William and Catherine 4

[mango_fandango]

The Princess Royal title is not automatically awarded to the eldest daughter of the monarch. Princess Anne didn't get made Princess Royal until 1987 when she was 37. In any case, Charlotte probably wouldn't be given the title until she's at least 18. 

[viii]

5 hours ago, louisa05 said:

Yep. Poor Philip dying so young at 99 years and 10 months. 

Gone too soon. 

It doesn’t take much googling to see that he’s an outlier in that family when it comes to the men living long. 

I would be surprised if Charles saw 90, and I believed that before his cancer diagnosis. 

[Father Son Holy Goat]

5 hours ago, Alisamer said:

Have you heard the dirty Bertie song? It starts at 19:37 

 

Edited February 14 by Father Son Holy Goat

[tabitha2]

2 hours ago, viii said:

Gone too soon. 

It doesn’t take much googling to see that he’s an outlier in that family when it comes to the men living long. 

I would be surprised if Charles saw 90, and I believed that before his cancer diagnosis. 

Why exactly? His health and habits have always been exemplary. Certainly None of smoking and drinking that offed his male kin and both his parents lived very long very fit lives. And  FWIW there are several very elderly male relatives living and still getting around right now In Edward of Kent and Prince Michael of Kent for instance. 

[viii]

Because the average age expectancy for a British man is 80. We don’t know the full extent of Charles’ habits, and while he does seem healthier than most, 80 is still a very normal age to live to. Because of his lifestyle I could see him living to 90 but you just never know. Once you get to a certain age, unfortunately the littlest thing can sometimes take you out. 

[louisa05]

15 hours ago, mango_fandango said:

The Princess Royal title is not automatically awarded to the eldest daughter of the monarch. Princess Anne didn't get made Princess Royal until 1987 when she was 37. In any case, Charlotte probably wouldn't be given the title until she's at least 18. 

No one else can have the title as long as Anne is alive. Are we killing her and Charles both off in the next ten years now? This is starting to feel ghoulish. 

[viii]

Talking about foreseeable death doesn't seem ghoulish to me. I think it's far creepier the way some people talk about wiping out the entire Wales family so Harry will be king than talking about two people in their 70's passing away in the next 10-15 years. 

We really are fortunate we're not in the olden times, because we'd all be sitting in the Tower (with Harry) for treason! 

[Alisamer]

10 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

Why exactly? His health and habits have always been exemplary. Certainly None of smoking and drinking that offed his male kin and both his parents lived very long very fit lives. And  FWIW there are several very elderly male relatives living and still getting around right now In Edward of Kent and Prince Michael of Kent for instance. 

Edward of Kent is 88 apparently, and Prince Michael is 81.

I think everyone, even Charles, probably expected he'd have a short-ish reign, but one that is probably not terribly unusual as monarchs go historically. It's just how it seems to go, you get a monarch who takes the throne quite young for whatever reason (see: Victoria at barely 18,  Elizabeth II at 25, George III at 22) and who then reigns for a very long time. Barring early deaths of their descendents, they will be followed by a series of comparatively shorter reigning monarchs until something unusual happens and the cycle begins again. 

Without the cancer diagnosis, I think the majority of people would kind of have a vague sense of "oh, he'll probably live into his 90s or so, then William will take the throne when he's old, and George will take the throne when he's old..." and figure each of them will get like in the vicinity of 20-30 years of reign at most? 

The cancer diagnosis has thrown a wrench in the works, but he's getting very good treatment and it sounds like it was caught early as best I can tell, so there's no telling what'll happen. Life is full of randomness.

[mango_fandango]

I wasn’t trying to imply that Anne would die soon. Just some people had been talking about the Princess Royal title and I wanted to clarify that it’s not automatically awarded. But yeah, I probably should’ve mentioned it that Anne will keep the title until she dies. Even if William were to take the throne before she died.

[SoSoNosy]

I kind of see Charlotte as hard working as Anne has been; she certainly coached her brothers on proper behavior in public.

 

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

The thing about looking back at all their ancestors length of life is most of the data points mentioned are coming from people who were born over a century ago, before penicillin was even discovered.  I'm not sure those ages are very relevant in the more modern age of medicine. I believe both world wars brought with them advancement in medicine by sheer necessity as well.  What we need are some british actuarial tables.  in to order to have a truly informed discussion 🤪

I have a hard time imagining Charles isn't getting the best of care. And Charles has always been active and generally healthy lifestyle.

Many cancers if caught early are very treatable. Anecdotally, I recently had a coworker who was diagnosed with a very aggressive and deadly breast cancer. And she beat it. 

Of course, you never know, but  I had to make a bet I'd go longer life over shorter even if 80 is a normal age for men to die in UK

[noseybutt]

I thought there had long been speculation about chronic health issues with Charles because of his swollen hands and general grouchiness when he is tired. Also his promotion of homeopathy—most people are not attracted to homeopathy unless they believe it works for them in a way Western medicine does not. 

[GreenBeans]

5 hours ago, noseybutt said:

I thought there had long been speculation about chronic health issues with Charles because of his swollen hands and general grouchiness when he is tired.

He’s in his 70s. Most people that age are retired and not working a full time job with huge public exposure! If he wasn’t the king of England, he’d just be a Grandpa who gets a bit grumpy when his age-related illnesses act up every once in a while.

I think it’s really interesting how there is no limitation of age for many public offices - king or queen, US president, German chancellor, Supreme Court judge (? Not sure about this one). These jobs are so demanding - intellectually, mentally but also physically (at least for high-profile politicians). So much traveling, so many meetings, public appearances, speeches, different time zones… It’s crazy to be doing that at 75 or even 80 years and older, I mean there are reasons people typically retire in their 60s.

Edited February 15 by GreenBeans

[VGL]

Supreme Court judges retire at 75 in Canada.

[GreenBeans]

2 minutes ago, VGL said:

Supreme Court judges retire at 75 in Canada.

I just checked, here in Germany it’s 68 years (and their term is limited to 12 years).

[noseybutt]

2 hours ago, GreenBeans said:

He’s in his 70s. Most people that age are retired and not working a full time job with huge public exposure! If he wasn’t the king of England, he’d just be a Grandpa who gets a bit grumpy when his age-related illnesses act up every once in a while.

I think it’s really interesting how there is no limitation of age for many public offices - king or queen, US president, German chancellor, Supreme Court judge (? Not sure about this one). These jobs are so demanding - intellectually, mentally but also physically (at least for high-profile politicians). So much traveling, so many meetings, public appearances, speeches, different time zones… It’s crazy to be doing that at 75 or even 80 years and older, I mean there are reasons people typically retire in their 60s.

I completely agree about retirement. The speculation about Charles’s health has been around for decades. 

[Alisamer]

14 hours ago, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

The thing about looking back at all their ancestors length of life is most of the data points mentioned are coming from people who were born over a century ago, before penicillin was even discovered.  I'm not sure those ages are very relevant in the more modern age of medicine. I believe both world wars brought with them advancement in medicine by sheer necessity as well.  What we need are some british actuarial tables.  in to order to have a truly informed discussion 🤪

I have a hard time imagining Charles isn't getting the best of care. And Charles has always been active and generally healthy lifestyle.

Many cancers if caught early are very treatable. Anecdotally, I recently had a coworker who was diagnosed with a very aggressive and deadly breast cancer. And she beat it. 

Of course, you never know, but  I had to make a bet I'd go longer life over shorter even if 80 is a normal age for men to die in UK

I agree, and also I think that itself informs things a bit - if many of the older ancestors were living into their mid 60's and up, during a time when medicine was not so advanced, there were far fewer treatments available, AND these same men were mostly smoking like chimneys on top of it - that to me seems to indicate a likelihood that Charles may well live at least to if not past the average life expectancy for men in the UK. He has healthier habits than his predecessors and has access to better medical care, so is probably likely to live longer than them.

Or he could trip over a fancy rug and hit his head on a marble statue tomorrow. Nobody knows. 

Although I kind of feel like even if he lives to a hundred, he may well be the sort to have done a lot of the transition work already before he passes, if it's not a sudden death. Elizabeth did have Charles and William filling in for her as counsellors of state more often as she got older, I could see Charles doing the same. Not an abdication, but by the time he passed of old age he might well have William and George handling all but the biggest most important responsibilities. 

 

[libgirl2]

On 2/14/2024 at 10:42 AM, Alisamer said:

Edward of Kent is 88 apparently, and Prince Michael is 81.

I think everyone, even Charles, probably expected he'd have a short-ish reign, but one that is probably not terribly unusual as monarchs go historically. It's just how it seems to go, you get a monarch who takes the throne quite young for whatever reason (see: Victoria at barely 18,  Elizabeth II at 25, George III at 22) and who then reigns for a very long time. Barring early deaths of their descendents, they will be followed by a series of comparatively shorter reigning monarchs until something unusual happens and the cycle begins again. 

Without the cancer diagnosis, I think the majority of people would kind of have a vague sense of "oh, he'll probably live into his 90s or so, then William will take the throne when he's old, and George will take the throne when he's old..." and figure each of them will get like in the vicinity of 20-30 years of reign at most? 

The cancer diagnosis has thrown a wrench in the works, but he's getting very good treatment and it sounds like it was caught early as best I can tell, so there's no telling what'll happen. Life is full of randomness.

Elizabeth I was 25 and ruled for 44 years. She had a long life for that time period. 

[Giraffe]

4 hours ago, VGL said:

Supreme Court judges retire at 75 in Canada.

I wish ours had mandatory retirement.

[louisa05]

2 hours ago, Alisamer said:

 

 Elizabeth did have Charles and William filling in for her as counsellors of state more often as she got older, I could see Charles doing the same. Not an abdication, but by the time he passed of old age he might well have William and George handling all but the biggest most important responsibilities. 

 

The only time they actually represented her in that capacity was the State Opening of Parliament in May, 2022. Other events that one of them substituted for her were not official state duties so they were not acting as counsellors of state. 

[Alisamer]

4 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

The only time they actually represented her in that capacity was the State Opening of Parliament in May, 2022. Other events that one of them substituted for her were not official state duties so they were not acting as counsellors of state. 

Thanks for the clarification! I knew they had done at least one "official" thing like that, but had also done quite a few of the smaller events and such, just not which things counted as counsellors and which didn't. 

[louisa05]

1 minute ago, Alisamer said:

Thanks for the clarification! I knew they had done at least one "official" thing like that, but had also done quite a few of the smaller events and such, just not which things counted as counsellors and which didn't. 

Official State Duties would be calling or dissolving Parliament (The Queen Mother and Margaret did the latter as Counsellors of State once when she was out of the country), accepting new Prime Ministers (the last State Duty she completed), The State Opening of Parliament, and signing new legislation. 

It's important to note that Counsellors of State do not act only when the Monarch is ill as many seem to think. It can be because he or she is unavailable. 

[Alisamer]

7 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

Official State Duties would be calling or dissolving Parliament (The Queen Mother and Margaret did the latter as Counsellors of State once when she was out of the country), accepting new Prime Ministers (the last State Duty she completed), The State Opening of Parliament, and signing new legislation. 

It's important to note that Counsellors of State do not act only when the Monarch is ill as many seem to think. It can be because he or she is unavailable. 

Good to know. I did know that they can act in various situations - but I think also the monarch has to sign an actual decree giving them the power to do those things during that time, right? It's not an automatic thing. So that can cause a pickle if the monarch is suddenly incapacitated to the point of being unable to do that, in my understanding. And also it's why usually for underage monarchs there's a regency put in place, I think.

So Counsellors of State are for the big official government related responsibilities, have to be officially called up essentially by the monarch, and can do so if they are ill, out of the country, or for whatever reason feel unable to do those particular jobs, if I'm understanding correctly. 

I love how much there is to learn from people here!

[VGL]

Counsellors of State are always appointed in at least a pair or sometimes a trio.   They never function alone.   That's why William was in attendance for the Speech from the Throne in 2022 when Charles delivered the speech.

[viii]

I thought there was always four Counsellors of State and people were losing their minds before the Queen died because both Harry and Andrew was part of that foursome.