h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

What do you think? I'd imagine there amount of security needed to protect the crown would be unimaginable.

Its likely to be the real one (there is a replica already though) as it has an unbroken link with history as for security thay will have enough around. But that may not prevent an attempt though.

I'd imagine there'll be a considerable level of security there. Unless it's a case of "To hell with Charles, just make sure the crown is safe".

I've never seen "coronate" used before. Don't people usually say "crown?" Charles has good and bad qualities, but on balance he seems to be pretty much okay to me. I know that Thomas Jefferson famously opined that royal families produce great leaders only about one generation in twenty, but is greatness really the point?

That depends how you define greatness.

One of the reasons that the current queen is popular with many people is that there's a perception that, by and large, she remains aloof from politics and doesn't interfere. You can debate to what extent that's true or not, but it's certainly the widespread perception. Prince Charles, on the other hand, seems more than happy to intervene.

From what I've read about prince Albert, he seems to have welcomed chances to intervene, but the times were conducive to it. After he died, Queen Victoria was much less prone to step in, and that seems to have worked all right as well. About all one can hope for is that Charles will have a good sense of his limitations. Sitting out the dances that you can't do well is not a sign of weakness.

I think they should make Charles a gardener instead, I think he'd be better at that.

Hi paulh. "Coronate"? Yeah, over the years I've kind of switched off that sensor that says, "You might be using a word that doesn't exist here!" and just churn out what I want to say. I've made up some interesting turns of phrase by doing this!

It will be interesting when Charles is king. (Er, he won't be called Charles though as king, is that right?) It would be interesting to have an opinionated king.

It seems odd to me that a monarch would be apolitical. Would it not set a better example to the young people of the country if they were involved in politics? For example - the Scottish referendum. Must've gone without staying that the Queen would want to "keep our sh*t together"? Why didn't she speak out? Also, that "slip" by Dave Cameron when he said that the Queen "purred" when he told her the result. Was that a deliberate slip?

They will crown Charles with the real crown - that's what it is there for.

Charles may take the official title of Charles III or George VII. He hasn't yet said. Since both the previous Charleses were controversial he might choose not to be Charles III. George VII would be a tribute to his grandfather. On the other hand he could pick a completely different name if he wanted.

Elizabeth, for example, chose to call herself Elizabeth II even though there wasn't an Elizabeth I. She's the Queen, she can call herself anything she likes.

The big question is whether Charles will actually live long enough to survive his mother. Elizabeth is likely to live to about 120.

*thinks about the Scone of Stone*

"Charleses were controversial he might choose not to be Charles III". However there is an example set by the very name King Charles. Parliament requires some moderation and opposition at times. All a bunch of people who sought power and are determined to use it.
A King who is on the peoples side and who would be prepared if necessary to stand up to them name and shame and just say no!

As all parliamentary acts need the royal assent he can come out against it or request a review or moderation, not publicly but summon them to the palace and have a word with them.

George VII would be good however his grandfather was an excellent example to follow.

The current queen can't die... she's..... imortal

Lets hope so

to the rescue

Gnomon: "Elizabeth, for example, chose to call herself Elizabeth II even though there wasn't an Elizabeth I. She's the Queen, she can call herself anything she likes."

Did I miss some major plot action somewhere in my history lessons? Am I showing all kinds of ignorance by asking what I'm missing here?

Deb

Her real name is Bob.

Hello Deb very good question

The first Elizabeth did not have a regnal number duing her lifetime, she was simply Queen Elizabeth.

The second Elizabeth was given the regnal suffix II by default and to avoid confusion with the first Elizabeth who at the coronation of the present queen was posthumously given the regnal suffix I.

There was no element of choice for the monarchs it is customer y and just happens that way.



Regnal - of or relating to a king or queen; royal: the regal power.

Thats why her picture is on a shilling 2legs

Charles dropped a hint a few years ago that he might be crowned 'Albert'.

I should think the reason for a regent to stay apolitical, is so that you don't need to get rid of them. Then they are representatives rather than a spanner in the democratic works.