Predict the British monarchs in the 21st century and what years they will reign

[Plankton5165]

There currently has been only one monarch in the 21st century, Elizabeth II.

But which ones do you think will also be monarchs in the 21st century, and what years do you think they will reign?

This would be the 20th century format:
Queen Victoria (1901, you might say 1837-1901)
Edward VII "Bertie" (1901-1910)
George V (1910-1936)
Edward VIII (1936)
George VI (1936-1952)
Elizabeth II (1952-2000, you might say 1952-present)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm not going to bother figuring out the reginald names.

Elizabeth 1952-2027
Charles 2027-2035 abdicates
William 2035-2070
George 2070-2105

[FT-02 Senator A.F.E. 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

Easy

Queen Elizabeth II: 1952 - ∞

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I'm not going to bother figuring out the reginald names.

Elizabeth 1952-2027
Charles 2027-2035 abdicates
William 2035-2070
George 2070-2105

Why do you think Charles would/will abdicate?

[Frodo]

After Queen Elizabeth II passes away sometime this decade, I predict the following:

Charles III
William V
George VII

This is assuming, of course, that the reign of King Charles III (who isn't as popular or as revered as his mother) doesn't lead to the dissolution of the monarchy as well as the United Kingdom.  

[cp]

After Queen Elizabeth II passes away sometime this decade, I predict the following:

Charles III
William V
George VII

This is assuming, of course, that the reign of King Charles III (who isn't as popular or as revered as his mother) doesn't lead to the dissolution of the monarchy as well as the United Kingdom.  

Picking Charles III as his regnal name would qualify as asking for it, I think.

[CumbrianLefty]

I don't see how the name will make much difference tbh.

And whilst a younger "Charles III" might have caused serious ructions, he is now at an age where he probably won't rock the boat nearly as much. Though he still might do some "modernisation".

[afleitch]

Queen makes it to her mother's age in 2027 then dies (assuming)

Charles reigns as George VII for 10 years. Abdicates in 2037 by which time William is 55.

The monarchy needs a European reset as in Spain/Belgium etc to bring in younger monarchs, but the Queen will never abdicate.

[CumbrianLefty]

Don't think that Charles will abdicate either, not least because he has waited so long.

[LabourJersey]

Don't think that Charles will abdicate either, not least because he has waited so long.

I don't think he would want to abdicate but it wouldn't surprise me if there's some exaggerated scandal (maybe something with the Church of England, since Charles isn't too crazy about being Defender of THE Faith, or some meddling in politics) that makes it untenable for him to stay on the throne.

Also the idea of him going with a different name kind of funny. He's been know as Charles for 73 years, they'll still refer to him as "King Charles" even if he goes as George VII

[LabourJersey]

Also I just realized that if Charles lives as long as his father, he would be on the throne until September 2048.

Assuming he didn't abdicate before that. But I don't the United Kingdom would be at all thrilled at the prospect of a 25 year reign of ol' Charles.

[brucejoel99]

I'm almost tempted to just say "f**k it" & predict that Elizabeth will make it to Oct. 19th, 2034 - at which point she'd be 108 years & 181 days old - in order to surpass Sobhuza II as the longest reigning monarch in world history, but even I'd be surprised if she actually made it that long, & especially so now that her proclaimed "strength & stay" can no longer be there by her side. In any event:

Elizabeth II: 1952-2030
Charles III: 2030-2054
William V: 2054-2088
George VII: 2088-2121

Don't think that Charles will abdicate either, not least because he has waited so long.

I don't think he would want to abdicate but it wouldn't surprise me if there's some exaggerated scandal (maybe something with the Church of England, since Charles isn't too crazy about being Defender of THE Faith, or some meddling in politics) that makes it untenable for him to stay on the throne.

After having waited to reign for so long & - not to mention - having been raised as the son of Elizabeth & everything which that has entailed (i.e., her dedication to duty above all else having been borne directly out of the abdication crisis, etc.), I have to imagine that Charles would only ever abdicate for something along the lines of legitimate health reasons & the like. It's the 21st-century, so we're well past the point of some monarchical church scandal mattering at all, let alone to a significant enough extent that it'd actually result in an abdication. This (obviously) isn't 1936 anymore.

But I don't [think?] the United Kingdom would be at all thrilled at the prospect of a 25 year reign of ol' Charles.

It'll be fine, the British people - when given the opportunity (i.e., in the absence of a church-induced abdication crisis) - seem to always come around to a new monarch sooner or later. I wouldn't be surprised if they probably come to love him as some sort-of 'affable, goofy uncle' for the nation, not unlike Reagan &/or Biden (though obviously without any significant political undertones). Hell, he's practically been primed to be the Edward VII of our times anyway: a prince not exactly known for having great PR, with low expectations for his inevitable reign in abundance after having been blessed with an eternal mother, only to ultimately turn out to have a positive - if not even triumphant - reign.

[CumbrianLefty]

I would be highly.......surprised if Charlie made it to 100.

(and of course his mum hasn't yet)

[LabourJersey]

I would be highly.......surprised if Charlie made it to 100.

(and of course his mum hasn't yet)

I agree, but I thought it was an interesting point since many people (me included) kind of assume that Charles will only reign for a few years similarly to Edward VII. The Windsors have a serious amount of longevity.
Like if everyone in line lived to 95 and reigned continuously, the timeline would look like:

Elizabeth II: 1952-2021
Charles III: 2021-2043
William V: 2043-2077
George VII: 2077-2108

[President Johnson]

I would be highly.......surprised if Charlie made it to 100.

(and of course his mum hasn't yet)

For some reason I always tend to believe he dies before his mother and consequently never becomes king. She's going to be there for at least another decade, I guess.

[Del Tachi]

Queen Elizabeth II (1952-2032)
King George VII (2032-2048)
King William V (2048-2076)
King George VIII (2076-2111)

[brucejoel99]

I would be highly.......surprised if Charlie made it to 100.

(and of course his mum hasn't yet)

It shouldn't seem like that surprising of an eventuality: his dad made it to just 2 months short of 100, & his mom still seems extremely healthy at a week short of 95 after having herself had a mother who made it to just 4 months shy of 102.

[CumbrianLefty]

Its possible that the PoW's well known "eccentricities" means he lives slightly less long than his mum.

[ibagli]

I don't think he would want to abdicate but it wouldn't surprise me if there's some exaggerated scandal (maybe something with the Church of England, since Charles isn't too crazy about being Defender of THE Faith, or some meddling in politics) that makes it untenable for him to stay on the throne.

If the monarchy and the church came to blows in modern Britain, the church would almost certainly lose the battle. Even against Charles.

Also the idea of him going with a different name kind of funny. He's been know as Charles for 73 years, they'll still refer to him as "King Charles" even if he goes as George VII

Yeah, and people overstate the degree to which it's normal for monarchs to change their names. The only one who did anything really weird was George VI, who was never publicly associated with the name George until the first day of his reign. Victoria's first given name was Alexandrina, but she was already known as Princess Victoria of Kent before her reign, and Edward VII was always double-barrelled as Albert Edward to differentiate him from the late Prince Consort and his eldest son (Prince Albert Victor).

[Earthling]

I don't think he would want to abdicate but it wouldn't surprise me if there's some exaggerated scandal (maybe something with the Church of England, since Charles isn't too crazy about being Defender of THE Faith, or some meddling in politics) that makes it untenable for him to stay on the throne.

If the monarchy and the church came to blows in modern Britain, the church would almost certainly lose the battle. Even against Charles.

Also the idea of him going with a different name kind of funny. He's been know as Charles for 73 years, they'll still refer to him as "King Charles" even if he goes as George VII

Yeah, and people overstate the degree to which it's normal for monarchs to change their names. The only one who did anything really weird was George VI, who was never publicly associated with the name George until the first day of his reign. Victoria's first given name was Alexandrina, but she was already known as Princess Victoria of Kent before her reign, and Edward VII was always double-barrelled as Albert Edward to differentiate him from the late Prince Consort and his eldest son (Prince Albert Victor).

Well, George VI was known as Albert (or Bertie) before becoming King. But Albert is a sacred name (for some reason) so King Albert was out of the question. In honor of his father it became George.

Charles will be King Charles III. It would be ridiculous to do anything else.

[brucejoel99]

I don't think he would want to abdicate but it wouldn't surprise me if there's some exaggerated scandal (maybe something with the Church of England, since Charles isn't too crazy about being Defender of THE Faith, or some meddling in politics) that makes it untenable for him to stay on the throne.

If the monarchy and the church came to blows in modern Britain, the church would almost certainly lose the battle. Even against Charles.

Also the idea of him going with a different name kind of funny. He's been know as Charles for 73 years, they'll still refer to him as "King Charles" even if he goes as George VII

Yeah, and people overstate the degree to which it's normal for monarchs to change their names. The only one who did anything really weird was George VI, who was never publicly associated with the name George until the first day of his reign. Victoria's first given name was Alexandrina, but she was already known as Princess Victoria of Kent before her reign, and Edward VII was always double-barrelled as Albert Edward to differentiate him from the late Prince Consort and his eldest son (Prince Albert Victor).

Well, George VI was known as Albert (or Bertie) before becoming King. But Albert is a sacred name (for some reason) so King Albert was out of the question. In honor of his father it became George.

Charles will be King Charles III. It would be ridiculous to do anything else.

It was Victoria's wish - which her family abided by - that no King would reign as Albert &, in doing so, eclipse her Albert.

[Earthling]

I don't think he would want to abdicate but it wouldn't surprise me if there's some exaggerated scandal (maybe something with the Church of England, since Charles isn't too crazy about being Defender of THE Faith, or some meddling in politics) that makes it untenable for him to stay on the throne.

If the monarchy and the church came to blows in modern Britain, the church would almost certainly lose the battle. Even against Charles.

Also the idea of him going with a different name kind of funny. He's been know as Charles for 73 years, they'll still refer to him as "King Charles" even if he goes as George VII

Yeah, and people overstate the degree to which it's normal for monarchs to change their names. The only one who did anything really weird was George VI, who was never publicly associated with the name George until the first day of his reign. Victoria's first given name was Alexandrina, but she was already known as Princess Victoria of Kent before her reign, and Edward VII was always double-barrelled as Albert Edward to differentiate him from the late Prince Consort and his eldest son (Prince Albert Victor).

Well, George VI was known as Albert (or Bertie) before becoming King. But Albert is a sacred name (for some reason) so King Albert was out of the question. In honor of his father it became George.

Charles will be King Charles III. It would be ridiculous to do anything else.

It was Victoria's wish - which her family abided by - that no King would reign as Albert &, in doing so, eclipse her Albert.

I know.
Not that is matters, over half of all monarchs since Anne have been named George. It's a family tradition apparently.

[LabourJersey]

I don't think he would want to abdicate but it wouldn't surprise me if there's some exaggerated scandal (maybe something with the Church of England, since Charles isn't too crazy about being Defender of THE Faith, or some meddling in politics) that makes it untenable for him to stay on the throne.

If the monarchy and the church came to blows in modern Britain, the church would almost certainly lose the battle. Even against Charles.

Also the idea of him going with a different name kind of funny. He's been know as Charles for 73 years, they'll still refer to him as "King Charles" even if he goes as George VII

Yeah, and people overstate the degree to which it's normal for monarchs to change their names. The only one who did anything really weird was George VI, who was never publicly associated with the name George until the first day of his reign. Victoria's first given name was Alexandrina, but she was already known as Princess Victoria of Kent before her reign, and Edward VII was always double-barrelled as Albert Edward to differentiate him from the late Prince Consort and his eldest son (Prince Albert Victor).

Well, George VI was known as Albert (or Bertie) before becoming King. But Albert is a sacred name (for some reason) so King Albert was out of the question. In honor of his father it became George.

Charles will be King Charles III. It would be ridiculous to do anything else.

It was Victoria's wish - which her family abided by - that no King would reign as Albert &, in doing so, eclipse her Albert.

Also Albert was a name associated with Germans (Albert being a German of course) and that kind of association wasn't going to fly in 1936 when George VI came to the throne.

[Frodo]

I don't think he would want to abdicate but it wouldn't surprise me if there's some exaggerated scandal (maybe something with the Church of England, since Charles isn't too crazy about being Defender of THE Faith, or some meddling in politics) that makes it untenable for him to stay on the throne.

If the monarchy and the church came to blows in modern Britain, the church would almost certainly lose the battle. Even against Charles.

Also the idea of him going with a different name kind of funny. He's been know as Charles for 73 years, they'll still refer to him as "King Charles" even if he goes as George VII

Yeah, and people overstate the degree to which it's normal for monarchs to change their names. The only one who did anything really weird was George VI, who was never publicly associated with the name George until the first day of his reign. Victoria's first given name was Alexandrina, but she was already known as Princess Victoria of Kent before her reign, and Edward VII was always double-barrelled as Albert Edward to differentiate him from the late Prince Consort and his eldest son (Prince Albert Victor).

Well, George VI was known as Albert (or Bertie) before becoming King. But Albert is a sacred name (for some reason) so King Albert was out of the question. In honor of his father it became George.

Charles will be King Charles III. It would be ridiculous to do anything else.

It was Victoria's wish - which her family abided by - that no King would reign as Albert &, in doing so, eclipse her Albert.

Also Albert was a name associated with Germans (Albert being a German of course) and that kind of association wasn't going to fly in 1936 when George VI came to the throne.

The current royal family is nonetheless fundamentally German, and from the same lines as King George I of Hanover and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, even if they decided for political reasons during the First World War to pick a different dynastic name.  

[politicallefty]

Assuming Charles lives long enough to reign, he has more than two choices as to has regnal name. His name is Charles Philip Arthur George. There have been many that have said over the years that he would choose George VII, after his grandfather. Many people think Charles is a cursed name. Whether or not you believe in curses, it's possible that there's a belief that Charles III could be the last monarch of Britain or the Commonwealth. King Arthur isn't reasonable for obvious reasons. There is also the possibility of King Philip, in honour of his father. It's ultimately his choice when he takes the throne and he's not necessarily limited to his birth names, although that has been the custom.

When you think about it, it had to have been jarring in a way for so many when Princess Elizabeth became Queen Elizabeth II. Before her, there was just Queen Elizabeth, not Queen Elizabeth I.

I have had a thought for a long time about the monarchy. If it continues to survive, it will likely be a very long time before there's another Queen. Unless there's another tragedy, it will likely be beyond the lifetime of anyone here.