Palace reshuffle 'brings Prince Charles closer to the throne'

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...es-throne.html

Buckingham Palace reshuffles key personnel in 'first step to bringing Prince Charles to the throne'

- MoS reveals Charles's aide will be media chief for entire Royal Household
- Hugely significant move is 'transition to a change of reign'

The Prince and Princess of Wales attended the State Opening of the British Parliament in 2013 alongside Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip. A role they will one day perform as King Charles III and Queen Camilla.

It was an announcement that went largely unnoticed amid the obligatory national debate about the New Year’s Honours List.

There, among the gongs, was a second knighthood for the Queen’s private secretary, Sir Christopher Geidt, awarded, according to the citation, for ‘a new approach to constitutional matters... [and] the preparation for the transition to a change of reign’.

It was a surprising admission. It is widely acknowledged the Queen will never abdicate and the succession is rarely, if ever, talked about in official terms.

But behind the Palace gates, preparations are being made.

And in the clearest sign yet that Her Majesty is getting ready to pass the mantle on to her son, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that the Prince of Wales is preparing to take control of the Royal Family media operation within weeks.

For the past 20 years, the Queen and her heir have operated separate press offices from Buckingham Palace and Clarence House respectively.

They will now be run from one office at the Palace, with Prince Charles’s head of communications, Sally Osman, at the helm.

There is little doubting the significance of the move, masterminded by Sir Christopher, or the ways in which it will increase Prince Charles’s influence.

The merging of the two offices clearly represents an important change in the way the Monarchy will be run.

One Royal confidante said: ‘This is the first step to bringing Charles to the throne.’

Of course the Queen could have many more years left in her considering the Queen Mother made it to 101, but it's often easy to forget that this doesn't guarantee the Queen the same health as her mother - the Queen Mother was walking about until weeks before her death. Queen Victoria in the year before her death (aged 81) couldn't manage to climb the stairs at a state event and had to stand outside at the bottom of the steps.

Unlikely that the Queen will ever abdicate, although if ill health or tiredness comes about then we could have an official Regency declared whereby Prince Charles becomes Prince-Regent - something we've only ever had once before in our history from my recollection.

Thoughts?

[GommeInc]

I thought Charles would be King George VII for some silly reason. Has that suddenly changed so he will be King Charles III? I remember seeing that written somewhere last Summer.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I thought Charles would be King George VII for some silly reason. Has that suddenly changed so he will be King Charles III? I remember seeing that written somewhere last Summer.

It was rumoured and could happen due to the negative connotations with Charles, but from what I have read since it won't or is unlikely to happen. I myself think he'll end up sticking with Charles. The same with the promise of Camilla being Princess Consort instead of Queen - unless legal changes take place then upon Queen Elizabeth's death then Camilla will become Queen Camilla.

[GommeInc]

It was rumoured and could happen due to the negative connotations with Charles, but from what I have read since it won't or is unlikely to happen. I myself think he'll end up sticking with Charles. The same with the promise of Camilla being Princess Consort instead of Queen - unless legal changes take place then upon Queen Elizabeth's death then Camilla will become Queen Camilla.

Hopefully it will remain the same, it'll be silly to change it based on problems with only two previous Charles' Third times the charm, after all, so they can't use superstitious reasons as an excuse. Continuity is good and he is known as Charles. As for Camilla, there's no real reason for her not to be Queen. She seems quite a nice person really. The only people who dislike her were people who were so pro-Diana they lost all sense of reason.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Hopefully it will remain the same, it'll be silly to change it based on problems with only two previous Charles' Third times the charm, after all, so they can't use superstitious reasons as an excuse. Continuity is good and he is known as Charles. As for Camilla, there's no real reason for her not to be Queen. She seems quite a nice person really. The only people who dislike her were people who were so pro-Diana they lost all sense of reason.

Agreed, it'll be nice to have a Charles after all these years too. And same, i'm keen on Camilla too.

I've been reading what happens when a new monarch comes about and it's pretty interesting. Until the 1900's for example, Parliament used to instantly dissolve upon the death of the King/Queen and all civil servants would have to reapply for their jobs to serve the new monarch. Another change (still in use) is that the first State Opening of Parliament by the new monarch won't include a Speech from the Throne but rather will just have peers of the realm pledge alligence to the new sovereign. It's also likely that the Imperial State Crown will be modified (again) as it has been with the past few monarchs who have customised it.

Quite interesting too how history is repeating itself with the long reign of a woman coming to a close (Queen Victoria/Queen Elizabeth) followed by a short reign by an older Prince of Wales (King Edward VII/Prince Charles) followed by a reasonable sized reign of King George V/Prince William. Pretty much a repeat of history although with longer lifespans.

[Aiden]

I like it when a Queen is in charge... it just sounds better.
Don't die.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I like it when a Queen is in charge... it just sounds better.
Don't die.

It'll be weird singing God Save the King.

I guess though when we are old (assuming a sovereign Britain and it's culture still exist then) our grandchildren will find the concept of a God Save the Queen and having a Queen as weird as they'll have only ever known Kings Charles, William and George.

[Aiden]

It'll be weird singing God Save the King.

I guess though when we are old (assuming a sovereign Britain and it's culture still exist then) our grandchildren will find the concept of a God Save the Queen and having a Queen as weird as they'll have only ever known Kings Charles, William and George.

Arn't you like gay though? Guess you can still have babies!

ot; Queen just sounds more modern to me than King but mehhhhhhhh

and who even sings that anyway lol

[GommeInc]

Agreed, it'll be nice to have a Charles after all these years too. And same, i'm keen on Camilla too.

I've been reading what happens when a new monarch comes about and it's pretty interesting. Until the 1900's for example, Parliament used to instantly dissolve upon the death of the King/Queen and all civil servants would have to reapply for their jobs to serve the new monarch. Another change (still in use) is that the first State Opening of Parliament by the new monarch won't include a Speech from the Throne but rather will just have peers of the realm pledge alligence to the new sovereign. It's also likely that the Imperial State Crown will be modified (again) as it has been with the past few monarchs who have customised it.

Quite interesting too how history is repeating itself with the long reign of a woman coming to a close (Queen Victoria/Queen Elizabeth) followed by a short reign by an older Prince of Wales (King Edward VII/Prince Charles) followed by a reasonable sized reign of King George V/Prince William. Pretty much a repeat of history although with longer lifespans.

Strangely it makes sense. As they are serving the Monarch they sort of need to refresh their allegiance. It is after all the Crown that gives them the power to act (concept of the Crown, I believe?). The Government need to make it known that they serve the Monarch and a change would mean that they need to show their allegiance again.

It would make sense for the Crown to be modified again. I imagine the current one would be considered a bit feminine and a more masculine looking alteration would be best suited for a male Monarch.

I guess the main change this time is that Charles may reign for a reasonable amount of time, and William would be middle-aged man when he takes the throne after Charles. Also William may be unlikely to abdicate, unless Katherine is a divorcee?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Arn't you like gay though? Guess you can still have babies!

ot; Queen just sounds more modern to me than King but mehhhhhhhh

and who even sings that anyway lol

'Our' as in the sense of the country, my people.

And i've sang it a few times haha, at War memorials and....... a Ukip conference.

Strangely it makes sense. As they are serving the Monarch they sort of need to refresh their allegiance. It is after all the Crown that gives them the power to act (concept of the Crown, I believe?). The Government need to make it known that they serve the Monarch and a change would mean that they need to show their allegiance again.

Indeed, it's not used anymore though. It wouldn't surprise me though that in such an event of the death of a monarch, the Government would go for a General Election within 6 months to a year...... it's a pretty big event to simply pass over.

It would make sense for the Crown to be modified again. I imagine the current one would be considered a bit feminine and a more masculine looking alteration would be best suited for a male Monarch.

Yeah, i'm sure the Queen had the current 'shell' of the ISC created so that it was lower and came across as more feminine. It's a shame really because the current shell is unique in that it sparkles whereas the older shells didn't. Apparently the older shells of George V etc are all on display in the Tower of London.

I guess the main change this time is that Charles may reign for a reasonable amount of time, and William would be middle-aged man when he takes the throne after Charles. Also William may be unlikely to abdicate, unless Katherine is a divorcee?

It works out that basically if the Queen lives to her mid-90's then Charles will come to the throne around 2020. If Charles lives to his mid-90's then his reign will end in the mid 2040's(?) - William would then come to the throne around age 50 and (assuming he lives to the ripe age of 100) would last until the 2080's/2090's. Baby George would by that time by in his 80's so he's looking at a pretty short reign even by life expectancy standards of the end of the century. Or they might go Dutch and start abdicating in their old age.

Nobody knows what will happen though I guess. Interesting to note that had Edward VIII not abdicated and had remained, that he died in the 1970s (childless) would have meant that the Queen would have still come to the throne but she'd only right now be celebrating 30 to 40 years instead of 60.