Will Charlie Boy let one of his lads become King?

[Phony Moderate]

When Her Majesty passes away, of course.

If I were a Royalist, I would be in favor of this. His sons are more charismatic and (seem to be) more popular with the public than their father.

[Joe Republic]

The fact that his wife won't become queen would be an added source of embarrassment to him, I would have thought.  But at least he was allowed to marry her and still be eligible for the throne, unlike his great-uncle...

How likely is this scenario, do you think?

[Phony Moderate]

The fact that his wife won't become queen would be an added source of embarrassment to him, I would have thought.  But at least he was allowed to marry her and still be eligible for the throne, unlike his great-uncle...

How likely is this scenario, do you think?

I suppose a lot of it depends on how long the current Her Majesty lives. If she lives, say, as long as her mother, then Charlie Boy would be approaching 80.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I wouldn't be surprised to see Charles pass away before his mother.  After all, she was only 18 when he was born.  I would be surprised if Elizabeth doesn't surpass her great-great grandmother Victoria for length of reign as she only needs to make it to 2015 to do so and there appears to be no problem with her health.

[Platypus]

I would be absolutely shocked if Charles didn't ascend the throne, failing death or disgrace.

[Verily]

When Her Majesty passes away, of course.

If I were a Royalist, I would be in favor of this. His sons are more charismatic and (seem to be) more popular with the public than their father.

Well, William V would be more popular. Not so sure that Henry IX would be any more popular than Charles III. I think it's more likely that Charlie predeceases his dear mother than that he steps aside for Willy, though.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

When Her Majesty passes away, of course.

If I were a Royalist, I would be in favor of this. His sons are more charismatic and (seem to be) more popular with the public than their father.

Well, William V would be more popular. Not so sure that Henry IX would be any more popular than Charles III. I think it's more likely that Charlie predeceases his dear mother than that he steps aside for Willy, though.

No reason to think Charles would have to reign as Charles III.  His grandfather took the crown as George VI instead of Albert as it would have been had he used his first name.  There was also some talk concerning Elizabeth II choosing Mary III as her regnal name to preserve the uniqueness of Elizabeth and to avoid trouble with the Scots concerning the regnal number.

George VII or possibly Philip II would also be possible regnal names for Prince Charles.  Doubtful he'd be so crass as to attempt being crowned as King Arthur.

[J. J.]

When Her Majesty passes away, of course.

If I were a Royalist, I would be in favor of this. His sons are more charismatic and (seem to be) more popular with the public than their father.

They are all popular when they are young.

[Verily]

When Her Majesty passes away, of course.

If I were a Royalist, I would be in favor of this. His sons are more charismatic and (seem to be) more popular with the public than their father.

Well, William V would be more popular. Not so sure that Henry IX would be any more popular than Charles III. I think it's more likely that Charlie predeceases his dear mother than that he steps aside for Willy, though.

No reason to think Charles would have to reign as Charles III.  His grandfather took the crown as George VI instead of Albert as it would have been had he used his first name.  There was also some talk concerning Elizabeth II choosing Mary III as her regnal name to preserve the uniqueness of Elizabeth and to avoid trouble with the Scots concerning the regnal number.

George VII or possibly Philip II would also be possible regnal names for Prince Charles.  Doubtful he'd be so crass as to attempt being crowned as King Arthur.

I believe he has stated definitively that he would use Charles III. Regardless, I think Elizabeth II's choice, and her commentary on the possibility, pretty much broke any tradition of changing names.

Philip II would be a lot more controversial than Charles III, methinks.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Philip II would be a lot more controversial than Charles III, methinks.

Shouldn't be, unless people want to disavow William III as well as King Philip.  Indeed, under the old rules, there would have been a King Albert and a King Philip II already.