Charles III: Accession to the Throne: 8 September, 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Well she was quite busy:
6th Feb King George VI died at Sandringham
7th Feb The Queen returned from Kenya
8th Feb The Queen held her 1st Privy Council and then travelled to Sandringham
9th & 10th Feb at Sandringham
11th Feb The Queen attended a church service in Sandringham and then travelled to Westminster Hall where The King's coffin was taken.
12th Feb The Queen received The King of Norway and then had a meeting with the Prime Minister Winston Churchill.
13th Feb The Queen received a group of ministers and MPs for an address from the House of Commons.She later received the Prime Minister of New Zealand.
14th Feb The Queen received the Commonwealth High Commissioners and the Irish Ambassador. Later, the Queen received the representatives of Heads of States and governments who are due to attend the King's funeral.
15th Feb The King's funeral

Interesting that the Queen received the King of Norway, was it planned beforehand, Haakon just happen to be in UK, or he made a special visit after George VI's death?
 
Interesting that the Queen received the King of Norway, was it planned beforehand, Haakon just happen to be in UK, or he made a special visit after George VI's death?
The ties between both families was strengthened by the marriage of Queen Maud, a sister of King George V to King Haakon. Moreover, throughout King Haakon's exile during WWII he spent his time in the UK.
 
The ties between both families was strengthened by the marriage of Queen Maud, a sister of King George V to King Haakon. Moreover, throughout King Haakon's exile during WWII he spent his time in the UK.

Yes I knew that, that's why I would like to know is it a special visit from a family member rather than a official engagement between monarchs.
 
Interesting that the Queen received the King of Norway, was it planned beforehand, Haakon just happen to be in UK, or he made a special visit after George VI's death?

He came over after the death of George VI. He arrived the day before this
visit to the Queen.

The King and Queen of Sweden arrived in the UK on the 12th February

The other royals, including the Crown Prince and Crown Princess of Norway arrived on the 13th
 
I am not sure if this question has been asked before: after the King signed the Act of Accession, the Prince of Wales signed as the first witness and the Queen Consort as the second witness.


I wonder why the Prince of Wales came before the Queen. Is it because he is constitutionally the Number Two, the royal heir and future King?

This was the first Accession Council ever in public, so we do not know how it went in previous situations. With Queen Elizabeth II and King George VI their heir was underage. With Edward VIII his heir was the Duke of York, but as the King was unmarried, we still do not know whether a heir was given precedence over a Queen.
 
Last edited:
Just returning to earlier comments about how the new King has ‘hit the ground running’. His real time to personally mourn the loss of his mother will surely come after the funeral. Once the official mourning is done, hopefully he can have a few days to reflect away from the public eye.
 
The late Queen Mother was born in England. Unclear where exactly.

Queen Mary was born in London.

By blood I suppose it must be Anne Hyde?

Anne Hyde was never Queen - she died before James II became king. The last English Queen Consort was Catherine Parr, so we're going back almost half a millennium.
 
A Queen Consort is the spouse or partner of the King. So, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon ( the Queen Mother) was the last British Queen Consort.
 
Just returning to earlier comments about how the new King has ‘hit the ground running’. His real time to personally mourn the loss of his mother will surely come after the funeral. Once the official mourning is done, hopefully he can have a few days to reflect away from the public eye.

I believe he has declared an extra 7 days, after the national mourning ends, for the royal household. If my memory is correct that is when he will be able to get away somewhere - such as back to Birkhall or to Highgrove or even to his cottage in Wales - to mourn. He went to Wales for about a week after his father's funeral and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't do something similar this time. Of course wherever he goes, if he does go anywhere, the red boxes will follow.
 
A Queen Consort is the spouse or partner of the King. So, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon ( the Queen Mother) was the last British Queen Consort.

The question was English Queen Consort, not British. :)
 
I am so happy to see he publicly and explicitly stated his love for Harry and Meghan, to shut the media up! I have always felt he couldn't do such a public declaration whilst his late mother was alive, but now he can. It's not that I think the late Queen didn't like Meghan and Harry, but rather she was from an era where you don't do such things. Charles has always come across a lot more emotional and this shows it. I think this public declaration alkso shows he will not issue letters patent removing titles from Archie and Lilibet. It is a massive olive branch and I applaud him doing this.

Am I the only person who feels Charles was issuing another message in that speech? "As they build their lives overseas."

In other words, We love you but make sure you stay in the USA.
 
Am I the only person who feels Charles was issuing another message in that speech? "As they build their lives overseas."



In other words, We love you but make sure you stay in the USA.

I interpret the message as "We love you and wish you well on the path that you've chosen for yourself".
 
Am I the only person who feels Charles was issuing another message in that speech? "As they build their lives overseas."

In other words, We love you but make sure you stay in the USA.

I interpret the message as "We love you and wish you well on the path that you've chosen for yourself".

I feel like it was both of these. I don't see it as this massive material Olive Branch that he was yearning to do but couldn't because of HMTQ. It's pretty much the same as HM saying "they're still both beloved members of the family and we wish them well" every announcement BP made about them. He didn't use their titles even though they both do in California and was definitely in contrast to Camilla, William and Catherine's new role.

By all accounts he has been very upset at the accusations the Sussexes have lobbed at him and he has been involved in not giving them the HIHO they wanted - more so than the Queen.

That said, we'll have to see what happens now, I think it was good that he mentioned them.
 
Last edited:
I interpret the message as "We love you and wish you well on the path that you've chosen for yourself".



That’s my take. I also somewhat took it mean there likely isn’t any possibility of coming back or changing their minds. They made a choice. It’s done.

I do think he was making a point by not using their titles. They said they wanted out- they’re out. That had to be deliberate word choice imo.

ETA- I have no doubt he’s been hurt by what’s been said over the last few years publicly by them.

In general- I don’t think he’s changed tone from how BP has dealt with them all along as the poster above said. Difference mostly is, he said it himself, on camera.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure if this question has been asked before: after the King signed the Act of Accession, the Prince of Wales signed as the first witness and the Queen Consort as the second witness.


I wonder why the Prince of Wales came before the Queen. Is it because he is constitutionally the Number Two, the royal heir and future King?

This was the first Accession Council ever in public, so we do not know how it went in previous situations. With Queen Elizabeth II and King George VI their heir was underage. With Edward VIII his heir was the Duke of York, but as the King was unmarried, we still do not know whether a heir was given precedence over a Queen.


They both signed as Privy Counsellors. The Prince of Wales has been a member of the Council longer than the Queen Consort, so maybe that is the reason.


The UK has separate orders of precedence for men and women, so it is not a situation as in the previous Queen's reign where Prince Philip had higher precedence than Prince Charles. Prince William is the second highest ranking male in the Kingdom after HM The King whereas HM The Queen Consort is the highest ranking female. The Queen Consort and the Prince of Wales do not have precedence relatively to each other.


I was going to comment on the new precedence table in the Order of Precedence forum, but I am waiting to see first if the King will announce any change to the precedence rules as part of his planned reforms.
 
If Charles had referred to Harry and Meghan by their titles then I think it would have been inevitable that observers would have taken from it that Charles wanted to convey that things were very cold and formal between them. I liked the informality of Charles referring to his son by name, and I think he wishes both Harry and Meghan well.
 
If Charles had referred to Harry and Meghan by their titles then I think it would have been inevitable that observers would have taken from it that Charles wanted to convey that things were very cold and formal between them. I liked the informality of Charles referring to his son by name, and I think he wishes both Harry and Meghan well.



The more I think about it- I think the Queen used their names too. It really was no different of a message than we’ve heard all along. Difference is he said it himself.

I think the non use of titles can be both: A way of making a point about their choice and not sounding cold.

I have no doubt Charles wishes them well. Harry is his son. I’m sure he also wishes they’d stop publicly complaining, threatening, etc. One can only hope that this time Harry means what he just said following the death of his grandmother.
 
Am I the only person who feels Charles was issuing another message in that speech? "As they build their lives overseas."

In other words, We love you but make sure you stay in the USA.

Good Lord How petty would Charles be to mean someting like that?
 
Am I the only person who feels Charles was issuing another message in that speech? "As they build their lives overseas."

In other words, We love you but make sure you stay in the USA.

Even if that's what Charles wanted to say, he would NEVER use his first speech as monarch after his mother's death to say it.

As it is, I don't think he feels that way, even a scintilla of a percent. Has he been annoyed with them? Sure. That doesn't mean he'd take a not-so-thinly-veiled swipe at them in such a public way by basically saying, "Once you leave the UK again, don't come back."
 
Good Lord How petty would Charles be to mean someting like that?

That is just the intake of a fellow poster. My perception was: a loving and warm well-wishes to his youngest son on his chosen path.
 
Maybe it's my hearing but the music played as the King entered the Scottish Parliament sounded like a pre-school band playing Scotland the Brave backwards.
 
I don't think for one second that Charles meant it like that. I took it that he was saying that he accepted Harry's decision to live abroad.
 
That is just the intake of a fellow poster. My perception was: a loving and warm well-wishes to his youngest son on his chosen path.

I would agree. I am not sure what people expected him to say , once he mentioned William he needed to speak about Harry or that would have been a dig.
 
Anne Hyde was never Queen - she died before James II became king. The last English Queen Consort was Catherine Parr, so we're going back almost half a millennium.

Yes of course you're right, my mistake. In that case it must be Catherine Parr.
 
Back
Top Bottom