The future prince (King) Charles coins-Poll
rec78
Posts: 5,675 ✭✭✭✭✭
Let's face it Queen Elizabeth the second is getting pretty old-she won't be around forever. (Though, I hope she lives to be a hundred or more) Then we won't have to see many King Charles coins. He will be an old man when he is crowned King. I do not think that Charles is a good looking man at all. How could coins with his likeness possibly be attractive? Do you look forward to King Charles coins or hope that he never becomes King somehow? Many nations including Australia and Canada will probably use his portrait on their coins.
Bob
Bob
0
Comments
Charles will be lucky to have a reign even as long as Edward VII.
Charles III (or whatever regnal name he takes) will be as numismatically uninteresting as his mum, guaranteed due to the moderns practices of the Royal Mint.
<< <i>Poll option three - pass him over, and his son too and just make Kate queen. >>
He can't be "passed over", unless either (a) Charles dies before his mum, or (b) the parliaments of all sixteen Commonwealth realms simultaneously change their Succession Acts allowing someone else to inherit the throne. Charles is free to abdicate as soon as he becomes king, if he so wishes - but he can't stop himself becoming king just by saying he doesn't want the job. And option (b) isn't going to happen while the current queen is alive, either, because she's made it very clear in the past that she thinks the whole hereditary monarchy system works well as it is and Charles should do the job he's spent his whole life preparing for and become the next king. She'd be heartbroken if Charles went against her wishes and lobbied the parliaments to exclude him from the succession.
The one thing he could do to disqualify himself from the throne is to convert to another religion - especially, to become a Catholic. That would break his mother's heart, too, of course, so its also an unlikely option to actually occur.
As for the OP's original question...
<< <i> Do you look forward to King Charles coins? >>
Yes. Or to be more precise, I look forward to the final demarcation of the "Queen Elizabeth II coin set", and the ability to begin a new monarch. It's not something I've ever had the opportunity to experience; my parents were children the last time it happened.
Finally I have to add, given the annoying proclivity of the Royal Australian Mint, Perth Mint, and Royal Canadian Mint to produce postdated coins, that I am also "looking forward" to all these mints embarrassing themselves severely by issuing and selling coins in the name of Queen Elizabeth II that are "dated" after she died.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.
8 Reales Madness Collection
She will make it to 100-
Charles will select George in Honor of his Grandfather in the event that moment comes
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I think it's possible though that she might outlive him. Charles is already into his 60s, and the men in the Royal Family tend to not live as long as the women.
I hope he does get the chance, even if it is a brief chance.
I've been finding Canadian coinage in circulation here since the 1980s, and I while I imagine there will be less of that in the future (mostly cents) it will certainly be a moment to remember when I get the first of his, or Williams, "In the Wild" so to speak.
Elizabeth II's reign began before one of my parents was born, by a few months. Since I joined the hobby proper I've gotten coinage of quite a few other Kings of England/Great Britian, but no other Queens.
<< <i>
The one thing he could do to disqualify himself from the throne is to convert to another religion - especially, to become a Catholic. That would break his mother's heart, too, of course, so its also an unlikely option to actually occur.
>>
I am not quite sure how that 17th century mindset has a place in 21st century British politic - in fact his religion should have NO bearing on his ability or disability to ascend the throne.
He will be sacked before he can say "Edward the Eighth, I Am, I Am".
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
<< <i>I am not quite sure how that 17th century mindset has a place in 21st century British politic - in fact his religion should have NO bearing on his ability or disability to ascend the throne. >>
Still, the Law is the Law - the whole point of the English Civil War was to prove that the king was not above the Law and could not simply do whatever he wished regardless of the Law. The Act of Settlement of 1701 has never been repealed, and the wording is quite explicit:
<< <i>And it was thereby further enacted That all and every Person and Persons that then were or afterwards should be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or should professe the Popish Religion or marry a Papist should be excluded and are by that Act made for ever incapable to inherit possess or enjoy the Crown >>
.
At the time, Britain had "religious tests" for all public offices, which the American revolutionaries found so offensive they got a dishonourable mention in the US Constitution. These other tests were repealed in the 1820s, but the Act of Settlement remains.
There has been discussion in Britain about whether to reform the Succession, specifically to remove the ban on Catholics and to switch from male-preference primogeniture to absolute primogeniture (the first-born child becomes the heir, whether they are male or female). Doing so would bring the Succession into line with anti-discrimination laws that are already in place in most Commonwealth realms, but actually changing the law has proved a slow process, mainly because of the aforementioned need to synchronize 16 separate national parliaments. At the CHOGM 2011 meeting, it was finally agreed to allow first-born females to inherit the throne, but removing the anti-Catholic bias is still being debated, mainly because the British monarch is still head of the Church of England and they haven't figured out how to separate those roles.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.
FOR SALE Items
<< <i>
Still, the Law is the Law - the whole point of the English Civil War was to prove that the king was not above the Law and could not simply do whatever he wished regardless of the Law. The Act of Settlement of 1701 has never been repealed, and the wording is quite explicit:
<< <i>And it was thereby further enacted That all and every Person and Persons that then were or afterwards should be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or should professe the Popish Religion or marry a Papist should be excluded and are by that Act made for ever incapable to inherit possess or enjoy the Crown >>
.
At the time, Britain had "religious tests" for all public offices, which the American revolutionaries found so offensive they got a dishonourable mention in the US Constitution. These other tests were repealed in the 1820s, but the Act of Settlement remains.
There has been discussion in Britain about whether to reform the Succession, specifically to remove the ban on Catholics and to switch from male-preference primogeniture to absolute primogeniture (the first-born child becomes the heir, whether they are male or female). Doing so would bring the Succession into line with anti-discrimination laws that are already in place in most Commonwealth realms, but actually changing the law has proved a slow process, mainly because of the aforementioned need to synchronize 16 separate national parliaments. At the CHOGM 2011 meeting, it was finally agreed to allow first-born females to inherit the throne, but removing the anti-Catholic bias is still being debated, mainly because the British monarch is still head of the Church of England and they haven't figured out how to separate those roles. >>
One does wonder, how the British monarchy might have avoided lackluster monarchs with a progressive primogeniture law. Certainly the English experience with female monarchs can largely not be overlooked - Queen Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria and even the short reign of Queen Anne cannot be downplayed for the significance of their reigns. Sure there was Queen Mary, who should have been sidelined much as Lady Jane Grey had been.
I do sincerely believe that the House of Windsor can acclimate to the 21st century and absolve the "Head of the Church of England" obligation. Surely the monarchy is an institution of it's own, and is certainly NOT inseparable from the church. Quite bluntly the Church of England was a means of affording King Henry VIII a divorce and having final say instead of relying on Rome.