Future "King Charles" coins for the Commonwealth?
DBSTrader2
Posts: 3,460 ✭✭✭✭
The last British monarch to go thru multiple portrait iterations on coinage during their reign was Victoria. Queen Elizabeth is now up to 4 portraits. QEII's been the only monarch & image on British Commonwealth coins for my entire life.
I never really gave it that much thought until I saw an online article discussing what Camilla's title will be if & when Prince Charles becomes King. Although I would never wish anything bad on QEII, the thought of a new royal finally ascending to the obverse of coins from Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc would be kind of exciting to me.
What do fellow Forum members think? Looking forward to a change from a numismatic perspective? If so, who would you prefer to see ascend to the throne at this point? And what portrait version would you like to see represent him?
Comments
Charles has already been portrayed on coins of the U.K., upon his marriage and on his 50th and 60th birthdays. As his 70th birthday falls later this year, it would not be a surprise to see him appear again.
I believe that Her Majesty is now up to five different portraits on the regular circulating coinage of the U.K. (IIRC, portraits the works of Gillick, Machin, Maklouf, Rank-Broadley and Clark).
BillDugan:
I originally thought she was up to more than 4 as well, but checked a website & only saw the following 4 effigies on Canadian circulating coins, which I was going by:
(1) young crownless 1953-64 (Gillick);
(2) tiara 1965-89 (Machin);
(3) middle-aged crown 1990-2003 (Pedery-Hunt);
(4) "old-age" effigy 2003-2018 (Blunt).
(5) n/a
I operated under the mistaken belief that the same portraits are used across the entire Commonwealth....... But at least between the U.K. & Canada, that is not the case. Portraits are not across-the-board or the same years, and it looks like Canada hasn't yet changed to the 5th issue, which I'll call the "saggy-jowls" versions.......
As far as Prince Charles' portraits go, have the ones you mentioned all been "official" portraits on circulating vs commemorative coins? I should have been more specific & indicated I was refeerring to just circulating coins.
Thx for the info, however!
@DBSTrader2 Yes, the portraits differ between the U.K. and Canada, after the 2nd Portrait. I have always personally believed that the Trudeau Senior government intentionally chose a very ugly portrait of the Queen for the third Canadian series. The fourth Canadian portrait is just dowdy.
And yes, the Charles portraits that I mentioned are commemoratives (one a twenty-five pence and the other two are five pounds). But no previous heir apparent made it to any official coinage at all, unless they succeeded to the throne. The 2008 coin for Charles might be suggestive of what his official portrait would look like someday.
BillDugan: I was in the middle of updating my prior post when your response above came thru. Thx!
I have to sheepishly admit that I never compared the 3rd portrait of each country, thinking they were one and the same. (That's because my collections of UK, Aussie, & NZ coins all basically stopped with the introduction of decimal coins). The Canadian version seems to have more detail, but I agree it's a bit "harsher". And then the 4th versions truly diverge.........
Do you have a favorite portrait (even one previously used on the coins you mentioned) that you prefer for Charles? (and I'm assuming you prefer it be him & none of the younger heirs to the throne?).
So here's the 2008 coin's profile portrait, next to another, front-view one supposedly at the same age. Are they supposed to be the same person?! I think the former lacks the "powerful" image I expect from a King, like the one from Kings Edward VII and George V..........
@DBSTrader2 There were several medals (sets of medals) that were privately issued back when Charles was ceremonially invested as Prince of Wales in 1969. These sets are what I have for my "special" Prince Charles memorabilia. IMHO, the 2008 U.K. five pounds has a better portrait of Charles than the two prior U.K. coins.
The colorized thingie probably has a portrait photo from fifteen years earlier, my best guess. Not certain the source of the colorized thingie.
The eldest person to accede to the British throne was William IV at age 62 in 1830. He was the third son of George III. William started strong, but was very frail after only three or four years. At something over 70, Charles is going to be like some older man acceding to the Papacy.
Isn't the first one the 5-pound coin from '08? Has the queen on the reverse?
Yes, the standard obverse portrait by IRB.
Interesting - I'm mainly interested in predecimal coinage from those regions, but will have to take a look at the different portraits on the modern stuff.
Interesting !!!
IMHO, the facial differences between the fourth portrait by Ian Rank-Broadley and the fifth portrait by Jody Clark are very small. I kinda believe that when they were planning the new one pound circulating coin, they wanted an entirely newer design to slow down the counterfeiters.
There is a good chance the Queen will live to be 100 - her mother lived to 101- and she has access to the best health care in the world.
[Edited to add] If Prince Charles does survive her, odds are he will choose a different regnal name, probably George VII.
Pacific Northwest Numismatic Association
I agree with the estimated longevity. Some have said or written that there is a formal, perhaps automatic, plan to establish a regency if the Queen celebrates her 95th birthday. This would differ a bit from a Dutch-style abdication, especially given the Queen's particular religious role.
I have gotten a few Belize small change coins from coinstar finds, curiously they are still using the young head portrait on their current coins - QEII doesn't age in Belize.
"QEII doesn't age in Belize."
It's something in the water.
I could pull out the book, but I'll just ask - do those coins say 'Belize' or 'British Honduras'?
Edit: I went and looked it up. They used that colonial portrait a long time.
Personally I hope the Queen out lives Charles. I don't like that man! I'm sure most know why!
Sometimes Charles' hands sometimes look like he has some odd illness - red, swollen, very puffy. Other times, the hands look better. It also seems that Camilla has also disappeared from view for lengthy periods recently. Neither seems to have visited that new grandchild of his as yet (the Queen went to see the new baby just yesterday, and she looked older than one usually expects).
But the great enemy of the past three generations of royal men (before Charles) has been cigarette or cigar smoking and I do not believe that Charles has done that much, if at all. Based upon his parents and maternal grandmother, I predict he will have little difficulty living into his mid eighties or longer.
I kinda doubt that Charles will change his name when he ascends the throne. Those who changed their names in the last century or 120 years were trying to avoid 'Albert', for whatever reason. Charles doesn't have that one.
I am not so much a royal watcher as I am a big fan of the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail is trash, but gawd I love it!
Interesting thread. I agree, I love the Queen and wish her a continued long reign but at the same time look forward to seeing a new monarch. I believe it will be fascinating to see.
My YouTube Channel
Re: Prince Charles' reign-name when he became king: Charles' full name is "Charles Philip Arthur George". He could theoretically take any of those names, plus I don't think he's even theoretically limited to those four - he could pick another name and use that, if he wished. He's the king; picking his reign-name is one of the few unchallengable powers he has left.
"King Charles" has dark resonances with the royal family. English Civil War, Charles I losing his head, and all that. Yes, it was 370 years ago, but the English monarchy is nothing if not traditional, and traditional folks have deep memories.
"King Philip" likewise has even older dark resonances, this time with Philip II of Spain and his pretentions to the throne of England as husband of Queen Mary I. This, too, didn't end well - the Spanish Armada came perilously close to imposing a "King Philip" by force.
"King Arthur" is just plain pretentious. No English king will ever call themselves "King Arthur" and not be a laughingstock, and every king-in-waiting knows this. The prophecies of the Return of King Arthur will have to wait until the actual King Arthur shows up.
That only leaves "George". I believe Prince Charles has stated in the past that he is leaning towards choosing "George VII" as his reign-name, in honour of his grandfather.
Re: the portraiture. I think Elizabeth II is going to be the last monarch of the Commonwealth to see a unified Commonwealth-wide official portrait on the coinage. Canada has already gone its own way in using a locally-designed portrait, and Australia almost chose likewise back in 2000. I think, for the next monarch, each Commonwealth Realm and Territory that uses a royal portrait on its coinage will design and choose their own. It's even likely that more and more Commonwealth Realms will ditch the monarch's portrait on coinage, even if they retain their legal ties to the monarchy.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.
I think Charles III sounds kinda cool, then William V cool too.
My YouTube Channel
You can also block out King Henry because of HVIII and King Edward because of EVIII - those 8ths will be the last of their names.
What if Elizabeth II doesn't live long enough to finish the Queen's Beasts series?
I guess the later ones will be "King's beasts", then.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.