WI: Prince Charles dies in Chunnel car crash rather than Di
- Thread starter acgoldis
- Start date
I take your word on Andrew but what’s your source on Edward. I understand he had some trouble finding his place early on but in my lifetime he’s been a stable, dutiful member of the royal family (and the only one of Her Maj’s kids to maintain a controversy free home life).
It is quiet rare change line of succession when law of succession is changed. Actually I think that in modern era only Sweden did that and then king Carl Gustaf's children were quiet small. So this to happen it probably should happen in early 1950's or at least so that Charles either dies already in 1950's/birth dates of Anne and Charles are reversed.
But it is quiet unlikely that law of succession would had changed that early.
Perhaps Argentinian missile hits on Andrew's ships killing him during Falkland War. Then you get Edward as second on succession after Charles. And then kill Edward with some way before he is married. He married quiet late so you would have lot of time to do that.
David Flin
Gone Fishin'
I was CPE for Charles back in 1986. I got to see the various members of the family then.
Edward was decent enough, but the way I would describe him would be "easily led". You know how some people are described as "natural leaders"? The kind of people who seem to automatically default to becoming the driving force of any group they're a part of. Edward was at the other end of that scale.
That, I must point out, was the situation in 1986. People change. He was 22 then, and what he is now may be very different. However, this thread is predicated on stuff happening in the 1980s, so what he was like then is relevant.
David Flin
Gone Fishin'
Not going to happen in the 1980s. Male primacy in succession then was regarded as unfair, but not important enough to spend time doing anything about it. That's on the progressive side. Elsewhere, you'd get blank looks. "Why change it?"
This was an era when you could buy congratulations on the baby card in which the sentiment: "A girl is nearly as good as a boy" was expressed.
Devvy
Donor
I thought the PoD was Charles dying roughly when Di did in OTL in the late 1990s.
In which case William is the heir, and Harry #2 until William has kids at some point, which if he’s the direct heir he’l
The Queen can’t change the laws of succession. And because of the Commonwealth Realms, who agreed not to change the laws of succession unless they all do it together, nothing is changing unless there is a bloody good reason to do so.
Elsewhere, the death of a senior royal and heir to the throne, if still happening with paparazzi behind, gives the UK media an even bigger target for government reform (*1).
If we are talking a PoD in the 1980s before William and Harry are born, then yes Andrew is automatically heir and will be King. But a lot can change over the years if you know you’re the heir to the throne; I’d expect he’ll be significantly more taken care of and developed instead of left to his business affairs which…well didn’t turn out well for him in OTL. A totally different life from the age of 25ish onwards and he’s probably unrecognisable from OTL.
EDIT: (*1) - to avoid confusion, this means that the government targets reform of the media sector in the UK.
In which case William is the heir, and Harry #2 until William has kids at some point, which if he’s the direct heir he’l
The Queen can’t change the laws of succession. And because of the Commonwealth Realms, who agreed not to change the laws of succession unless they all do it together, nothing is changing unless there is a bloody good reason to do so.
Elsewhere, the death of a senior royal and heir to the throne, if still happening with paparazzi behind, gives the UK media an even bigger target for government reform (*1).
If we are talking a PoD in the 1980s before William and Harry are born, then yes Andrew is automatically heir and will be King. But a lot can change over the years if you know you’re the heir to the throne; I’d expect he’ll be significantly more taken care of and developed instead of left to his business affairs which…well didn’t turn out well for him in OTL. A totally different life from the age of 25ish onwards and he’s probably unrecognisable from OTL.
EDIT: (*1) - to avoid confusion, this means that the government targets reform of the media sector in the UK.
Last edited:
David Flin
Gone Fishin'
Um, the wrong way round. Assuming the crash happens as per OTL, then the blame gets heaped on the paparazzi and, by extension, the media. If anything, the Government has a stick with which to beat the media, not the other way round.
Of course, given that the death of the Sainted Fireplace* in OTL didn't achieve anything more than a momentary annoyance at the media, I doubt that the death of Charles, never a high profile popular public figure, will.
* Objectivity note. I am not a fan of Di, who was truly unpleasant to those who worked for her.
Finally, another one located in the wild that does pray at the altar of Saint Diana of the Versace
Why would there be a hurry? He was 15 years old when Diana died and the Queen was in good health for a 70 year old. The main difference is that he's far more visible at an earlier time and maybe some of his school or army life. Definitely the Monarchy is more popular due to the fact that there is no way for Camilla to be near the Throne (which I've been told that angers the Brits) and Charles himself isn't around to attract the ire of the people.
If Charles died before he had kids, Andrew gets to be King someday and Britain might become a Republic if the media spin about his scandals gets handled badly or the Republicans in Britain manage to get seriously organized (which is more unlikely than everything I've written here)
Andrew was a helicopter pilot aboard the HMS Hermes. Have the HMS Hermes eat an Exocet missile and it goes down or Andrew's helicopter is shot down by an Argentinian Mirage.
While Britain would lose morale because a young prince fighting in Her Majesty's fleet went down with it. But it would also spur resolve among the British to take revenge on the Argentines.
David Flin
Gone Fishin'
I can't speak for British civilians at the time. I can speak for those in the Task Force. Suffice it to say that Andrew was not a popular or respected NO.
tonycat77
Banned
Wasn't he flying on missions that were basically bait for exocets?
A missile think's it's the Hermes, but hits the Bacchus of england instead.
A few musings in no particular order assuming based on wording of OP this is a scenario where a Charles dies at the same time in roughly the same circumstances as Diana did OTL.
Succession and Prince Andrew
As others have noted succession is actually pretty secure William becomes heir followed by Harry until William has children, Prince Andrew may become a little bit more prominent filling in as one of the most senior adults in the meantime, but I don't think this terribly changes his long-term role in the family and feels unlikely to butterfly away his numerous flaws so likely in similar situation to OTL
Diana
The big awkward question here is Diana, on one side I expect she'd lose favour with the press relatively quickly (leaving side how in general media/press tends to turn on women as they age anyway you also have the issue of Charles will automatically be seen in a more positive light following his death, and she lacks the press contacts/resources of the Royal family). However, by all records she had an excellent relationship with William and Harry, and with Charles out the picture that's going to become even more important so I'd expect a very tense relationship between Diana and the Palace around the role of particularly William and to a lesser extent Harry until the two are comfortably into adulthood. Having said that William particularly has generally seemed relatively comfortable, with his duty/role so while likely more strained then over to OTL I don't expect it's going to lead to radical a departure, you likely see a substantial rehabilitation of Diana within Royal circles as the Queen starts to withdraw and William gains more influence and power, sort of mirroring OTL increased presence of Camilla as Charles gets more authority (William would think his mother was hard done by, and her decreased personal media presence makes what the Royal family can offer more valuable). I imagine by today young people would be very confused if people pointed out that Princess Diana, generally seen as the Prince of Wales support act/often pictured with her grandchildren used to be seen as a glamorous/controversial figure.
The transition to William
assuming hordes of butterflies don't change the Queen's life expectancy the contrast between a young heir with a young family and the monarch feels much more stark then the Queen and Charles OTL I expect they'd be a bigger pressure to hand over more of a public role sooner, I doubt this would lead to abdication given the Queen's personal views on the matter but it wouldn't surprise me if we saw what we have already had happening recently but maybe 3 to 4 years earlier, with the Queen withdrawing from more elements of public life that aren't core constitutional and William generally becoming the public face of the firm.
Harry
Harry is likely under significantly more oversight in his youth as he will be next in line to William and generally have more of a public role, plus he seems to been practically impacted more by Diana's death OTL, and I expect would significantly benefit from ongoing presence. So likely less of a period of wild years then OTL, I also expect to get some actively encouraged to marry off a bit earlier (seen as a more reliable part of the firm), either way probably slightly better integrated with the Royal family although likely still with some tensions.
Charles's legacy
I'd expect Charles is heavily lionised after his death with the most generous possible interpretations of his different interests and priorities in particular I'd expect some sort of Prince Charles foundation set up by either William or Harry (if not both of them) centred around the environment/conservation issues becoming a very big deal by the 2010s, with Charles increasingly cast as a prophet on green issues who died before his time/before these issues became mainstream.
The aftermath
When Diana died she was a private citizen's, Charles on the other hand is heir to the throne an important part of the UK constitution, I'd expect the British government to demand an immediate criminal investigation with serious teeth and would be amazed if (almost irrespective of whether they were really at fault), some of the journalists involved did not face serious jail time. I agree with others have said this would kickstart greater press/paparazzi regulation earlier and again likely with substantial teeth. I'd also assume it would lead to a slightly more cautious monarchy on the roads possibly something more like US style motorcades.
Succession and Prince Andrew
As others have noted succession is actually pretty secure William becomes heir followed by Harry until William has children, Prince Andrew may become a little bit more prominent filling in as one of the most senior adults in the meantime, but I don't think this terribly changes his long-term role in the family and feels unlikely to butterfly away his numerous flaws so likely in similar situation to OTL
Diana
The big awkward question here is Diana, on one side I expect she'd lose favour with the press relatively quickly (leaving side how in general media/press tends to turn on women as they age anyway you also have the issue of Charles will automatically be seen in a more positive light following his death, and she lacks the press contacts/resources of the Royal family). However, by all records she had an excellent relationship with William and Harry, and with Charles out the picture that's going to become even more important so I'd expect a very tense relationship between Diana and the Palace around the role of particularly William and to a lesser extent Harry until the two are comfortably into adulthood. Having said that William particularly has generally seemed relatively comfortable, with his duty/role so while likely more strained then over to OTL I don't expect it's going to lead to radical a departure, you likely see a substantial rehabilitation of Diana within Royal circles as the Queen starts to withdraw and William gains more influence and power, sort of mirroring OTL increased presence of Camilla as Charles gets more authority (William would think his mother was hard done by, and her decreased personal media presence makes what the Royal family can offer more valuable). I imagine by today young people would be very confused if people pointed out that Princess Diana, generally seen as the Prince of Wales support act/often pictured with her grandchildren used to be seen as a glamorous/controversial figure.
The transition to William
assuming hordes of butterflies don't change the Queen's life expectancy the contrast between a young heir with a young family and the monarch feels much more stark then the Queen and Charles OTL I expect they'd be a bigger pressure to hand over more of a public role sooner, I doubt this would lead to abdication given the Queen's personal views on the matter but it wouldn't surprise me if we saw what we have already had happening recently but maybe 3 to 4 years earlier, with the Queen withdrawing from more elements of public life that aren't core constitutional and William generally becoming the public face of the firm.
Harry
Harry is likely under significantly more oversight in his youth as he will be next in line to William and generally have more of a public role, plus he seems to been practically impacted more by Diana's death OTL, and I expect would significantly benefit from ongoing presence. So likely less of a period of wild years then OTL, I also expect to get some actively encouraged to marry off a bit earlier (seen as a more reliable part of the firm), either way probably slightly better integrated with the Royal family although likely still with some tensions.
Charles's legacy
I'd expect Charles is heavily lionised after his death with the most generous possible interpretations of his different interests and priorities in particular I'd expect some sort of Prince Charles foundation set up by either William or Harry (if not both of them) centred around the environment/conservation issues becoming a very big deal by the 2010s, with Charles increasingly cast as a prophet on green issues who died before his time/before these issues became mainstream.
The aftermath
When Diana died she was a private citizen's, Charles on the other hand is heir to the throne an important part of the UK constitution, I'd expect the British government to demand an immediate criminal investigation with serious teeth and would be amazed if (almost irrespective of whether they were really at fault), some of the journalists involved did not face serious jail time. I agree with others have said this would kickstart greater press/paparazzi regulation earlier and again likely with substantial teeth. I'd also assume it would lead to a slightly more cautious monarchy on the roads possibly something more like US style motorcades.
Last edited:
While if taking the scenario where Charles dies before he has any children, leaving aside the stuff that would be the same (or press regulation greater security).
I suspect Prince of Wales Andrew would be disastrous for the monarchy, I appreciate what others have said about how he be under very different scrutiny but honestly the rot was pretty clear from an early age with even the stories about his teenage behaviour putting in a pretty atrocious light, while it's true he won't have the same opportunities to go off on his own as he did OTL I don't see this event stopping him from continuing to have both very bad impulse control and at the most generous possible leaving a complete lack of care for the people he's getting his pleasures from.
Now given the tendencies of the British monarchy I expect first the answer is cover things up so you may have occasional mutterings or mild scandals in the press about the Prince of Wales latest affair but to be honest that's probably no worse than Charles's press OTL particularly if Prince Andrew ends up with a relatively accepting wife (coin flip about whether this happens but I suspect it will be someone different to OTL just given his increased profile, and a decent chunk of the British upper class have always been very understanding of affairs). But I suspect this all explodes, butterflies permitting, when we hit the equivalent of me to in this timeline when people start to come forward reporting at best extremely problematic relationships with the Prince of Wales (if not a lot worse), this is of course the worst possible timing as you already have a likely ailing Queen and Andrew really doesn't have the temperament to be able to respond well to these types of scandals (I doubt palace staff would let the Prince of Wales do the equivalent of his disastrous Newsnight interview but you would still have the same sort of mindset). I suspect this would lead to rapid calls for him to renounce his claim to the throne/be passed over, if his heir is someone very solid and publicly liked (I suspect particularly if his eldest child is a daughter given the contrast that would provide), it's possible the monarchy may be able to recover if they act quickly. However if they either bungle the press response (which honestly I think is quite likely given how slow the Queen was to act OTL, Andrew status as her favourite child, with what I assume would be less serious accusations than in ATL as if it was unlikely he would have been left alone with Epstein for any length of time, so probably a greater perception among royals it could blow over), or the heir one step down is not suitable (e.g. another party Prince) I expect at minimum you be looking at most of the Commonwealth realms passing legislation effectively ending the monarchy which was kick in the day the Queen dies, and a very serious discussions about either ending it in the UK or some sort of intervention in the line of succession by Parliament.
Another interesting side point of this the Queen does appear to have a massive blind spot when it comes to Andrew, and genuinely enjoys his company/treats him as a confidant so I wonder whether you might see a greater willingness to hand over some authority to him than she did Charles (who she always had a strained relationship with), as she gets older which would of course make any potential scandal even worse, and increase the chance of a bungled response by the Palace....
I suspect Prince of Wales Andrew would be disastrous for the monarchy, I appreciate what others have said about how he be under very different scrutiny but honestly the rot was pretty clear from an early age with even the stories about his teenage behaviour putting in a pretty atrocious light, while it's true he won't have the same opportunities to go off on his own as he did OTL I don't see this event stopping him from continuing to have both very bad impulse control and at the most generous possible leaving a complete lack of care for the people he's getting his pleasures from.
Now given the tendencies of the British monarchy I expect first the answer is cover things up so you may have occasional mutterings or mild scandals in the press about the Prince of Wales latest affair but to be honest that's probably no worse than Charles's press OTL particularly if Prince Andrew ends up with a relatively accepting wife (coin flip about whether this happens but I suspect it will be someone different to OTL just given his increased profile, and a decent chunk of the British upper class have always been very understanding of affairs). But I suspect this all explodes, butterflies permitting, when we hit the equivalent of me to in this timeline when people start to come forward reporting at best extremely problematic relationships with the Prince of Wales (if not a lot worse), this is of course the worst possible timing as you already have a likely ailing Queen and Andrew really doesn't have the temperament to be able to respond well to these types of scandals (I doubt palace staff would let the Prince of Wales do the equivalent of his disastrous Newsnight interview but you would still have the same sort of mindset). I suspect this would lead to rapid calls for him to renounce his claim to the throne/be passed over, if his heir is someone very solid and publicly liked (I suspect particularly if his eldest child is a daughter given the contrast that would provide), it's possible the monarchy may be able to recover if they act quickly. However if they either bungle the press response (which honestly I think is quite likely given how slow the Queen was to act OTL, Andrew status as her favourite child, with what I assume would be less serious accusations than in ATL as if it was unlikely he would have been left alone with Epstein for any length of time, so probably a greater perception among royals it could blow over), or the heir one step down is not suitable (e.g. another party Prince) I expect at minimum you be looking at most of the Commonwealth realms passing legislation effectively ending the monarchy which was kick in the day the Queen dies, and a very serious discussions about either ending it in the UK or some sort of intervention in the line of succession by Parliament.
Another interesting side point of this the Queen does appear to have a massive blind spot when it comes to Andrew, and genuinely enjoys his company/treats him as a confidant so I wonder whether you might see a greater willingness to hand over some authority to him than she did Charles (who she always had a strained relationship with), as she gets older which would of course make any potential scandal even worse, and increase the chance of a bungled response by the Palace....
Devvy
Donor
Sorry, that's what I was trying to say; government reform of the media given the situation with the paparazzi playing at least a major factor in the death of a senior royal and heir to the throne.
David Flin
Gone Fishin'
The contrast between Charles and Andrew as Naval Officers was noticeable and much remarked upon.
Charles went by the name Arthur Windsor, and was keen to be judged on how good (or otherwise) he was, and not on the fact that Mummy owned the firm. Very dedicated and with a lovely dry sense of humour. Could be a bit of a stuffed shirt at times; thoughtful rather than instinctive. Earnest is a good way of describing him. He was respected by those that knew him.
By contrast, Andrew always made sure everyone knew that his first name was "Prince". The tale goes about (I've no idea how true or otherwise it is, but it rings true - as do all the best urban legends) that when he joined his first ship, he introduced himself to the Captain with words to the effect: "I'm Prince Andrew, but you can call me Andrew." To which the inevitable reply (according to the story) was: "I'm your commanding officer. You can call me Sir." There was a reason he clocked up so many hours on anti-submarine detection during the unpleasantness Down South was that this got him away from the matelots, who universally loathed him.
Charles wanted to know what made the people working for him tick. Andrew couldn't care less about such lesser mortals. I always got the impression he regarded other people as "not real, just things that exist to further his well-being."
I hasten to add that this is my personal view, based on observations and the gossip that did the rounds. Other views may well be held by other people.