

 

[XAM2175]

To give a highly unlikely scenario. Charles starts to get a bit doddery and William, possibly for the best of reasons, suggests he either hands him the regency or abdicates. Charles does not like this and the relationship between them deteriorates. Eventually Charles thinks, ”One has a rotten pair of sons”, and in a fit of petulance abdicates for himself and ‘for My descendants’. That cuts out all of numbers 1 to 7 of the succession and leaves Andrew to be crowned.
...

Yes, it is unlikely in the extreme, but I believe it is legally and constitutionally possible.

The letter mentions he renounces it for his descendants precisely because at the time of writing it he had none and the throne would pass to his brother.

It is worded to extinguish any potential future Edward VIII descendants' claim to the throne. It does not set any precedent for a monarch with living descendants to abdicate in this way.

It would be legally possible only if Parliament could be persuaded to give effect to it.

As AlterEgo suggests, the intent of the "for my descendants" wording is to extinguish any possibility of future claims, and this is made abundantly clear in the provisions of His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936:

Section 1: Effect of His Majesty's declaration of abdication.
(1) Immediately upon the Royal Assent being signified to this Act the Instrument of Abdication executed by His present Majesty on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, set out in the Schedule to this Act, shall have effect, and thereupon His Majesty shall cease to be King and there shall be a demise of the Crown, and accordingly the member of the Royal Family then next in succession to the Throne shall succeed thereto and to all the rights, privileges, and dignities thereunto belonging.
(2) His Majesty, His issue, if any, and the descendants of that issue, shall not after His Majesty's abdication have any right, title or interest in or to the succession to the Throne, and section one of the Act of Settlement shall be construed accordingly.

And even if Parliament were to go along with a unilateral pruning of the line of succession it would precipitate a considerable constitutional crisis within the Commonwealth as a whole, given that the all of the Commonwealth realms must have identical and matching laws relating to the succession, and that the UK Parliament expressly renounced its powers to make legislation for the other realms (unless requested and consented to by the relevant realm/s) in the Statue of Westminster 1931, and numerous further times since.

 

[dangie]

I wasn't being serious for goodness sake..

Sorry, missed the face……..

 

[birchesgreen]

Trends and demographics. Support for republic status has been steadily increasing, extend that line out another 40 to 50 years and it's difficult to see it not having majority support.

I'm not sure about that. In the 70s a survey said people under 30 were overwhelmingly against the monarchy. Yet 40 years later those same people are now overwhelmingly for the monarchy.

 

[THC]

I'm not sure about that. In the 70s a survey said people under 30 were overwhelmingly against the monarchy. Yet 40 years later those same people are now overwhelmingly for the monarchy.

Be interested to see your sources for both claims.

Among my 18 year-old's peer group there is an anger about the royal family and their personification of privilege and inequality that I've not heard before. This does not appear to be niche but quite widespread in other encounters I've been party to with that age group. Perhaps they'll mellow or resign themselves to the status quo, or perhaps they'll be the generation to dispense with the rather infantile obsession with royalty that still exists despite the grinding poverty and increasing inequality that pervades our society. Who can say?

THC

 

[birchesgreen]

Be interested to see your sources for both claims.

Among my 18 year-old's peer group there is an anger about the royal family and their personification of privilege and inequality that I've not heard before. This does not appear to be niche but quite widespread in other encounters I've been party to with that age group. Perhaps they'll mellow or resign themselves to the status quo, or perhaps they'll be the generation to dispense with the rather infantile obsession with royalty that still exists despite the grinding poverty and increasing inequality that pervades our society. Who can say?

THC

Too bad i don't make a record of every thing i read just in case someone asks me about it weeks later.

 

[52290]

On Coronation day, after a morning of bell ringing, I finally got a pint of Coronation Ale, brewed by Greene King. Very nice too.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

On Coronation day, after a morning of bell ringing, I finally got a pint of Coronation Ale, brewed by Greene King. Very nice too.

Sounds like heaven.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes but it's suggested Charles could potentially block William or Harry from becoming King? Again though....I think this would end up in parliament and resolved.

Why would he choose to disinherit his sons in favour of his brother (even in the highly unlikely event that he chose to abdicate) ?

Don't forget that the King has been training and preparing for the role for many years.

 

[JamesT]

As we saw from the later years of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, there is plenty of scope for other members of the royal family to stand in where the monarch is unable to. I guess it depends whether Charles sees his oath to serve for life in the same way as his mother. The other part is if he becomes incapacitated, a regency could happen.

 

[dangie]

….My mother in law refused to watch it as she doesn’t believe Charles should be King because he’s married a divorcee. If he had still been with Diana that would have been ok though…...

If it had still been Diana the media would have turned it into the Diana Coronation. Charles would have had a bit part….

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Too bad i don't make a record of every thing i read just in case someone asks me about it weeks later.

Neither do I, and I can back you up because I can remember such claims being thrown around in the 1980s so those people then must now be the older supporters.

 

[birchesgreen]

Apparently Harry was really there to secretly record audio using a hidden microphone for his Netflix series. Oh yes i visited my Mum earlier and fell down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole.

 

[adc82140]

Watching the concert now- Why does Hugh Bonneville appear to be wearing a First Great Western uniform from circa 2002?

 

[McRhu]

Watching the concert now- Why does Hugh Bonneville appear to be wearing a First Great Western uniform from circa 2002?

Hugh Bonneville -> Parallel universe.






(cf ‘Married’ Radio 4)

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Overall, I thought the whole thing was well done. Penny Mordaunt looked mighty fine.

I have seen the whole thing called (unfairly imho) the Con a nation.