who becomes King? (1 Viewer)

[Cees Alons]

In Holland the law was changed to deal with this possible problem.

If the Crown Prince (or Crown Princess) would die before they became King of the Netherlands (that's the official title, even though a female "King" would be addressed as "Queen"), their children would NOT become King or Queen before the brothers and/or sisters of the heir (the other children of the King in order of age) - who would then pass the heritage to their own children, but only if they effectively had occupied the throne first.
In the normal situation, you do not pass an inherited function to anyone else but your own heirs, not to your children's heirs.

That was obviously no longer a desired situation, so before our current Queen Beatrix became Queen, the line of succession was defined anew (by a special law), so Prince William (now the Crown Prince, official title: HRH The Prince of Orange) would come before Princess Beatrix's sisters (and their children).

The same law now applies to Prince William's children once he gets them.

Cees

 

[PhilipW]

Man this is too confusing. Much easier over here. Just give'em the boot every 8 years. If we're not happy half way thru kick'em out in 4.
Democracy is so simple.

 

[Adil M]

Coughing *BS*
Umm... Senor Bush got elected right?... that's 4 yrs.

 

[Jason_Els]

Interesting topic.

The title of Queen Mother came about because the traditional title of Dowager Empress (King George VI was Emperor of India) was already taken by Queen Mary, his mother, who was still alive at the time of his death. Yet, as she had no son to ascend the throne, her eldest daughter became queen. As this particular situation had never occurred before in the monarchy Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was allowed to create her own title. She couldn't very well be Queen Elizabeth as Elizabeth chose to keep her name when she ascended the throne (she could have chosen another by tradition). Some say that her rather grandiose title helped make up for her loss of rank as queen by giving herself the style of queen twice.

If William were to have an heir and predecease his wife then his wife would take on the title of Queen Dowager. As his mother is not alive the title of Queen Mother would not be used. Her rank would drop precipitously however as she would immediately become subordinate in rank to her children and, if she has a male heir, subordinate in rank to his wife providing her husband was given the title of Prince of Wales. The oldest male child of the monarch, as heir apparent, does not automatically assume the title of Prince of Wales but must be created as such by his parent.

The Princess of Wales is the second highest ranking woman in the UK just behind the reigning the Queen (unless there isn't one in which case she becomes #1). This placed Princess Anne and Princess Margaret and even the Queen Mother in the unenviable and humiliating position (as they thought of it) of having to curtsy to Princess Diana (before she was stripped of her HRH title).

 

[Philip Hamm]

How about the Burger King?

 

[John Spencer]

So who elected Mayor McCheese?

 

[Yee-Ming]

...that HRH Elizabeth II,

errr, isn't it HM Elizabeth II, i.e. Her Majesty? HRH being for princes and princesses, whereas she's the Queen?
and as for Wills marrying Britney, wasn't Diana also technically a "commoner"? for that matter, the late Queen Mum? although both were daughters of earls, so I'm not sure about that.

 

[Jason_Els]

Yes, anyone who is not born royal, alas, is a commoner and that includes all ranks of peerage and barons.

 

[Adam Barratt]

If the Royals are all killed in a freak accident I'm pretty sure John Goodman becomes king.

Adam

 

[andrew markworthy]

The whole issue revolves around primogeniture: namely, the first-born male inherits the lot. Let's suppose that a future king and queen have kids in the following order: Alice, Beatrix, Colin and David. Colin would inherit the throne. If he pre-deceased the King (the Queen would not rule by herself - she would become Queen Mother, but if the Queen died first, then the King would carry on ruling), then his eldest son (or in the absence of a son, a daughter) would become monarch. If Colin died without heirs, then David would inherit the throne (or if he had died, his eldest son, or in the absence of a son, his eldest daughter). If both Colin and David pre-deceased, then the throne would go to Alice, etc, etc. If the person inheriting the throne was under eighteen, then a regent (typically an aunt or uncle) would be appointed to act as ruler until the rightful heir came of age.

This may seem convoluted and is definitely sexist, but the principle was sound in historical times. You needed a very firm rigid system which was unambiguous and therefore hard to dispute (one of the prime causes of conflict for centuries was over who was the rightful heir to a kingdom). Of course people did dispute it, but primogeniture meant that a lot *more* arguments were averted.

The reasons the Duke and Duchess of Windsor were ostracised by our royal family are severalfold:

(a) our late Queen Mother absolutely *loathed* them for in effect forcing her husband to become king. He was a shy man with a dreadful stammer and not ideal monarch material. [Having said that, he did a pretty good job, expecially during the second world war].

(b) Both the Duke and Duchess had very strong Nazi sympathies and certainly had dealings with Hitler. Although people might think that the whole idea of a royal family is right-wing and reactionary, the royal family are not fascists, and were genuinely horrified at what they did.

(c) Mrs Simpson was divorced. At the time divorce was treated as far more 'sinful' than it is now, and as the monarch is also head of the Church of England (the 'official' religion for the reigning monarch, though of course other beliefs are perfectly acceptable), the monarch cannot be seen to in effect give support to divorce by marrying a divorcee (hence all the current fuss about Camilla - incidentally, Charles is free to remarry regardless of his divorce because Diana is dead).

(d) Wallace Simpson was a grasping harpy who tried to wriggle out of the marriage when she realised she wouldn't be queen. This was the height of 'bad form' and upper-class Brits are sticklers for etiquette.

Incidentally, if Charles does become king, he will not be 'King Charles'. The Brits have had a little bit of problem with monarchs with that name in the past. He will probably be King George VII (George is one of his middle names). It's unlikely that the Queen will abdicate in favour of either son or grandson, simply because she firmly believes it is a job for life. She is an deeply religious person and when she took the vow at her coronation vowing to serve the country for her entire life, she really took it to heart.

Oh yes, one tiny quirk in the primogeniture rules. If a woman inherits the throne she becomes Queen but her husband doesn't become King. This is because a king always outranks a queen and thus the rightful heir would be outranked by someone she married. Thus, if the Duke of Edinburgh dies before the Queen, she carries on ruling, but if the Queen dies first, then the Duke of Edinburgh just carries on being Duke of Edinburgh but doesn't of course reign over the country (because he never has done).

And you Americans think your electoral system is complicated.

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

If the Royals are all killed in a freak accident I'm pretty sure John Goodman becomes king.

Here's a scary thought: I'm related to the Spencer-Churchill family, which includes the late Diana and her children with Charles. If they all died off I have a shot at the throne of Britain..... King Dennis I. Have a nice day....

 

[Marianne]

This may seem convoluted and is definitely sexist, but the principle was sound in historical times.

Of course, as it turned out, the longest reigning and, arguably, the best Monarchs for the country have been women.
Queen Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II. Maybe it's about time to change the order of succession?

 

[andrew markworthy]

Marianne, I was thinking of much earlier in history when the idea of a British 'nation' was being formed. I agree wholeheartedly that our female monarchs have generally been pretty good.

In fact, before William was born, some MPs tried to get a law passed that the oldest child should inherit, irrespective of gender. Needless to say, the motion got rejected. The UK is no more sexist than anywhere else, but some otherwise sensible people behave like morons when it comes to the royal family.

 

[Yee-Ming]

not sure that Queen Mary was particularly good...
actually, as far as succession is concerned, isn't it presently limited to descendants of Sophia, Electress of Hanover (which also leads credence to the scurrilous allegation that British Royals are actually German...
), or something like that? of which there are a finite (and identified) 50-odd, including the likes of the King of Norway. so sorry, Dennis, under current rules you have no chance and in any case, you're related by marriage only, not blood.
but if the entire lot got wiped out, there'd be a problem. House of Stuart, anyone?

 

[andrew markworthy]

House of Stuart, anyone?

My mother's side are descended from that lot. I really wouldn't recommend the idea wholeheartedly.

 

[Alex-C]

When can we start assigning cool medieval nicknames to the royals. I mean, can we start calling Prince William "Longshanks" or the like ?

 

[Ralph Summa]

SUPREME EXECUTIVE POWER IS DERIVED FROM A MANDATE FROM THE MASSES, NOT FROM SOME FARCICAL AQUATIC CEREMONY!

 

[Chris Derby]

"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"

 

[BrianB]

I mean, can we start calling Prince William "Longshanks" or the like ?

William "White nose" is more accurate according to the tabloids...