Charles is Now King Charles III and Prince William is Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay, not Prince of Wales yet. The title Prince of Wales has to be bestowed on the eldest son of the Monarch, it's not inherited, the only title to be inherited is Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay in Scotland. 

King Charles became Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay upon his mother's accession as Queen in 1952, he wasn't created Prince of Wales until 1958.

Yes, stamps can be produced pretty quickly but coins will take longer. Edward VIII reigned for 11 months and no coins were put into general circulation at all, but stamps were.

I don't mind admitting that I'm utterly distraught at this news, short of deaths within close family the passing of the Queen will be the most traumatic for most Brits. It's as if the very foundations on which we stand have shaken, but we'll go on of course with our new King Charles III.

This is the picture I tried to post earlier, our new King.

Well stamps, coins & regalia are important, but your economy has fallen to #6 behind India & inflation is running rampant even though the Bank of England was one of the first to raise the interest rate. Most important of all is will the U.K. stay as one, or split into 4 different countries? With troubling times ahead King Charles III has big shoes to fill indeed. 

Just a hour or so before the Queen's death was made known to Parliament Liz Truss announced a freeze or energy bills, without it we'd all be struggling. It's predicted that this move alone will reduce the inflation rate by half, still high but not unmanageable.

No prospect of a breakup of the Union in our lifetime, certainly not in King Charles'. 

Of all the words spoken over the last 24 hours the one that struck me the most was "This is the big one".

And if you want to talk duty how about her last performance appointing Liz Truss, everything was probably in the process of shutting down then, but still she did it.

Yes, duty up to the very end. A close look at her fingers upon appointing P.M. Truss reveals a pale white color which indicates a circulation problem. 

Dr. Tommy M.D.

If the persist in being slow on the uptake try explaining Consort as husband or wife - Prince Philip was the Queen's Consort and Camilla is King Charles'.  

The term Queen Consort is used to distinguish between a reigning Queen such as Elizabeth II and her mother, also Elizabeth, to say simply "Queen Elizabeth" would elicit the question "which one?" 

King Charles III, if you're a supporter of the Stuart Monarchy we've already had a Charles III.

King James II was deposed in 1689 after fleeing to France. He died in exile in 1701 and his son James proclaimed himself King James III. He had a long "reign" dying in 1766 when his son Charles, better known to us as Bonnie Prince Charlie, was hailed as King Charles III. He died in 1788. 

King Charles III, if you're a supporter of the Stuart Monarchy we've already had a Charles III.

King James II was deposed in 1689 after fleeing to France. He died in exile in 1701 and his son James proclaimed himself King James III. He had a long "reign" dying in 1766 when his son Charles, better known to us as Bonnie Prince Charlie, was hailed as King Charles III. He died in 1788. 

OK Mark, you've done it again. I am thoroughly confused. Different families the Stuart's & Windsor's? How can there be two monarchs with the same name? Why not add a Jr. to it?

Rather like Trump claiming to be President today, he doesn't recognize his defeat.

The last male Stuart King James II was deposed in 1689 and lived out his life in exile in France still claiming to be the rightful King. After his death in 1701 his son James inherited his father's claim and called himself James III and after his death in 1766 the Stuart claim passed to his son Bonnie Prince Charlie who took the entirely empty and meaningless title of Charles III. He died childless so the Stuart line passed to his brother who was hailed by Stuart exiles as Henry IX. None of these titles meant anything of course after 1689.

James II while in exile from 1689 to 1701 maintained a rival Royal Court in France appointing Ministers and granting Peerages, but none of the titles he granted are recognized as genuine.

Imagine Trump setting up a rival administration in Florida calling himself President with a full Cabinet of Ministers and you'll get the picture. 

Charles is Now King Charles III and Prince William is Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay, not Prince of Wales yet. The title Prince of Wales has to be bestowed on the eldest son of the Monarch, it's not inherited, the only title to be inherited is Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay in Scotland. 

King Charles became Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay upon his mother's accession as Queen in 1952, he wasn't created Prince of Wales until 1958.

Prince William has been "upgraded" to Prince of Wales just one day into Charles III's reign. So he is now Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall, Rothesay and Cambridge.

Rather like Trump claiming to be President today, he doesn't recognize his defeat.

The last male Stuart King James II was deposed in 1689 and lived out his life in exile in France still claiming to be the rightful King. After his death in 1701 his son James inherited his father's claim and called himself James III and after his death in 1766 the Stuart claim passed to his son Bonnie Prince Charlie who took the entirely empty and meaningless title of Charles III. He died childless so the Stuart line passed to his brother who was hailed by Stuart exiles as Henry IX. None of these titles meant anything of course after 1689.

James II while in exile from 1689 to 1701 maintained a rival Royal Court in France appointing Ministers and granting Peerages, but none of the titles he granted are recognized as genuine.

Imagine Trump setting up a rival administration in Florida calling himself President with a full Cabinet of Ministers and you'll get the picture. 

Thank you Mark. Got it.

Going back to the days when a reigning Queen had true power the fact that her husband was not given equal rank ie King, showed that as Queen she had the authority over the country not him, in an age when women became subservient to their husbands once married. It wouldn't do for the husband of a reigning Queen to assert his authority as the husband to take over the running of the country and expect his wife to follow his orders.  

Occasionally a Queen Regnant could elevate her husband to the rank of King, Mary, Queen of Scots did so with her second husband Henry upon their marriage in 1565. They appear together on her coins from 1565.

I am curious about the scope of the King's power regarding the line of succession.   Could Charles III insert Princess Anne into the line of succession after Princess Lilibet and then on to Prince Andrew?  Such a move would elevate him in the eyes of the British women.  It just seems unfair that she was left out (I know, Royal Decree and all that) when her own mother was Queen.

The Monarch has no authority to alter the line of succession as laid down in the 1701 Act of Settlement as revised by the 2013 Succession to the Crown Act.

It states (since 2013) that the Crown passes to the next heir in blood born after October 2011, before 2013 it was the next male heir. 

The only way for anyone to be bypassed for the Crown is if they personally renounce their rights. 

It has no practical repercussions as Prince William's eldest child is a boy, but it has placed his second child Princess Charlotte ahead of her younger brother Prince Louis which would not have been the case prior to 2013. 

I am curious about the scope of the King's power regarding the line of succession.   Could Charles III insert Princess Anne into the line of succession after Princess Lilibet and then on to Prince Andrew?  Such a move would elevate him in the eyes of the British women.  It just seems unfair that she was left out (I know, Royal Decree and all that) when her own mother was Queen.

The Monarch has no authority to alter the line of succession as laid down in the 1701 Act of Settlement as revised by the 2013 Succession to the Crown Act.

It states (since 2013) that the Crown passes to the next heir in blood born after October 2011, before 2013 it was the next male heir. 

The only way for anyone to be bypassed for the Crown is if they personally renounce their rights. 

It has no practical repercussions as Prince William's eldest child is a boy, but it has placed his second child Princess Charlotte ahead of her younger brother Prince Louis which would not have been the case prior to 2013. 

Insert Prince Andrew into the line of succession & by doing so elevate King Charles III in the eyes of British women???? Really Shula...........have you temporarily taken leave of your senses????? You mean "Randy Andy."

I think what Shula is getting at is the non-retrospective nature of the 2013 Act. Prince Andrew is, at the moment, 8th in the Line of Succession. If the Act of 2013 had been retrospective he would drop several places down and Princess Anne would be 8th in his place. 

I think what Shula is getting at is the non-retrospective nature of the 2013 Act. Prince Andrew is, at the moment, 8th in the Line of Succession. If the Act of 2013 had been retrospective he would drop several places down and Princess Anne would be 8th in his place. 

I get that Mark, my point to her post was about being "elevated" in the eyes of British women. This is Andrew, the frequent visitor to Lolita Island, Epstein's buddy. His name & "elevation" in the eyes of women just don't wash. 

I think what Shula is getting at is the non-retrospective nature of the 2013 Act. Prince Andrew is, at the moment, 8th in the Line of Succession. If the Act of 2013 had been retrospective he would drop several places down and Princess Anne would be 8th in his place. 

I get that Mark, my point to her post was about being "elevated" in the eyes of British women. This is Andrew, the frequent visitor to Lolita Island, Epstein's buddy. His name & "elevation" in the eyes of women just don't wash. 

Further to the last: I think the Queen elevated Andrew in the eyes of British women when she "defrocked" him back in January. 

No, Tom.  I wasn't saying elevate Prince Andrew.  In fact, I suggested moving him down a notch.  I understand that Succession Act but did want to express my view on Princess Anne's capabilities.  If fact, if she had been first-born I would not have been disappointed.  She cuts a fine figure as a stately woman.

OK Shula, but rather than moving him down a notch, try to forget about him. Put him in the Hunter Biden class of bad seeds. 

By a spooky coincidence the Queen died at Balmoral on the 174th anniversary of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert first visiting the castle.

The Royal couple had stayed at a number of residences as guests in Scotland, but did not have a property of their own. After a very wet stay on the west coast in 1847 it was suggested they look further east for a better climate. Owned by the Earl of Fife, but leased to Sir Robert Gordon, brother of the Earl of Aberdeen, since 1830 Balmoral fell vacant at the end of the year upon Sir Robert's sudden death. The new leaseholder Lord Aberdeen leased it to the Queen and Prince Albert sight unseen. They made their first visit on 8 September 1848. They bought it outright four years later.

I put this on in June after the Jubilee, but here it is again.

Apparently among the flowers and tributes someone put a marmalade sandwich in a little plastic bag marked "for later", Excuse my tears.

Prince Andrew could have had a very impressive life but something went wrong with him and now he's just a creepy guy.  I dare say he caused the Queen more heart ache than Harry moving to the U.S.

Not his fault Shula. Fergy made him kinky.