Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
Found the internet!
r/explainlikeimfive
161
Posted by3 months ago

ELI5: Death of Queen Elizabeth II Megathread

Elizabeth II, queen of England, died today. We expect many people will have questions about this subject. Please direct all of those questions here: other threads will be deleted.

Please remember to be respectful. Rule 1 does not just apply to redditors, it applies to everyone. Regardless of anyone's personal feelings about her or the royal family, there are human beings grieving the loss of a loved one.

Please remember to be objective. ELI5 is not the appropriate forum to discuss your personal feelings about the royal family, any individual members of the royal family, etc. Questions and comments should be about objective topics. Opinionated discussion can be healthy, but it belongs in subreddits like r/changemyview, not ELI5.

411 comments
87% Upvoted
level 1
· 3 mo. ago · edited 3 mo. ago
Helpful

Just a point of correction - despite the opening sentence of this post, she was NOT the Queen of England. That title was abolished in 1707 (along with the title of King/Queen of Scotland) when the Kingdom of Great Britain was formed.

The title of the British monarch changed again in 1801 to the King/Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, and once more in 1921 to King/Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which is the title that Elizabeth II had when she died. Those last couple of changes were more simply following political realities, but the main point is that in 1707 the Kingdom of England ceased to exist, and so did its monarchy.

I'm happy to ELI5 further if anyone has questions about this specific point.

77
level 2

I have questions!

Why does it exist if they aren’t really the king/queen?

Do they hold any power in government?

It appears like that family is tax-payer funded. Why is the UK cool with that?

16
level 2

Oh my God, there actually IS/WAS no Queen of England!

2
level 2
· 2 mo. ago · edited 2 mo. ago

Charles should go back to the English monarchy's tradition of also claiming to be the King of France.

1
level 1

I really just want to know if this event will have any actual repercussions on her "subjects". Will things change for people at all?

47
level 2

New money and stamps. Various other physical changes to uniforms, signs, documents etc. Plus, we'll all have to sing [or politely refrain from singing] "King" instead of "Queen" at the start of national sporting events.

75
level 2

Charles is expected to be a bit more proactive

But day to day. No

New coins. New notes. New lyrics to an anthem. A few portraits will be changed.

11
level 2

Not much except changes to certain items.

The Royal Family is kind of a stupid thing in the fact that there’s no point to it. Royal members only purposes are to just show up to events and wave. They don’t make any major decisions for the country and have no authority to actually approve or disapprove on laws.

6
level 2

Symbolic stuff will change like the currency (eventually).

In terms of actual laws, no, nothing changes.

5
level 2

I have heard that Charles is planning on reducing the number of Royals eligible to be supported by the state, and also to turn Balmoral into a museum. So, in theory, the monarchy should get cheaper.

2
level 2

In Australia, all our future coins from 2023 onwards will feature King Charles III on the back, instead of Queen Elizabeth II.

2
level 2

I really just want to know if this event will have any actual repercussions on her "subjects". Will things change for people at all?

There will likely be some changes in the UK after Queen Elizabeth II's death, although it is difficult to say exactly what those changes will be. The queen was a very popular and influential figure, and her death will certainly be felt by many people in the country. It is possible that some of her subjects may feel more motivated to get involved in politics or other affairs after her death, in order to help shape the future of the UK.

1
level 2

You sort of have to live here.

A lifelong republican (British so small r, not GOP) like me still understands the significance of it, no matter how cloying the verbal diarrhoea from an array of sycophantic bloviators and BBC commentators who don' know when to shut the hell up and let the picture tell the story.

It is constitutionally important in a far from obvious way, thanks to Liz. She had a very specific way of approaching her reign that made it very hard to know what her true feelings were on any political issue.

Chaz has spent many years sharing his opinion - some sensible, some bonkers - so he is already better 'known' then his mum. This will leave him vulnerable to attack in a way that she wasn't. And since (contrary to popular belief) his constitutional role is not non-trivial, that could prove very important.

1

3 more replies

level 1

Does this make Camilla queen then? Would she take power if Charles passes first? Are her kids eligible for the crown at some point now or does it follow with the kids he had with princess Di?

10
level 2
· 3 mo. ago · edited 3 mo. ago

Camilla is Charles's consort. She has no rights to the crown.

The line goes:

-Charles -William -George -Charlotte -Louise -Harry

Edit: formatting

23
level 2

Does this make Camilla queen then?

In the same way previous kings' wives were queens, yes. The technical term for a king's wife is queen consort while Elizabeth, as a female monarch, was queen regnant. Confusingly, both roles were traditionally just called "queen". As queen consort, Camilla will not have the same powers Elizabeth had, those have passed to King Charles.

It remains to be seen whether she will actually use the title of Queen; she didn't use the title of Princess of Wales as it was too strongly connected with Diana in the public imagination.

Are her kids eligible for the crown

If she had children with Charles after they were married, those would be in line for the throne after William and Harry and their children. But she doesn't have any, and it's highly unlikely that she will.

Any other children of hers don't gain a place in the royal succession.

10
level 2

A little late but I saw your question - I assume you’re American.

Both Elizabeth and Camilla were/are called “Queen,” but it isn’t the same type of queen. Elizabeth was a Queen regnant. Her dad was king and she inherited the job because he had no sons. The job was entirely hers. Her husband had nothing to do with it.

A queen consort, which is what Camilla is, is the wife of the king, the man who inherited the job. Her husband has everything to do with the title, and if he dies, she’s no longer the queen. You’d call her a dowager Queen, meaning she was a queen once, before she was widowed. Elizabeth’s mother, also named Elizabeth, was referred to as the “Queen Mum,” which sounds so nice and friendly. The minute Charles dies it will be King William and Queen Catherine - Catherine will also be a Queen consort. Queen regnants are relatively rare, there have only been a few of them.

Think of it, in American terms, of the First Lady. She’s only First Lady while her husband is president. If she had been elected president herself, she’d have the title of president forever.

9
level 2

Yes, no and no. In that order. She’s Queen consort (by marriage), but she can’t succeed for the throne nor her children.

4
level 2

She is the queen consort, similar to how Philip was the king consort. She will not take the throne when he does and her children are not eligible for the throne. If goes down through Diana’s kids.

9

About Community

Explain Like I'm Five is the best forum and archive on the internet for layperson-friendly explanations. Don't Panic!
Created Jul 28, 2011

21.6m

Members

10.6k

Online

#14

Ranked by Size