Idle Curiosity re British royal succession

[StarvingButStrong]

According to Wikipedia, right now the line goes:

1) Prince Charles
2) Prince William
3) Prince Henry
4) Prince Andrew
5) Beatrice (is she a princess?)
6) Eugenie (Ditto?)
7) Prince Edward
8) His children
9ish) Princess Anne
10ish) Her children

But doesn't the ranking of the grandchildren depend on their parent? As in, if Prince Charles dies BEFORE the Queen, then the ranking changes to something like:

1) Prince Andrew
2) Beatrice
3) Eugenie
4) Edward
5) (His children)
6ish) Princess Anne
7ish) (Her Children)
and only then

8) Prince William
9) Prince Henry


If so, what I am curious about is what happens if the Queen and Prince Charles were to die simultaneously? For example, they're strolling about on the grounds of whatever palace after Prince William's marriage, and a giant flaming meteor hurtles down into them. Boom! Instant incineration. IOW, absolutely no way to determine which of them died first.

Who would become king then? Prince William or Prince Andrew?

How would they determine it? Decided by Parliament? (Boring) Flip a coin? Both sides raise armies and fight it out? (oooh!)

I think the neatest solution would be for William and Andrew to fight it out, one on one. Jousting for the crown! :cool:

[Alka Seltzer]

No, the 1st list above is the actual line of succession, as described by the current rules. If Queenie and Charlie had a big falling out and knocked each other off a cliff, Holmes and Moriaty style, then William would be king. Andrew would only become king if all of Charles' line was eliminated (as soon as William has a child, Andrew will move a further place down the line of succession).

[SanVito]

I'm afraid your original premise is wrong, so no jousting I'm afraid. Children of the first in line (charles) - of either sex - take precedent over the next (Andrew as was), even if the first in line dies before the monarch.

[Johnny L.A.]

a giant flaming meteor hurtles down into them
Then it would be a meteorite. ;)

[Bijou Drains]

Beatrice and Eugenie are princesses , they are the kids of Andrew and Fergie They are in their early 20s

[Baker]

Victoria became queen after her uncle William IV died without legitimate living heirs. Had her father still been living he would have become king, but it still had to go through his line. She had male cousins but they were the children of yet younger brothers of her father and uncle.

[A. Gwilliam]

Leaving aside the complications caused about religion, succession to the British monarchy operates by male-preference primogeniture.

If the Sovereign has had a male child (M1) who is still alive, then M1 succeeds. If the Sovereign has had other male children, then M1 still succeeds. If M1 is not still alive and has no living descendants, then the next eldest male child (M2) of the Sovereign succeeds if he is still alive. If M2 is not still alive and has no living descendants, then the third eldest male child (M3) of the Sovereign succeeds if he is still alive... and so on.

Once you've eliminated all the male children of the Sovereign (together with all the descendants of those male children), then if the Sovereign has had a female child (F1) who is still alive, F1 succeeds. If the Sovereign has had other female children, then F1 still succeeds (this is an important difference between the rules of succession to the throne, and the traditional rules for succession to property or to a peerage). If F1 is not still alive and has no living descendants, then the next eldest female child (F2) of the Sovereign succeeds if she is still alive... and so on.

If M1 predeceased the Sovereign, but has living descendants, then you apply the same logic as above. So if M1 has had a male child (M1a) who is still alive, M1a succeeds. If M1a is not still alive and has no living descendants, then the next eldest male child of M1 (M1b) succeeds if he is still alive... and so on. And then you work through M1's female children... and so on.

If M1a predeceased the Sovereign, but has living descendants, all of the same logic is applied once again.

It's actually quite simple, but on the other hand it's a bit of a dog to explain. Except perhaps with an animated diagram! :)


The UK's Deputy Prime Minister has announced today that discussions are taking place with the other Commonwealth realms to overhaul both the above and the restrictions imposed upon Roman Catholics. This is not the first time a British government has made these sorts of noises. We'll have to wait and see to find out if anything changes. If Prince William and his new wife have a daughter as their first child, then that will likely push things along!

[StarvingButStrong]

No, the 1st list above is the actual line of succession, as described by the current rules. If Queenie and Charlie had a big falling out and knocked each other off a cliff, Holmes and Moriaty style, then William would be king. Andrew would only become king if all of Charles' line was eliminated (as soon as William has a child, Andrew will move a further place down the line of succession).

Dang. That's sensible, I guess, but boring. I want that joust! Followed by combat on foot with those big pointy balls...yeah!


But your response raises another question: So, what if Prince Charles gets tired of waiting around and decides to kill his mother? That's attempted murder, at least, and I'm guessing treason as well.

What happens if he succeeds? What happens if the attempt fails?

Does he go to trial? If convicted, does he still retain his place in line? Prince Charles, convict #12345678? (Possibly King Charles, convict #12345678?)

I'm thinking of the general principle that criminals shouldn't be allowed to benefit from their crimes.

Or...do you still behead royal traitors?

[Alka Seltzer]

But your response raises another question: So, what if Prince Charles gets tired of waiting around and decides to kill his mother?

Technically, he'd be king, but that wouldn't stop him being arrested. Pretty quickly there would be an act of parliment, and then he wouldn't be.

Even if William was secretly in on it, it would be a bit of a phyrric victory, as it would do huge damage to the monarchy. I imagine the commonwealth realms such as Australia and Canada would quickly become republics, and possibly even the UK as well.

Or...do you still behead royal traitors?

Technically again, I believe we still have the death penalty for treason, but the chances of this being enforced are close to zero.

[A. Gwilliam]

But your response raises another question: So, what if Prince Charles gets tired of waiting around and decides to kill his mother? That's attempted murder, at least, and I'm guessing treason as well.

What happens if he succeeds? What happens if the attempt fails?

Does he go to trial? If convicted, does he still retain his place in line? Prince Charles, convict #12345678? (Possibly King Charles, convict #12345678?)

I'm thinking of the general principle that criminals shouldn't be allowed to benefit from their crimes.

Or...do you still behead royal traitors?

The death penalty has been abolished in the UK, so no.

Accession to the throne is automatic, so he'd be King Charles III (or whatever he decided to call himself). The Sovereign can't be prosecuted in his own courts, so he couldn't be convicted of murder.

If he was insane, then he'd be nudged aside with a Regency.

Those are the legalistic options. The reality would come down to the circumstances and practical politics. Prince William seems to be quite popular (certainly more so than his father), so the worst-case scenario would probably see Charles being deposed in favour of his son. If you'd asked the question around fifteen years ago, though, I'd say that there was a real likelihood that the monarchy itself would come to an abrupt end.

There's no existing constitutional mechanism within the UK for permanently removing a particular monarch. The other Commonwealth realms don't have any difficulty because of how their constitutional/legal systems works. But in the UK the Sovereign is formally part of Parliament, and would have to assent to any Act of Parliament deposing themselves. Thus, when Edward VIII abdicated, he had to assent to the Act of Parliament confirming it.

If Charles the Bad won't play ball, then that leaves two precedents for politicians to choose from. In 1689 the King was declared to have abdicated the throne by the two Houses of Parliament in England; while in 1811 the two Houses of Parliament followed an elaborate fiction so that the royal assent could be given to the Regency Bill that was necessitated by George III going permanently doolally (with George thus unable to properly assent to the bill himself). Since in both those cases they made the rules up on the spot, it's quite probable they'd make up new rules to deal with Charles.

[A. Gwilliam]

Technically again, I believe we still have the death penalty for treason

Nope. The death penalty was abolished as a punishment for the handful of theoretically remaining offences about ten years ago.

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

I imagine the commonwealth realms such as Australia and Canada would quickly become republics, and possibly even the UK as well.



Nah, we in Canada probably couldn't be bothered.

[alphaboi867]

Nope. The death penalty was abolished as a punishment for the handful of theoretically remaining offences about ten years ago.

True, but as long as Parliament is passing an act deposing King Charles III it could also convict him of treason and sentence him to death in that same act (without bothering with a trial).

Nah, we in Canada probably couldn't be bothered.

You people will embrace anything that sets you apart from Americans, won't you? :p

[md2000]

Nah, we in Canada probably couldn't be bothered.

Good God! If we became republics or elected a president in Canada, then we'd turn that into a repository of used politicans, who are more likely to end up in jail than the House of Windsor. It was nice that for a while (until last year) we had a few Governors General devoid of political connections. Look at the hassles in palces like Italy and Israel over their presidents. The last thing we need is more jobs for used politicians.

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

You people will embrace anything that sets you apart from Americans, won't you? :p

Yup.

[A. Gwilliam]

True, but as long as Parliament is passing an act deposing King Charles III it could also convict him of treason and sentence him to death in that same act (without bothering with a trial).

Good point! :)

[Alka Seltzer]

Nope. The death penalty was abolished as a punishment for the handful of theoretically remaining offences about ten years ago.

Good catch, I'd forgotten that.

[Baker]

In S.M. Stirling's Dies the Fire series it's intriguing to see the fate of the British Royal family. The Queen dies the winter following the Change(3/17/1999). It was said to be of grief, overwork, and because she "wouldn't take a crumb extra, not a crumb!" So Charles is king and at first he isn't so bad. But somewhere along the way he dumps Camilla and marries a third time, to an Icelandic immigrant. She promptly pops out three kids and conspires to dump William and Harry in their favor. When Charles(who by this time has gone bonkers, and is called "the Bad" behind his back) finally refuses to disinherit his first two sons, his wife kills him but doesn't succeed in taking the Regency in favor of her own brood. William becomes king and by twenty five years after the change is already styled "The Great"

This is caught in bits and pieces when several English characters important to the series manage to make it to the American Northwest regions.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

No, the 1st list above is the actual line of succession, as described by the current rules. If Queenie and Charlie had a big falling out and knocked each other off a cliff, Holmes and Moriaty style, then William would be king. Andrew would only become king if all of Charles' line was eliminated (as soon as William has a child, Andrew will move a further place down the line of succession).

It's all about descent. Even if Prince Charles kicks the bucket before ever ascending to the throne, William's place in the succession is guaranteed. Lesser noble titles work the same way*. The first grandson by an Earl's eldest son, for example, is second in line to the title. If his father dies while the grandfather is still living, then the grandson moves up to first place in line. Otherwise, that happens when the old Earl finally dies and his father becomes the new Earl. It's also immaterial if the grandson in question is older or younger than his cousins.

OTOH, early Germanic history is replete with stories of uncles who eliminated young nephews who were expected to become rulers, or at least eliminated them from the political life of the country.

Depending on the letters patent that go with a particular title, some UK titles can descend through the female line in the absence of sons, but they remain in abeyance until a male descendant is born.

*In the UK (and usually not always--see Lord Feldon's post below)

[Lord Feldon]

Depending on the letters patent that go with a particular title, some UK titles can descend through the female line in the absence of sons, but they remain in abeyance until a male descendant is born.

Some can actually be held outright by women. Most everything really old that was created by writ of summons rather than letters patent goes to heirs general, and a single female heir will succeed to the peerage in her own right (although she couldn't sit in Parliament until the 50s or 60s, and that was taken away in 1999 (although I think a couple of hereditary peeresses were elected to take a couple of the remaining seats)). (If she has a sister, the title will go into abeyance until one line dies out or the abeyance is terminated by the Crown.)

Also, every once in a while, a peerage granted to a man who only had daughters would have a special remainder specifying that it would go to the eldest living daughter in the absence of a son (that's why Earl Mountbatten's eldest daughter is Countess Mountbatten in her own right).

[Northern Piper]

Victoria became queen after her uncle William IV died without legitimate living heirs. Had her father still been living he would have become king, but it still had to go through his line. She had male cousins but they were the children of yet younger brothers of her father and uncle.


Another example of a grandchild succeeding in preference to an uncle was George III, grandson of George II.

George II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_II_of_Great_Britain) had eight children:

Frederick, Prince of Wales
Anne, Princess Royal, Princess of Orange
Princess Amelia
Princess Caroline
Prince George William
Prince William, Duke of Cumberland
Princess Mary, Landgravine of Hesse
Louise, Queen of Denmark and Norway

Frederick, Prince of Wales, was George III's father. He died young, in 1751, while his father was still alive. He was also survived by one brother (Prince William) and five sisters. (George William died as an infant.)

Even though Prince William, Duke of Cumberland, was alive when George II died in 1763, Frederick's oldest son succeeded to the throne as George III.

[Northern Piper]

There's no existing constitutional mechanism within the UK for permanently removing a particular monarch. The other Commonwealth realms don't have any difficulty because of how their constitutional/legal systems works. But in the UK the Sovereign is formally part of Parliament, and would have to assent to any Act of Parliament deposing themselves. Thus, when Edward VIII abdicated, he had to assent to the Act of Parliament confirming it.

Yes and no, at least for Canada. The Crown is formally part of Parliament, merely being represented by the GovGen. While the GovGen could grant Royal Assent to a bill deposing the current monarch, the Crown has the power to disallow a bill even once Royal Assent has been granted. Of course, the Crown normally would only exercise that power on the advice of her/his elected Canadian government, but if you had a renegade monarch already, as a matter of law, if the monarch disallowed against the advice of the Canadian government, the bill would fail.

[Northern Piper]

I imagine the commonwealth realms such as Australia and Canada would quickly become republics, and possibly even the UK as well.

People often say that on these boards as if it's quite simple to go from a constitutional monarchy to a republican form of government, but I have my doubts, as discussed in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=589052&highlight=republic&page=2):


This is a lot easier said than done, as the Australian referendum on abolishing the monarchy showed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_republic_referendum,_1999).

The difficulty is that it requires a substantial re-write of the Constitutions. You can't just strike out "Queen" and put in "President". You always have to answer at least two major questions: how do you select the President? and what powers do you want the President to have? Those points of detail are the difficult ones.

For example, in Canada, the Queen has extensive constitutional powers, both prerogative and written. If you want to keep the focus of the Constitution as a system of responsible government, with the new President as a figurehead, and real power resting with the Prime Minister, you have to have a system of election that does not give the new President the political legitimacy to use those enormous powers. You also likely have to define the principles of responsible government much more carefully in a written constitutional instrument, rather than relying solely on constitutional convention, because now you would have two different politicians squabbling over power, rather than the unelected representative of a hereditary monarch deferring automatically to the elected Prime Minister.

But if you want the President to be popularly elected, or to have real powers, then it's even more difficult - that would be a wholesale change to the constitutional and political system. Those types of fundamental constitutional changes are typically not easily made. The most difficult is to combine popular election with the system of responsible government - you might end up with a completely hybrid system, more akin to the French or Russian governments.

The difficulty in switching from a constitutional monarchy to a republic is well-illustrated by this comment in the wiki article:
The Australian Electoral Survey that is conducted following all elections by the Australian National University has found that support for a republic has remained reasonably static since 1987 at around 60%, if the type of republic is not part of the question.
(My emphasis.)

In short, abolishing the monarchy and switching to a republic is easy in theory, hard in practice. So I'm not convinced that as soon as Her Majesty is no longer with us, you'll have a rash of Commonwealth Realms suddenly going republic.

[A. Gwilliam]

Yes and no, at least for Canada. The Crown is formally part of Parliament, merely being represented by the GovGen. While the GovGen could grant Royal Assent to a bill deposing the current monarch, the Crown has the power to disallow a bill even once Royal Assent has been granted. Of course, the Crown normally would only exercise that power on the advice of her/his elected Canadian government, but if you had a renegade monarch already, as a matter of law, if the monarch disallowed against the advice of the Canadian government, the bill would fail.

Nope! :)

Deposing the monarch requires a constitutional amendment.

41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:

(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;

[...]

There is no power of disallowance of constitutional amendments; only of ordinary legislation. However, even then our putative dastardly monarch would be thwarted. Besides the problem that disallowance requires an order in council, and thus British ministerial involvement, the disallowance doesn't take effect until the Governor General has formally signified it to both Houses of Parliament. Clearly, the GG will be advised by his/her ministers not to signify the disallowance. Problem sorted! :)

[A. Gwilliam]

People often say that on these boards as if it's quite simple to go from a constitutional monarchy to a republican form of government, but I have my doubts, as discussed in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=589052&highlight=republic&page=2):

In addition to that, the bar is set very high for [federal] constitutional amendment in Australia. After being approved by Parliament, proposed amendments are put to a referendum, where historically they have a less than one-in-five chance of being passed!

But even before getting to the federal Parliament, a constitutional amendment abolishing the monarchy would seem to necessitate "request" legislation from each of the several states. Certainly that's what happened in the run-up to the 1999 referendum.

Amending the Canadian constitution seems positively straightforward in comparison! All that's needed there is for all of the federal/provincial parliamentary chambers to agree on an amendment...

[alphaboi867]

...(If she has a sister, the title will go into abeyance until one line dies out or the abeyance is terminated by the Crown.)...

For English titles this is correct. For Scottish titles an elder sister takes precedence over a younger sister the exact same way an elder son takes precedence over a younger son. Obviously the British Crown itself doesn't work the same way as English titles; the Crown cannot go into abeyance. Otherwise Princess Elizabeth and Princess Margaret would've both inheirited an equal claim on the Crown.

[Lord Feldon]

For English titles this is correct. For Scottish titles an elder sister takes precedence over a younger sister the exact same way an elder son takes precedence over a younger son.

:smack: And the two I was thinking of who were elected to hereditary seats are Scottish, too (the Countess of Mar and Lady Saltoun).

Otherwise Princess Elizabeth and Princess Margaret would've both inheirited an equal claim on the Crown.

I can't find anything now, but I think there was actually a minor concern about that in the 30s.

ETA: http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/TNA/HO_45_23509.htm

[Baker]

Could I add another question about succession? I don't think that it's ever come up(to my knowledge).

What if Kate, say, bore identical twin boys. Would the one who managed to come out first be next in line, beating out his minutes younger brother? I'll bet that could cause some sibling rivalry!:p

[Eliahna]

What if Kate, say, bore identical twin boys. Would the one who managed to come out first be next in line, beating out his minutes younger brother? I'll bet that could cause some sibling rivalry!:p
Oldest is oldest, whether it's by 30 seconds, 30 months or 30 years.

[A. Gwilliam]

I can't find anything now, but I think there was actually a minor concern about that in the 30s.

ETA: http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/TNA/HO_45_23509.htm

Beat me to it! :)

On a sort-of related note, there'd also been some doubt in the sixteenth century as to whether Queen Mary could have the same powers as a King (because she was the first ever Queen Regnant):

An Acte declaring that the Regall Power of this Realme is in the Quenes Majestie as fully and absolutely as ever it was in any of her moste noble Progenitours Kinges of this Realme.

FORASMUCHE as the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme, withe all Dignities Honours Prerogatives Aucthorities Jurisdictions and Preheminences therunto annexed united and belonging, by the Dyvine Providence of Almighty God, ye most lawfully justly and rightfully discended and comme unto the Quenes Highnes that now ys, being the verye true and undoubted heire and inheritrixe therof, and invested in her most Royall Person, according unto the Lawes of this Realme; And by force and vertue of the same, all Regall Power Dignitie Honour Aucthoritie Prerogative Preheminence and Jurisdictions dothe apperteine, and of right out to apperteine and belong unto her Highnes, as to the Sovereine supreme Governour and Quene of this Realme and the Dominions therof, in as full large and ample maner as it hathe done heretofore to any other her most noble Progenitours Kinges of this Realme: Nevertheles the most auncient Statutes of this Realme being made by Kinges then reigning, doo not onely attribute and referre all Prerogative Preheminence Power and Jurisdiction Roiall unto the name of King, but also doo gyve assigne and appointe the Correccion and Punishment of all Offendours agaynst the Regaltie and Dignitie of the Crowne and the Lawes of this Realme unto the Kinge; By occasion wherof the malitious and ignorant persones may bee hereafter induced and perswaded unto this errour and folly, to thinck that her Hignes coulde ne shoulde have enjoye and use such lyke Royall Aucthoritie Power Preheminence Prerogative and Jurisdiccion, nor doo ne execute and use all thinges concerning the sayd Statutes, and take the benefit and privilege of the same, nor correcte and punishe Offendours against her most Royall Person and the Regaltie and Dignitie of the Crowne of this Realme and the Dominions thereof, as the Kinges of this Realme her most noble Progenitours have heretofore doon enjoied used and exersised:

For thavoiding and clere extinguishment of whiche sayd errour or doubte, and for a playn declaracion of the Lawes of this Realme in that behalf;

Be it declared and enacted by thauctorite of this presente Parliament, that the Lawe of this Realme is and ever hathe been and ought to bee understande, that the Kinglye or Regall Office of the Realme, and all Dignities Prerogative Royall Power Preheminences Privilegies Aucthorities and Jurisdiccions therunto annexed united or belonging, being invested either in Male or Female, are and bee and ought to bee as fully wholly absolutely and [enteerly] demed judged accepted invested and taken in thone as in thother; so that what or whansoever Statute or Law doothe lymitte and appointe that the King of this Realme may or shall have execute and doo any thing as King, or dothe geve any profitt or commodite to the King, or dothe lymitte or appointe any paines or punishement for the Correction of Offendours or Transgressoures against the Regaltie and Dignitie of the King or of the Crowne, The same the Quene, (being supreme Governesse possessour and enheritour to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme as our sayd Sovereigne Ladye the Quene most justly presentlye is,) may by the same aucthoritie and power likewise have exersice execute punishe correcte and doo, to all intentes construccions and purposes without Doubte Ambiguitie Scruple or Question: Any Custome Use or Scruple or any other thing whatsoever to be made to the contrary notwithstanding.


The above wasn't repealed until 1969! :)

Oldest is oldest, whether it's by 30 seconds, 30 months or 30 years.

You say that, but in French law the first-born twin was (is?) considered to be the younger of the two. This was an application of the principle "first in, last out"! :D

[flodnak]

Victoria became queen after her uncle William IV died without legitimate living heirs. Had her father still been living he would have become king, but it still had to go through his line. She had male cousins but they were the children of yet younger brothers of her father and uncle.And she was only under consideration at all because William IV's two older brothers had died without leaving legitimate living heirs. The period between George III and Victoria was a bit messy for the British monarchy.

At least one present-day monarch came to the throne under a similar situation. Sweden's Carl XVI Gustav (referred to as "Carl Gustav" in ordinary conversation) was born in 1946 as the first son of the man who was the eldest son of the heir apparent, and thus second in line to the throne; the infant, as the eldest son of the eldest son, became third in line under the laws at the time. But his father was killed in a plane crash when Carl Gustav was still an infant, and the baby immeditely moved to the second-in-line position; he was Crown Prince and heir apparent before he started school. He took the throne following the death of his grandfather in 1973, although he had four surviving uncles (and one surviving aunt, but under the Swedish constitution at that time I believe she didn't count).

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

It's all about descent. Even if Prince Charles kicks the bucket before ever ascending to the throne, William's place in the succession is guaranteed.
Remind me: would William become Prince of Wales in this case? Or more generally, which ones of Charles' titles would he inherit, which ones would be recreated for him, and which ones wouldn't move down to him?

[alphaboi867]

Remind me: would William become Prince of Wales in this case? Or more generally, which ones of Charles' titles would he inherit, which ones would be recreated for him, and which ones wouldn't move down to him?

The Queen would need to issue letters patent creating him Prince of Wales, the title cannot be inheirited. None of Charles's other titles (Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, etc) would pass on to William since they can only be held by the eldest son of a reigning monarch. Anyone who's heir apparent (as opposed to heir[ess] presumptive) can by styled Prince of Wales by the monarch, but it's not automatic. Now if Prince Phillip was dead too his titles (Duke of Edinburgh, etc) would pass on to William (via Charles) because they operate just like any other peerage title.

[Alka Seltzer]

People often say that on these boards as if it's quite simple to go from a constitutional monarchy to a republican form of government, but I have my doubts, as discussed in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=589052&highlight=republic&page=2):

Yes, but I think the process of becoming a republic would probably start quite quickly if they started offing each other. Like you say, sorting out the legalities could take years.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Some can actually be held outright by women. Most everything really old that was created by writ of summons rather than letters patent goes to heirs general, and a single female heir will succeed to the peerage in her own right (although she couldn't sit in Parliament until the 50s or 60s, and that was taken away in 1999 (although I think a couple of hereditary peeresses were elected to take a couple of the remaining seats)). (If she has a sister, the title will go into abeyance until one line dies out or the abeyance is terminated by the Crown.)

Thank you for clarifying this. Ignorance fought.


Also, every once in a while, a peerage granted to a man who only had daughters would have a special remainder specifying that it would go to the eldest living daughter in the absence of a son (that's why Earl Mountbatten's eldest daughter is Countess Mountbatten in her own right).

I suppose nowadays, though, this is usually moot since ennoblements are almost always Life only.

[A. Gwilliam]

The Queen would need to issue letters patent creating him Prince of Wales, the title cannot be inheirited. None of Charles's other titles (Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, etc) would pass on to William since they can only be held by the eldest son of a reigning monarch. Anyone who's heir apparent (as opposed to heir[ess] presumptive) can by styled Prince of Wales by the monarch, but it's not automatic. Now if Prince Phillip was dead too his titles (Duke of Edinburgh, etc) would pass on to William (via Charles) because they operate just like any other peerage title.

I believe that what you've said here regarding the title of "Prince of Wales" also applies to the title of "Earl of Chester".

[StarvingButStrong]

Here's another question, though I'm not sure exactly how to phrase: what makes one a prince/princess? Obviously all of the queen's, or king's, as the case may be, children have the title. Prince Charles' sons are princes. Prince Andrew's daughters are princesses. But how many generations along does that carry?

Apparently the children of Princesses don't inherit the title, going by Princess Anne's children. How about the children of princes that never become King?

Say things go "normally." As in, QE2 dies at some point, Charles becomes king, eventually he dies, too, and now it's King William.

How about the children of Prince Henry and, um, any princes spawned by Prince Edward? (Is he even married?) Are their children Prince Whoozies and Princess Whatzits? I'm guessing there has to be some cutoff rule, otherwise you'd be knee deep in excess royalty after a generation or two.

[Farmer Jane]

Dang. That's sensible, I guess, but boring. I want that joust! Followed by combat on foot with those big pointy balls...yeah!


But your response raises another question: So, what if Prince Charles gets tired of waiting around and decides to kill his mother? That's attempted murder, at least, and I'm guessing treason as well.

What happens if he succeeds? What happens if the attempt fails?

Does he go to trial? If convicted, does he still retain his place in line? Prince Charles, convict #12345678? (Possibly King Charles, convict #12345678?)

I'm thinking of the general principle that criminals shouldn't be allowed to benefit from their crimes.

Or...do you still behead royal traitors?

Um, I don't think it's treason if the British monarchy are just figureheads.

No one gets beheaded in GB.

Anyway, the whole line of succession could be changed if this guy (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1377498/Succession-rights-Kate-Middleton-Prince-Williams-1st-baby-Queen.html) gets his way.

As far as Charles, succession and murder goes, I'm 99 per cent sure he'd lose his succession rights. I don't know about his heirs, though.

[alphaboi867]

Any child of a British monarch is automatically a Prince(ss) of the UK, with the qualification of Royal Higness. Ditto for all male-line (ie children of the monarch's sons). This is why neither of Princess Anne's kids have any titles (their father is a commoner who declined an earldom). The Queen did offer to grant them titles by letters patent, but Anne declined. Male-line great-grandchildren are styled as children of dukes. Prince Michael of Kent (George V's grandson) is not himself a duke, but his two children are syled Lord Frederick Windsor and Lady Gabriella Windsor.

Before 1917 they would've had "princely rank", but with the qualification of Highness (ie "His Higness Prince Frederick of Kent"). Prince Edward is marred and his two kids are technically "HRH Princess Louise of Wessex" and "HRH Prince James of Wessex". In practice because they're so far down in the line of succession their parents didn't want them to have royal titles, but instead of formally issuing letters patent to that effect the Queen gave permission for them to use their lower styles as children of an earl. Hence "Lady Louise (Mountbatten-)Windsor and Viscount Severn. They can still opt to use their royal titles as adults.

If Prince Harry were to have children while his grandmother is still alive they'd only be Lord/Lady _____ Mountbatten-Windsor, moving up to royal status when Charles becomes king. Ditto with Prince William's kids, except that his eldest son will be a prince from birth (eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales). The Queen can change this by letters patent. She might choose to do it when she creates William a duke on his wedding day.

[Farmer Jane]

Here's another question, though I'm not sure exactly how to phrase: what makes one a prince/princess? Obviously all of the queen's, or king's, as the case may be, children have the title. Prince Charles' sons are princes. Prince Andrew's daughters are princesses. But how many generations along does that carry?

Apparently the children of Princesses don't inherit the title, going by Princess Anne's children. How about the children of princes that never become King?

Say things go "normally." As in, QE2 dies at some point, Charles becomes king, eventually he dies, too, and now it's King William.

How about the children of Prince Henry and, um, any princes spawned by Prince Edward? (Is he even married?) Are their children Prince Whoozies and Princess Whatzits? I'm guessing there has to be some cutoff rule, otherwise you'd be knee deep in excess royalty after a generation or two.

Title of Princess/Prince is a little complicated and always has been. I'm not sure how it exactly goes in the British Royal Monarchy nowadays (like any other self-respecting chick, I lost interest after the 1600s ;)) but His Royal Highness Prince Harry of Wales will be HRH The Prince Henry after William ascends to the throne.

His children would (probably) be children of a duke, i.e., Duke of York. It's up to the monarch to give out those titles. His cousin, Princess Eugene, is not eligible for Dukedom. Any divorcee of a Royal loses the HRH title.

His children wouldn't be princes or princesses because they aren't next in line to the throne when born. (I think.)

[Farmer Jane]

Also, keep in mind that the Queen holds this title in like 16 areas, where as some (like the Duke of York) are heir apparent in only some territories.

I may have been wrong in my previous post. I think that grandsons of the His Majesty male offspring will get the His Highness title without the "Royal". It depends on the monarch/current title holder in question.

Children of non Royal Dukes and Earls are "Ladies" and "Lords", I believe.

[Farmer Jane]

Remind me: would William become Prince of Wales in this case?

He already is.

[alphaboi867]

He already is.

No, his father is. There can only be on Prince of Wales at a time.

[A. Gwilliam]

Also, keep in mind that the Queen holds this title in like 16 areas, where as some (like the Duke of York) are heir apparent in only some territories.

You've got a bit jumbled here somehow. There is only ever one "heir apparent". The line of succession is identical in each of the Commonwealth realms. Ergo, the heir apparent is the same person in each realm... and that person is not the Duke of York.

He already is.

What's your second guess? :D

[Farmer Jane]

You've got a bit jumbled here somehow. There is only ever one "heir apparent". The line of succession is identical in each of the Commonwealth realms. Ergo, the heir apparent is the same person in each realm... and that person is not the Duke of York.

I meant that the Duke of York is not in line for every succession in the Commonwealth.

Am I wrong?

I could be. :confused:

What's your second guess? :D

His Royal Highness Prince William of Wales

and

HRH The Prince of Wales.

I understand the difference with "THE".

Um. I guess I was just thinking that they were both Princes of Wales. The question was, "Remind me: would William become Prince of Wales in this case?"

He is already styled HRH Prince William of Wales. He is not THE Prince of Wales. I thought the question was about who gets to be a prince and what he is a prince of (or from) and such.

[A. Gwilliam]

Um, I don't think it's treason if the British monarchy are just figureheads.

Nope.

When a Man doth compass or imagine the Death of our Lord the King, or of our Lady his Queen or of their eldest Son and Heir; or if a Man do violate the King’s Companion, or the King’s eldest Daughter unmarried, or the Wife [of] the King’s eldest Son and Heir; or if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be [proveably] attainted of open Deed by the People of their Condition: [...] And it is to be understood, that in the Cases above rehearsed, that ought to be judged Treason which extends to our Lord the King, and his Royal Majesty [...]

That's still the law in England and Wales, anyway.

As far as Charles, succession and murder goes, I'm 99 per cent sure he'd lose his succession rights. I don't know about his heirs, though.

I'm 99 per cent certain you're wrong as a matter of law, though of course practical politics is going to work out differently. But there's no reason to assume that Prince William et al. would lose their place in the line of succession unless (a) they were believed to be complicit in the murder, (b) weren't complicit but failed to condemn our putative murderer, or (c) the monarchy as a whole was abolished.

[Askance]

If so, what I am curious about is what happens if the Queen and Prince Charles were to die simultaneously? For example, they're strolling about on the grounds of whatever palace after Prince William's marriage, and a giant flaming meteor hurtles down into them. Boom! Instant incineration. IOW, absolutely no way to determine which of them died first
Then they are assumed to have died in order of succession, that is the Queen would be deemed to have died a fraction of a second before Charles. So Charles III would then be the shortest reigning monarch of all time.

The only time this principle has been actually used (that I'm aware of) was during WWII when some British peer and his son flew a plane into a mountain; I'm trying to remember where I read that but haven't been able to scare up anything from Google.

[Farmer Jane]

Nope.
I'm 99 per cent certain you're wrong as a matter of law, though of course practical politics is going to work out differently.

I did not say it was a law.

But there's no reason to assume that Prince William et al. would lose their place in the line of succession unless (a) they were believed to be complicit in the murder, (b) weren't complicit but failed to condemn our putative murderer, or (c) the monarchy as a whole was abolished.

I said I did not know about his heirs - the OP was clearly having a drama rama fest in potential outcomes of the Royal Family's soap opera.

[Guinastasia]

His children would (probably) be children of a duke, i.e., Duke of York. It's up to the monarch to give out those titles. His cousin, Princess Eugene, is not eligible for Dukedom. Any divorcee of a Royal loses the HRH title.


Are you talking about Princess Eugenie? Why would she lose her HRH title? She had nothing to do with her parents' divorce. :dubious:

[Farmer Jane]

Are you talking about Princess Eugenie? Why would she lose her HRH title? She had nothing to do with her parents' divorce. :dubious:

No. I said she can't handle a dukedom.

As far as divorce goes: Diana lost HRH and became Diana, Princess of Wales. I should have hit "enter" for that sentence...I was starting to ramble.

[A. Gwilliam]

I meant that the Duke of York is not in line for every succession in the Commonwealth.

Am I wrong?

I could be. :confused:
The line of succession is identical for each of the Commonwealth realms. Although the precise legal framework varies from realm to realm, the net effect is the same. Ergo, the Duke of York is in the line of succession for each of the Commonwealth realms, and his place in that line is also identical for each of those realms.

The parallel rules of succession would only be broken if one of the realms unilaterally altered the existing rules. This happened inadvertently following the 1936 abdication of Edward VIII: the last date of his reign and thus the first date of George VI's reign ended up slightly different from the rest of the Commonwealth/Empire in both the Irish Free State and the Union of South Africa; this discrepancy was due to those two countries adopting their own form of legislation relating to the abdication, rather than joining in with British legislation that was applied to all the other territories.

His Royal Highness Prince William of Wales

and

HRH The Prince of Wales.

I understand the difference with "THE".

Um. I guess I was just thinking that they were both Princes of Wales. The question was, "Remind me: would William become Prince of Wales in this case?"

He is already styled HRH Prince William of Wales. He is not THE Prince of Wales. I thought the question was about who gets to be a prince and what he is a prince of (or from) and such.

I'm not sure what the technical terminology for this is, but Prince William is "of Wales" because his father's title is "of Wales". The best way to understand this is to look at his cousins. Thus, it's "Princess Beatrice of York", because her father's title is "of York"; there's no "Prince of York" (outside of Shakespeare).

[A. Gwilliam]

Then they are assumed to have died in order of succession, that is the Queen would be deemed to have died a fraction of a second before Charles. So Charles III would then be the shortest reigning monarch of all time.

The only time this principle has been actually used (that I'm aware of) was during WWII when some British peer and his son flew a plane into a mountain; I'm trying to remember where I read that but haven't been able to scare up anything from Google.

Not sure if this is the case you were thinking of, but it's exactly the same principle. In 1941 Lord Stamp was killed in the Blitz. His eldest son died in the same bombing. The son was deemed to have succeeded his father before his own death. (A younger brother then succeeded in turn.)

[Polycarp]

Then they are assumed to have died in order of succession, that is the Queen would be deemed to have died a fraction of a second before Charles. So Charles III would then be the shortest reigning monarch of all time.

The only time this principle has been actually used (that I'm aware of) was during WWII when some British peer and his son flew a plane into a mountain; I'm trying to remember where I read that but haven't been able to scare up anything from Google.


Actually, something very akin to it happened in Portugal. Carlos I, king since 1889, and his wife had two sons. On February 1, 1908, they were returning to the Royal Palace in Lisbon from a country estate when Manuel Buiça, a republican activist who was a former Army sharpshooter, fired five shots at them. The King was killed immediately; his elder son Prince Luis Felipe was mortally wounded, and the younger son Prince Manuel hit in the arm. Luis Felipe died 20 minutes later, after what is arguably the shortest reign on record. Manuel then became the King. [He was overthrown in a revoluition 2½ years later.]

[Polycarp]

The basic formulary for British royal inheritance (there's a minor difference for noble titles, discussed in others' posts) is

A. The order of succession is:
1. Sons and their heirs, oldest to youngest
2. Daughters and their heirs, oldest to youngest
3. Brothers and their heirs, oldest to youngest
4. Sisters and their heirs, oldest to youngest
5. Uncles and their heirs, oldest to youngest
6. Aunts and their heirs, oldest to youngest
B. The same formula applies to each heir in succession, so that the eldest son's sons and daughters inherit before the second son becomes eligible.
C. Roman Catholics, those married to Roman Catholics, and illegitimate children are statutorily excluded. Note that this is not, or not predominantly, religious prejudice, but dates from the days when the king dictated what his subjects' faith was going to be. And illegitimate in this context means the putative parents are or were not married to each other -- a child born out of wedlock to a couple who then marry becomes legitimate. (There's actually a case of this in the Lascelles family, listed after the Kents around 100 in that long list of order of inheritance, where the man and his wife separated, he moved in with his girlfriend, they popped out two boys, then he married her.)

So the present order is Charles, William, Harry, Andrew, but if William fathers a child, that child slips into the line next after him, before Harry. If Harry marries and has kids, they in turn push Andrew down the list. And so on. When George VI took the throne in late 1936, the order of succession from then until 14 Nov 1948 was Elizabeth, Margaret, Henry of Gloucester (the king's brother), but when Charles was born, he pushed his aunt and great-uncle down the list, as did Anne in 1950. But when Andrew was born in 1960, he pushed Anne down the list, by virtue of being a boy.

[Farmer Jane]

I'm not sure what the technical terminology for this is, but Prince William is "of Wales" because his father's title is "of Wales". The best way to understand this is to look at his cousins. Thus, it's "Princess Beatrice of York", because her father's title is "of York"; there's no "Prince of York" (outside of Shakespeare).

Isn't Charles HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE Prince of Wales?

And William is HRH PRINCE WILLIAM of WALES?

I understand the of Wales is like a last name, but the question was if Prince William would become Prince of Wales. I said he already was. You said guess again.

Charles is THE prince of Wales
while William is A prince of Wales

but they are both princes, no?! :smack:

Prince of Wales (Welsh: Tywysog Cymru) is a title traditionally granted to the heir apparent -- That's Charles


The Prince's style and title in full: His Royal Highness Prince William Arthur Philip Louis of Wales, Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter. As a British prince, William does not use a surname for everyday purposes. -- that's Wills


If Charles dies, he only becomes HRH THE Prince of Wales *if* the Queen says so.

but today
He is a Prince
of Wales ("of Charles")

no?

[mac_bolan00]

interesting discussion about the POW. as to the princess royal, it seems simpler. anne replaced margaret, the queen's sister, when she married mark philips.

i know american wallis simpson became duchess of windsor only after her two ex-husbands died (the brits must have checked and re-checked.)

[bengangmo]

Beatrice and Eugenie are princesses , they are the kids of Andrew and Fergie They are in their early 20s

No they're not. I remember the wedding, their births, the toe sucking, the weight watchers advertisement and the reality show.

If those two are in their 20s that would mean I am old and you should get off my lawn and stop spouting untrue information!!

[Farmer Jane]

I'm not sure what the technical terminology for this is, but Prince William is "of Wales" because his father's title is "of Wales". The best way to understand this is to look at his cousins. Thus, it's "Princess Beatrice of York", because her father's title is "of York"; there's no "Prince of York" (outside of Shakespeare).

No, that's not right. You wouldn't look at his cousins to understand styling. "Last name", maybe.

Prince Andrew is the His Royal Highness the Duke of York.
His daughter is Princess Beatrice of York.

But Charles is HRH The Prince OF Wales. Even though he's also the Duke of such and such, his title is Prince of Wales. The OP asked about titles - and it was a very poorly worded question about "Prince of Wales".

Anyway, ask a Welsh person what they think about the The Prince and his son the Prince and that's much more fun. :p

[Farmer Jane]

No they're not. I remember the wedding, their births, the toe sucking, the weight watchers advertisement and the reality show.

If those two are in their 20s that would mean I am old and you should get off my lawn and stop spouting untrue information!!


Eugene is younger than I am.

[bengangmo]

No, that's not right. You wouldn't look at his cousins to understand styling. "Last name", maybe.

Prince Andrew is the His Royal Highness the Duke of York.
His daughter is Princess Beatrice of York.

But Charles is HRH The Prince OF Wales. Even though he's also the Duke of such and such, his title is Prince of Wales. The OP asked about titles - and it was a very poorly worded question about "Prince of Wales".

Anyway, ask a Welsh person what they think about the The Prince and his son the Prince and that's much more fun. :p

+1 on this - I seem to remember that HRH The Prince of Wales resides with the next in line to the throne or something and Charlie only received the title upon his marriage? (yes, get off my damn lawn - I can also remember watching that wedding on TV)

[bengangmo]

From Wiki...

Prince of Wales (Welsh: Tywysog Cymru) is a title traditionally granted to the heir apparent to the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the 15 other independent Commonwealth realms
and

Charles, as the Prince of Wales, is the present Duke of Cornwall, responsible for the duchy of Cornwall.

So I guess that would make Charles' full title something like...


HRH The Prince of Whales AND Duke of Cornwall

[etv78]

No they're not. I remember the wedding, their births, the toe sucking, the weight watchers advertisement and the reality show.

If those two are in their 20s that would mean I am old and you should get off my lawn and stop spouting untrue information!!

I realize you're kidding/being funny but: they are 21 and almost 23, respectively.

[Farmer Jane]

From Wiki...

Prince of Wales (Welsh: Tywysog Cymru) is a title traditionally granted to the heir apparent to the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the 15 other independent Commonwealth realms
and

Charles, as the Prince of Wales, is the present Duke of Cornwall, responsible for the duchy of Cornwall.

So I guess that would make Charles' full title something like...


HRH The Prince of Whales AND Duke of Cornwall

and such and such of Scotland...whatever. Britons and their shtick. :p

[SciFiSam]

+1 on this - I seem to remember that HRH The Prince of Wales resides with the next in line to the throne or something and Charlie only received the title upon his marriage? (yes, get off my damn lawn - I can also remember watching that wedding on TV)

No. He became Prince of Wales when he was nine, but wasn't invested in that title until he was 20. It was quite a big deal, but it was a long time before he got married.

And the Duchy of Cornwall has nothing to do with the title the Prince of Wales. Cornwall automatically goes to the heir apparent, along with several other titles, but there's nothing automatic about the title Prince of Wales.

Prince William is a Prince of Wales but then he's also a Prince of England and a Prince of London and a Prince of Mumping-on-the-Marsh, but that's meaningless; when his father dies, he won't inherit the title Prince of Wales. Odds are, when his father becomes King, he will invest William as Prince of Wales, but that's not guaranteed. If the Queen lives for another 20 years and William already has sons, Charles, in his short reign, might create his eldest grandson Prince of Wales instead.

[/url=http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/personalprofiles/theprinceofwales/biography/index.html]More info[/url]. And here too. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/history/sites/themes/society/royalty_princeofwales.shtml)

This is why it's never good to depend on Wikipedia as a resource - it's a starting point, not the be-all and end-all.

[mac_bolan00]

and what about the last king of scotland, the late idi amin dada?

[Farmer Jane]

No. He became Prince of Wales when he was nine, but wasn't invested in that title until he was 20. It was quite a big deal, but it was a long time before he got married.

And the Duchy of Cornwall has nothing to do with the title the Prince of Wales. Cornwall automatically goes to the heir apparent, along with several other titles, but there's nothing automatic about the title Prince of Wales.

Prince William is a Prince of Wales but then he's also a Prince of England and a Prince of London and a Prince of Mumping-on-the-Marsh, but that's meaningless; when his father dies, he won't inherit the title Prince of Wales. Odds are, when his father becomes King, he will invest William as Prince of Wales, but that's not guaranteed. If the Queen lives for another 20 years and William already has sons, Charles, in his short reign, might create his eldest grandson Prince of Wales instead.

[/url=http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/personalprofiles/theprinceofwales/biography/index.html]More info[/url]. And here too. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/history/sites/themes/society/royalty_princeofwales.shtml)

This is why it's never good to depend on Wikipedia as a resource - it's a starting point, not the be-all and end-all.

Didn't you kind of just say what a lot of us just said?:confused:

[Acsenray]

So I guess that would make Charles' full title something like...

HRH The Prince of Whales AND Duke of Cornwall

It's not really his "full title." It's a series of titles. And it's not hard to look up (http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/personalprofiles/theprinceofwales/abouttheprince/titles):

His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, KG, KT, GCB, OM, AK, QSO, PC, ADC, Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland.

[SciFiSam]

Didn't you kind of just say what a lot of us just said?:confused:

No. If you read what I was quoting and the posts preceding it, the assertion was made that Charles received the title Prince of Wales on his marriage, and it was asked whether William will inherit the title when his father dies, which was incorrectly answered. You said what I said about Prince William n a way, except that you're focusing on William being a Prince of Wales, which is irrelevant.

I'm not even going to get into the 'Princess Royal taking over from Margaret' misinformation. (Not you - another poster).

[Acsenray]

as to the princess royal, it seems simpler. anne replaced margaret, the queen's sister, when she married mark philips.

The queen's sister, Princess Margaret, never held the title "princess royal." Neither did Elizabeth.

i know american wallis simpson became duchess of windsor only after her two ex-husbands died (the brits must have checked and re-checked.)

So far as I know, she became duchess of Windsor as soon as she married Edward. But she was never an "H.R.H."

[Farmer Jane]

No. If you read what I was quoting and the posts preceding it, the assertion was made that Charles received the title Prince of Wales on his marriage, and it was asked whether William will inherit the title when his father dies, which was incorrectly answered. You said what I said about Prince William n a way, except that you're focusing on William being a Prince of Wales, which is irrelevant.

I'm not even going to get into the 'Princess Royal taking over from Margaret' misinformation. (Not you - another poster).

yeah. Somehow I think we're being more serious about this than the OP was. :p

[SciFiSam]

yeah. Somehow I think we're being more serious about this than the OP was. :p

Oh, it has ample room for pedantry! The titles that come without land, voting rights or income merit little more than pedantry anyway, and that's most of them these days.

[StarvingButStrong]

yeah. Somehow I think we're being more serious about this than the OP was. :p

Absolutely. ;)

Come, on, admit it: Don't you think it was more fun (for distant onlookers!) when there were battles and betrayals and backstabbings and beheadings and all that stuff? :D

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

The Queen would need to issue letters patent creating him Prince of Wales, the title cannot be inheirited. None of Charles's other titles (Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, etc) would pass on to William since they can only be held by the eldest son of a reigning monarch. Anyone who's heir apparent (as opposed to heir[ess] presumptive) can by styled Prince of Wales by the monarch, but it's not automatic. Now if Prince Phillip was dead too his titles (Duke of Edinburgh, etc) would pass on to William (via Charles) because they operate just like any other peerage title.
Thanks for the information, this is what I wanted to know. So if I understand correctly, Charles currently does not hold any title that can be inherited by his son at his death.

And yes, I'm aware that William is styled as Prince William of Wales (and I believe Harry is also styled as Prince Henry of Wales), but what I was wondering was what would be needed to make William THE Prince of Wales. Now I have the answer.

Another question, though: suppose Charles dies tomorrow. Are his children still styled as Prince XXX of Wales, as children of the (deceased) Prince of Wales?

[alphaboi867]

...Another question, though: suppose Charles dies tomorrow. Are his children still styled as Prince XXX of Wales, as children of the (deceased) Prince of Wales?

Yes, they still retain their styles unless the Queen chooses to grant them higher ones. William is expected to be made a Duke on his wedding day.

...i know american wallis simpson became duchess of windsor only after her two ex-husbands died (the brits must have checked and re-checked.)

Nope, she became the Duchess of Windsor the moment she married the Duke of Windsor. Both ex-husbands were still alive. A woman automatically takes the feminine form of any title or style her husband has (though if she holds a higher one in her own right she can keep using it). The only special provision made for Wallis was that she wasn't allowed to share her husband's style as an "HRH" or the dignity "Princess Edward". This restriction was including in the letters patent creating the former Edward VIII Duke of Windsor and (re)confirming his status as a Prince.

[A. Gwilliam]

Charles is THE prince of Wales
while William is A prince of Wales

No.

You could say that Charles is a prince twice over. He's a "Prince" as a son of the Sovereign. He's also the "Prince of Wales" as the result of a specific creation.

In contrast, William is a prince only once over. He's a "Prince" as a son of a son of the Sovereign.

There is only ever one "Prince of Wales". It's a personal title, not a category.

The reason that William is "Prince William of Wales" is not because the formula is "Prince ... of Wales". Rather, the formula is (a) "Prince ..." + (b) "of Wales". The first part is because of William's relationship to the Sovereign, the second part is a description (for want of a better word) taken from his father's most senior title. That's why I gave the example of Beatrice: she's (a) "Princess ..." because of her relationship to the Sovereign, while (b) "of York" is taken from her father's most senior title.

Beatrice is not a "Princess of York", and William is not a "Prince of Wales".

[Acsenray]

It might be useful to think of it in terms of the German terms "Fürst" and "Prinz." A Fürst is a "prince" in terms of the nobleman with some kind of rights over a principality. A Prinz is a "prince" in terms of a member of a royal family. The title "Prince of Wales" is a Fürst-type prince, but the titles "The Prince Charles" or "The Prince William of Wales" are Prinz-type titles.

[Dangerosa]

Nope, she became the Duchess of Windsor the moment she married the Duke of Windsor. Both ex-husbands were still alive. A woman automatically takes the feminine form of any title or style her husband has (though if she holds a higher one in her own right she can keep using it). The only special provision made for Wallis was that she wasn't allowed to share her husband's style as an "HRH" or the dignity "Princess Edward". This restriction was including in the letters patent creating the former Edward VIII Duke of Windsor and (re)confirming his status as a Prince.

She was apparently royally pissed about the lack of HRH, and styled herself thus in her own household.

[Farmer Jane]

No.

You could say that Charles is a prince twice over. He's a "Prince" as a son of the Sovereign. He's also the "Prince of Wales" as the result of a specific creation.

In contrast, William is a prince only once over. He's a "Prince" as a son of a son of the Sovereign.

There is only ever one "Prince of Wales". It's a personal title, not a category.

The reason that William is "Prince William of Wales" is not because the formula is "Prince ... of Wales". Rather, the formula is (a) "Prince ..." + (b) "of Wales". The first part is because of William's relationship to the Sovereign, the second part is a description (for want of a better word) taken from his father's most senior title. That's why I gave the example of Beatrice: she's (a) "Princess ..." because of her relationship to the Sovereign, while (b) "of York" is taken from her father's most senior title.

Beatrice is not a "Princess of York", and William is not a "Prince of Wales".

gggggggggggrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr you're missing my point.

The OP asked if he would become prince of wales. He also seemed rather confused about who gets a title and how.

I said he already was - rather snarky, but true. he's william, prince of wales by proxy of his father being The prince of wales.

The Prince of Wales - Prince William (http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/personalprofiles/princewilliamprinceharry/princewilliam/)

[Acsenray]

Again, he's not "William, Prince of Wales." He's "Prince William of Wales." And there's no pesky at stake here.

[panache45]

. . . a giant flaming meteor hurtles down into them.

Charles, with his big ears and better agility, would have enough warning to get out of the way. The Queen, with an 85-year-old body and short legs, would be a sitting duck.

[Farmer Jane]

Again, he's not "William, Prince of Wales." He's "Prince William of Wales." And there's no pesky at stake here.

yeah, I did make that typo just now. But I didn't do that before. So I don't see what your point is? I clearly stated CHARLESwas THE Prince of Wales...so either you're not getting what I wrote or you're trying to argue over nothing?

[Farmer Jane]

Isn't Charles HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE Prince of Wales?

And William is HRH PRINCE WILLIAM of WALES?

I understand the of Wales is like a last name, but the question was if Prince William would become Prince of Wales. I said he already was. You said guess again.

Charles is THE prince of Wales
while William is A prince of Wales

but they are both princes, no?! :smack:

-- That's Charles

-- that's Wills


If Charles dies, he only becomes HRH THE Prince of Wales *if* the Queen says so.

but today
He is a Prince
of Wales ("of Charles")

no?

there.

[SciFiSam]

gggggggggggrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr you're missing my point.

The OP asked if he would become prince of wales. He also seemed rather confused about who gets a title and how.

I said he already was - rather snarky, but true. he's william, prince of wales by proxy of his father being The prince of wales.

The Prince of Wales - Prince William (http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/personalprofiles/princewilliamprinceharry/princewilliam/)

Do you really think that answers the question, though? Do you think the question was 'is he a Prince of Wales?' Because, well, unless Wales has suddenly seceded from the UK, he's obviously a Prince of Wales, so it'd be a pretty stupid question.

[Farmer Jane]

Do you really think that answers the question, though? Do you think the question was 'is he a Prince of Wales?' Because, well, unless Wales has suddenly seceded from the UK, he's obviously a Prince of Wales, so it'd be a pretty stupid question.

I couldn't even tell if the OP was serious.

You go pull it up, you read it, and then if you think I'm being a jerk because I made a little half joke (and actually explained it later), then you go ahead and think that.

If you needed something else to do on a Monday night, I'm sure there's a cooking show on.

[SciFiSam]

I don't think you're being a jerk. Well, not until that last post. Don't take things so personally.

[SciFiSam]

BTW, before you tell people to reread the OP, check that the question was in the OP. It wasn't.

Remind me: would William become Prince of Wales in this case? Or more generally, which ones of Charles' titles would he inherit, which ones would be recreated for him, and which ones wouldn't move down to him?

It's clear he's asking about the title specifically.

Enjoy your cooking shows.

[Farmer Jane]

I meant Original Poster, not OPpost. It wasn't the OP? Crap. Maybe I am a jerk. Anyway. i though I explained the difference.

[mac_bolan00]

The queen's sister, Princess Margaret, never held the title "princess royal." Neither did Elizabeth.
thanks for the correction. yes, the style is given to the eldest daughter of the monarch but not always. it's a lifetime title that's why. this is what mystifies me. so elizabeth and margaret were never bestowed the title because their aunt princess mary held it. mary held the title up to her death in 1965. i can only assume margaret couldn't have it since their father george VI was already dead and her sister was already queen.

the title was given to anne in 1987, a 22-year gap. not clear why it was given to her that year. she was born in 1950 and married in 1973.

[Acsenray]

Margaret was never the eldest daughter of a monarch. Not even after Mary's death.

[alphaboi867]

...If the Queen lives for another 20 years and William already has sons, Charles, in his short reign, might create his eldest grandson Prince of Wales instead...

Nope, it doesn't work that way. Only the heir apparent can be created Prince of Wales, not the heir apparent of the heir apparent, and not the heir(ess) presumptive. The only way King Charles III would create his grandson PoW is if Prince William was dead. George II did the same thing when his son (Frederick, Prince of Wales) died and then his son (the future George III) became heir apparent. Back the '40s the was some talk of Princess Elizabeth being created Princess of Wales in her own right, but nothing came of it because she was only the heiress presumptive and could always (at least in theory) be displaced by the birth of a son. A woman cannot be made Princess of Wales in her own right because she can always* be displaced by the birth of a son.


*There is one situtation where an heiress apparent could arise under current law. If an heir apparent (who is always male) were to die leaving only daughters his eldest daughter would become the heiress apparent because there's no way her father could ever sire a son to displace her. That's never happened in British history.

[SciFiSam]

Nope, it doesn't work that way. Only the heir apparent can be created Prince of Wales, not the heir apparent of the heir apparent, and not the heir(ess) presumptive. The only way King Charles III would create his grandson PoW is if Prince William was dead. George II did the same thing when his son (Frederick, Prince of Wales) died and then his son (the future George III) became heir apparent. Back the '40s the was some talk of Princess Elizabeth being created Princess of Wales in her own right, but nothing came of it because she was only the heiress presumptive and could always (at least in theory) be displaced by the birth of a son. A woman cannot be made Princess of Wales in her own right because she can always* be displaced by the birth of a son.


*There is one situtation where an heiress apparent could arise under current law. If an heir apparent (who is always male) were to die leaving only daughters his eldest daughter would become the heiress apparent because there's no way her father could ever sire a son to displace her. That's never happened in British history.

You seem to know what you're talking about, so I'll take your word for it, but I'd prefer a cite if you have one. I've only garnered what I know about the Prince of Wales from general reading, no detailed study or anything, so I'm not claiming any great authority.

[BrotherCadfael]

How about the children of Prince Henry and, um, any princes spawned by Prince Edward? (Is he even married?)From The Royal Canadian Air Farce's "English As A Second Language News", circa 1999: "Two surprises from England tonight: One, Prince Edward is getting married. Two, to a woman!"

[Elendil's Heir]

Funny.

As to royals whacking other royals in order to move up the line of succession, in the only recent example of which I can think, it didn't end well at all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_royal_massacre. The Nepalese monarchy was abolished by the people just a few days shy of seven years later.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

A woman cannot be made Princess of Wales in her own right because she can always* be displaced by the birth of a son.What if she was transgender, and transitioned to a man? Would she then become Prince of Wales?

What if it was the second-eldest daughter who did this -- now being male, would he move ahead of his elder sister in the line of succession to the throne?

[mac_bolan00]

if she was a "natural spinster" and opted to alter herself physically, it will not alter the fact that inheritance of the title did not come to 'her'.

[clairobscur]

But your response raises another question: So, what if Prince Charles gets tired of waiting around and decides to kill his mother? That's attempted murder, at least, and I'm guessing treason as well.

What happens if he succeeds? What happens if the attempt fails?
?


Note that this scenario happened in real life, a dozen years ago, not in the UK, but in Nepal. The crown prince murdered not only the king, but his whole family, along with an uncle.

Officially, he then committed suicide, but died as a result only some days later, and technically he was king during those days (I say "officially" because many have expressed doubts about the official version, for instance the following king and survivor was held in suspicion about the whole story).

In any case, he conveniently died and was succeeded by a remaining uncle who dedicated his reign to the trashing of the public perception of the monarchy, which was eventually abolished (he was quite an autocrat in a country in a politically very volatile situation).

[A. Gwilliam]

gggggggggggrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr you're missing my point.

The OP asked if he would become prince of wales. He also seemed rather confused about who gets a title and how.

I said he already was - rather snarky, but true. he's william, prince of wales by proxy of his father being The prince of wales.

The Prince of Wales - Prince William (http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/personalprofiles/princewilliamprinceharry/princewilliam/)

But no matter how many times you say it, in no matter how many different ways, Prince William is not "a" Prince of Wales. There is no such thing, other than in a sort of philosophical sense that as a Prince of the United Kingdom, he is a Prince in/of any place within the United Kingdom.

There is only ever "the" Prince of Wales. There is never "a" Prince of Wales.

Charles is both a "Prince" and the "Prince of Wales". Charles has the "of Wales" because it's part of his title. William isn't the "X" of anywhere, because he doesn't have a substantive title of his own; the "of Wales" in his case, and in the case of his brother, is a sort of surname. Being known as Prince William "of Wales" does not make William a "Prince of Wales" any more than being known as Princess Beatrice "of York" makes Beatrice a "Princess of York".

I'll admit to being unclear as to what exactly your point is/was. But if the earlier poster asked whether William could be "Prince of Wales", and your answer was/is that he already is, then your answer is wrong. William is either not a Prince of anyplace (just like I'm not a "Mr" of anywhere), or he's a Prince "of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

[Farmer Jane]

But no matter how many times you say it, in no matter how many different ways, Prince William is not "a" Prince of Wales. There is no such thing, other than in a sort of philosophical sense that as a Prince of the United Kingdom, he is a Prince in/of any place within the United Kingdom.


It was a play on language. I am so terribly sorry this grossly offends you, Mr. ____ of ____.

Everything else you just typed out wasn't an argument...because I'm not arguing with you.

Did you read what I wrote?

Sincerely,

Ms. CitizenPained of Denver

[A. Gwilliam]

It was a play on language. I am so terribly sorry this grossly offends you, Mr. ____ of ____.

Who said that I was offended?

I suggest that you work on your written humour. If nobody realises that you're joking, then you're probably not doing it properly...!

[dqa]

A woman cannot be made Princess of Wales in her own right because she can always* be displaced by the birth of a son.I could swear that a few years back Elizabeth II issued a proclamation about titles or succession or some such going to the eldest son or daughter in the generation following those currently living. I can't seem to find any evidence of this, which is really frustrating given the news of the past couple days.

Did I completely imagine this, or was the effect of her statement so minor that it hasn't been worth mentioning in recent discussion?

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

I could swear that a few years back Elizabeth II issued a proclamation about titles or succession or some such going to the eldest son or daughter in the generation following those currently living. I can't seem to find any evidence of this, which is really frustrating given the news of the past couple days.
I don't know what Elizabeth may have said, but in any case, altering the line of succession would require an act of Parliament, it's not something the Queen can do by herself. I guess it may even require the assent of all the countries who have Elizabeth as head of state, and in some of them changing the line of succession would require a constitutional amendment.

In Sweden, though, the law was changed to allow succession without regard to gender. This caused the Crown Prince to lose his place as heir apparent to his older sister, and apparently the King wasn't too happy about it.

[Acsenray]

I recall it being proposed that girls would inherit equally with boys, by order of age. However, I don't recall any definitive resolution of the issue.

[APB]

There have been a number of attempts over the past decade or so to pass Private Member's Bills to give daughters the same rights as sons. As is usual with such Bills, none of them got anywhere.

As they touched on the royal prerogative, this required the Queen to give permission for those Bills to be debated in Parliament. Which was always given. Such permission has however invariably been overinterpreted to mean that the Queen had announced her support for the change. But actually that permission was never more than a formality. Indeed, not only was she only acting on the advice of ministers, it is conventional for such permission to be given even if ministers disapprove of the measure being proposed. However, equally, the informal indications - i.e. royal officials briefing off the record - have always been that she personally doesn't have a problem with the idea. It's not as if she's going to be affected.

But all this is now old news anyway, given that, over the past week, the present Government has made it clear that it is now minded to legislate on the matter (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13103587). Subject to all the practical problems in doing so.

[Giles]

But all this is now old news anyway, given that, over the past week, the present Government has made it clear that it is now minded to legislate on the matter (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13103587). Subject to all the practical problems in doing so.
That's good, and I suspect there will be few problems with the idea of gender equality in the succession in Her Majesty's realms outside the United Kingdom.

[Acsenray]

the present Government has made it clear that it is now minded to legislate on the matter (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13103587). Subject to all the practical problems in doing so.

Funny quotation in that article:

"If they do so we can resolve this matter before any child of Prince William and Kate Middleton is born, not afterwards. The clock is ticking. We need to act fast."

Uh ... what? Even if William sires a legal heir as soon as possible, what is the need to act fast? There are still two people -- Charles and William himself -- who would precede any child of William's. And why would it be essential to get this done before any such child is born? In fact, if William's first child is a girl, it might act as a catalyst for change. As of now, there's no urgency, is there?

[SciFiSam]

Funny quotation in that article:



Uh ... what? Even if William sires a legal heir as soon as possible, what is the need to act fast? There are still two people -- Charles and William himself -- who would precede any child of William's. And why would it be essential to get this done before any such child is born? In fact, if William's first child is a girl, it might act as a catalyst for change. As of now, there's no urgency, is there?

I guess perhaps they're thinking that a law about succession can only be applied to those born after the law is passed. I don't know if that's true - the Swedish example above applied to people who were already born - but it's one possible explanation for the urgency.

[Farmer Jane]

I suppose if Wills and Kate had a female child before the Act was passed, then the female could be considered as an usurper to the "rightful" heir (assuming they have more boys).

edit* Usurper if the Act was passed after Kate and Wills had two kids, the first being a girl and the second a boy.

[Giles]

I guess perhaps they're thinking that a law about succession can only be applied to those born after the law is passed. I don't know if that's true - the Swedish example above applied to people who were already born - but it's one possible explanation for the urgency.
The law could be changed so that the Princess Royal and her children came before her younger brothers in the line of succession. That's not likely to have any practical effect, given that Prince William and Prince Harry are both likely to have children, but it might be worth doing for the principle of the thing. I doubt if the Duke of York would object, or if he would even mind very much being dropped from number 4 to number 7 in line.

[Farmer Jane]

The law could be changed so that the Princess Royal and her children came before her younger brothers in the line of succession. That's not likely to have any practical effect, given that Prince William and Prince Harry are both likely to have children, but it might be worth doing for the principle of the thing. I doubt if the Duke of York would object, or if he would even mind very much being dropped from number 4 to number 7 in line.

He seems to be a little embarrassed by the fancy at times, no?

If Wills & Kate had a female child, that child would be the next heir apparent (if the act were passed). That has quite an effect. If they had three daughters first and a son later and then William dies, the first born daughter is the heir, not fourth born son or Harry.

It was always my understanding that the heir was the first son, and if the couple had no children or all children died somehow it, would go to the brother of the current heir.

So King Red has a daughter, 1Princess Pink. Then he has a son, 2Prince Blue, and another daughter, 3Princess Rose.

King Red dies and 1Prince Blue becomes king. Prince Blue dies without heirs so 2Princess Pink becomes Queen. Queen Pink reigns for 30 years, has two children, both female. The children die, and then the Queen dies, so 3Princess Rose is now Queen Rose. Her children, 1.3Prince Navy and 2.3Princess Yellow, are #2 and #3 in line now.

So Princess Yellow is the second in line to who was once the third in line to the throne. :eek:

[A. Gwilliam]

I don't know what Elizabeth may have said, but in any case, altering the line of succession would require an act of Parliament, it's not something the Queen can do by herself. I guess it may even require the assent of all the countries who have Elizabeth as head of state, and in some of them changing the line of succession would require a constitutional amendment.
I'm fairly sure that this doesn't actually require a constitutional amendment in any of the Commonwealth realms. This is because the various constitutions are written in such a way that while the existence of rules of succession is implied, the rules themselves do not form part of the constitution.

[Giles]

I'm fairly sure that this doesn't actually require a constitutional amendment in any of the Commonwealth realms. This is because the various constitutions are written in such a way that while the existence of rules of succession is implied, the rules themselves do not form part of the constitution.
Section 2 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 says:
The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.
"Her Majesty" here means Queen Victoria, since that act was passed during her reign. And that Act is an act of the United Kingdom Parliament, and is one of the covering clauses of the Constitution of Australia, not part of the Constitution proper.

So, the U.K. Parliament could legislate to change "Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom", but it would be required by the Statute of Westminster to consult with Australia over any change affecting Australia.

However, there is obiter dicta in Sue v. Hill ([1999] HCA 30), from a minority of the High Court of Australia, that the U.K. Parliament cannot change the succession of the monarchy in right of the Commonwealth of Australia, so it may be safer if the Australian Parliament takes action at the same time as the U.K. Parliament to change the succession. Otherwise (in an extreme case of several premature deaths) the U.K. might have Queen Ann while Australia has King Andrew.

[Bytegeist]

... it may be safer if the Australian Parliament takes action at the same time as the U.K. Parliament to change the succession. Otherwise (in an extreme case of several premature deaths) the U.K. might have Queen Ann while Australia has King Andrew.

Although that's a funny situation to find yourself in, would it really be a problem in practice? The Monarch of Australia — now distinct from the Monarch of the UK — could still execute his duties toward Australia. (Or not?)

[t-bonham@scc.net]

I could swear that a few years back Elizabeth II issued a proclamation about titles or succession or some such going to the eldest son or daughter in the generation following those currently living. I can't seem to find any evidence of this, which is really frustrating given the news of the past couple days.I don't think she has the authority to do that.
The succession of the monarchy is controlled by Parliament (for the last 300 years or so), and I think it would take an Act by them to do this.

[A. Gwilliam]

Section 2 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 says:

"Her Majesty" here means Queen Victoria, since that act was passed during her reign. And that Act is an act of the United Kingdom Parliament, and is one of the covering clauses of the Constitution of Australia, not part of the Constitution proper.

So, the U.K. Parliament could legislate to change "Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom", but it would be required by the Statute of Westminster to consult with Australia over any change affecting Australia.

However, there is obiter dicta in Sue v. Hill ([1999] HCA 30), from a minority of the High Court of Australia, that the U.K. Parliament cannot change the succession of the monarchy in right of the Commonwealth of Australia, so it may be safer if the Australian Parliament takes action at the same time as the U.K. Parliament to change the succession. Otherwise (in an extreme case of several premature deaths) the U.K. might have Queen Ann while Australia has King Andrew.

A famous case in Australian constitutional law, but clearly more interesting than I'd assumed. I shall have to bump it up my reading list. Thanks! :D

However, you're (I think) talking about ordinary legislation; in other words, not something that would trigger the Constitution's notorious s. 128. That's what I had in mind when I said that a "constitutional amendment" wouldn't be necessary.

As I understand it, the provisions of ss. 1-8 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia Act are protected from any alteration by s. 8 of the Statute of Westminster, but that protection is in turn protected only by a requirement that s. 15 of the Australia Acts be complied with. In other words, provided that each of the states passes ordinary legislation requesting a change, the federal Parliament can itself then pass ordinary legislation. This is the worst-case scenario as I see it.


Incidentally, the Statute of Westminster doesn't require consultation as a matter of law; it merely states the convention that there be consultation in its preamble.

[alphaboi867]

Although that's a funny situation to find yourself in, would it really be a problem in practice? The Monarch of Australia — now distinct from the Monarch of the UK — could still execute his duties toward Australia. (Or not?)

Of course without duties in the UK to busy himself King Andrew IV of Australia might just decide to move to Canberra fulltime. :smack: I don't think many Aussies would like that.

[A. Gwilliam]

Although that's a funny situation to find yourself in, would it really be a problem in practice? The Monarch of Australia — now distinct from the Monarch of the UK — could still execute his duties toward Australia. (Or not?)

It would cause a nightmare for the staff at Buckingham Palace! :D

As mentioned in post #51 above, a split succession did in fact happen after the abdication of Edward VIII. The UK legislation confirming the abdication was assented to by the King (i.e. Edward VIII himself) on 11th December. The relevant Irish legislation was assented to by the Governor-General on the 12th and was not back-dated. So Edward VIII reigned for one day longer in the Irish Free State than in the UK. In South Africa, they didn't pass any legislation until the following month, but then back-dated the effective date of the abdication to the 10th!

I think I'm right in saying that the only specific power remaining to the Sovereign (other than in the UK) is the appointment or dismissal of a Governor-General.


I don't think she has the authority to do that.
The succession of the monarchy is controlled by Parliament (for the last 300 years or so), and I think it would take an Act by them to do this.
The succession within the UK is governed by a combination of the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement, and the various Acts of Union.

[Giles]

Of course without duties in the UK to busy himself King Andrew IV of Australia might just decide to move to Canberra fulltime. :smack: I don't think many Aussies would like that.
Why Andrew IV? There's been no King Andrew in England, Scotland, the U.K. or Australia. He would be just King Andrew. His sister, however, would be Queen Anne II.

And the prospect of having a resident monarch, perhaps demanding a palace in Canberra to live in, would doubtless speed up the process towards an Australian republic.

[Giles]

I think I'm right in saying that the only specific power remaining to the Sovereign (other than in the UK) is the appointment or dismissal of a Governor-General.
HM can assent to Australian legislation, if it's reserved by the GG for her assent or if she is present in Australia. She has also opened the Parliament in Canberra (though I'm not sure if she can convene or prorogue it).

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

No.

You could say that Charles is a prince twice over. He's a "Prince" as a son of the Sovereign. He's also the "Prince of Wales" as the result of a specific creation.

In contrast, William is a prince only once over. He's a "Prince" as a son of a son of the Sovereign.

There is only ever one "Prince of Wales". It's a personal title, not a category.

The reason that William is "Prince William of Wales" is not because the formula is "Prince ... of Wales". Rather, the formula is (a) "Prince ..." + (b) "of Wales". The first part is because of William's relationship to the Sovereign, the second part is a description (for want of a better word) taken from his father's most senior title.


As used by William and Harry, the "of Wales" is rather like the "von" in German aristocratic names, no? IOW more like a surname than a title.

[APB]

Funny quotation in that article:



Uh ... what? Even if William sires a legal heir as soon as possible, what is the need to act fast? There are still two people -- Charles and William himself -- who would precede any child of William's. And why would it be essential to get this done before any such child is born? In fact, if William's first child is a girl, it might act as a catalyst for change. As of now, there's no urgency, is there?

Yes, much of the press coverage has overegged the idea that there's some ticking countdown that requires immediate action. Logically, it cannot become an issue until they produce a son younger than a daughter, so, barring the birth of fraternal twins, the timeframe is actually at least eighteen months. And, as the Swedes have shown, it can be done retrospectively. (Although it would be rather unfair to do so once the demoted prince was old enough to understand what was happening. In the Swedish case, Prince Carl Philip was then still only a baby.)

But there may also be some baser political calculations behind the current moves. Although the change itself will be utterly uncontroversial, the Government won't want it becoming a pretext for discussions on other, more contentious issues. Passing it in the afterglow of the wedding reduces that danger. Also, if one was being really cynical, one might suspect that Cameron wants to give Clegg something to do after the AV referendum. Especially if AV is rejected.

[A. Gwilliam]

But there may also be some baser political calculations behind the current moves. Although the change itself will be utterly uncontroversial, the Government won't want it becoming a pretext for discussions on other, more contentious issues. Passing it in the afterglow of the wedding reduces that danger.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if this operated as a factor. Barbados has made noises about becoming a republic. Australian culture has a strongly egalitarian trend with a definite republican tendency. Public discussion of the monarchy might well get tangled up in various Caribbean nations with arguments over the merits of still allowing appeals to the JCPC (and vice versa). And discussion in any country might easily get tangled up with any dissatisfaction with the party of government.

In 1936 the Irish government used the abdication of Edward VIII as an opportunity to abolish the office of Governor-General, and to otherwise all but eliminate the formal role of the monarchy within the constitution.

Discussion of gender-neutral succession would also inevitably open up discussion of the various religious restrictions, which in turn must surely open up for discussion the relationship between the state and the Church of England...

It's all a bit of a potential hornets' nest! :)

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Also, if one was being really cynical, one might suspect that Cameron wants to give Clegg something to do after the AV referendum. Especially if AV is rejected.What in heck is the AV referendum?
For that matter, who are Cameron & Clegg -- British royals of some sort?

[Baron Greenback]

What in heck is the AV referendum?
For that matter, who are Cameron & Clegg -- British royals of some sort?

AV referendum - upcoming half-arsed vote on changing the voting system
Cameron & Clegg - respectively, the current Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister

[t-bonham@scc.net]

AV referendum - upcoming half-arsed vote on changing the voting system
Cameron & Clegg - respectively, the current Prime Minister and Deputy Prime MinisterOK, thanks.
But what is a "half-arsed vote"? We've recently switched to Instant Runoff Voting (Ranked Choice Voting) for local elections here -- is it anything like that?

[Baron Greenback]

But what is a "half-arsed vote"? We've recently switched to Instant Runoff Voting (Ranked Choice Voting) for local elections here -- is it anything like that?

Yeah, there's ranking of preferences in the AV system, with lower ranked candidates dropping out until someone has > 50%. I'm no expert, however. I meant "half-arsed" in that it isn't a fully proportional representation system, which was the original plan.

[A. Gwilliam]

OK, thanks.
But what is a "half-arsed vote"? We've recently switched to Instant Runoff Voting (Ranked Choice Voting) for local elections here -- is it anything like that?
As I understand it, IRV and AV are different names for exactly the same thing.

It'll also be a half-arsed vote because I doubt many people really care about it or even understand the issues involved. It'd be like having a referendum in the US about whether the $2 bill should be scrapped.

The Liberal Democrats (the UK's third largest party) have traditionally argued that the present stupid electoral system be replaced with some form of proportional representation. Last year they ended up in an improbable coalition with the Conservatives. Inevitably part of the price the Conservatives had to pay was to agree to a referendum on changing the voting system... but they weren't prepared to compromise so far as to adopt any form of PR, so we're stuck with only having AV on offer. I doubt most people even realise there's a distinction between AV and PR, especially given the spurious assertions generally being made by the official "No" campaign.


We now return you to your scheduled thread! :)

[A. Gwilliam]

Yeah, there's ranking of preferences in the AV system, with lower ranked candidates dropping out until someone has > 50%. I'm no expert, however.
You've got it spot on.

I've only just found out that the way the ballot papers are redistributed from the pile for an eliminated candidate is more complicated to explain than I'd realised. It's hardly surprising that nobody seems to explain it properly! :)

[Shirley Knott]

Quote:
As far as Charles, succession and murder goes, I'm 99 per cent sure he'd lose his succession rights. I don't know about his heirs, though.


The problem is that a King can not be tried in a British court of law - and the second the Queen dies, at his hand or in any other fashion, Charles would become King AT THAT INSTANT. Therefore he could never be convicted.

[alphaboi867]

...The problem is that a King can not be tried in a British court of law - and the second the Queen dies, at his hand or in any other fashion, Charles would become King AT THAT INSTANT. Therefore he could never be convicted.

Well he wouldn't be the first King Charles to wind up deposed and on trial in an ad hoc court. ;) Parliament has shown on several occasions that it decides who sits on the throne, and has deposed monarchs. It wouldn't even take a special act of Parliament to declare him unfit and appoint a regent (ala George III), current law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regency_Acts#Regency_Act_1937) allows any three of the following people to declare the monarch incapacitated and trigger a regency; the royal consort, the Lord Chancellor, Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chief Justice of England & Wales, and the Master of the Rolls. Presumably Parliament would then pass a more permanent act dealing with the situtation.

[A. Gwilliam]

Well he wouldn't be the first King Charles to wind up deposed and on trial in an ad hoc court. ;) Parliament has shown on several occasions that it decides who sits on the throne, and has deposed monarchs. It wouldn't even take a special act of Parliament to declare him unfit and appoint a regent (ala George III), current law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regency_Acts#Regency_Act_1937) allows any three of the following people to declare the monarch incapacitated and trigger a regency; the royal consort, the Lord Chancellor, Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chief Justice of England & Wales, and the Master of the Rolls. Presumably Parliament would then pass a more permanent act dealing with the situtation.

I think Parliament would indeed have to pass a special Act à la George III, as the Regency Act only applies in the case of "infirmity of mind or body", or when the Sovereign is "not available for the performance of [the royal] functions". I can't see a judge being persuaded that "not available" includes someone who is physically around and mentally capable! Even if he were an axe-murderer.

Incidentally, I've just noticed that they've not updated the legislation to take into account the creation of the Supreme Court. I can't imagine that there's a particular reason for this; it seems more likely to be yet another symptom of the sloppy way that the Constitutional Reform Act was put together.

[Damfino]

Then they are assumed to have died in order of succession, that is the Queen would be deemed to have died a fraction of a second before Charles. So Charles III would then be the shortest reigning monarch of all time.

The only time this principle has been actually used (that I'm aware of) was during WWII when some British peer and his son flew a plane into a mountain; I'm trying to remember where I read that but haven't been able to scare up anything from Google.

It was in the 1974 Guiness Book of Records. I believe it was a bomb explosion at their residence, although I can't remember the details. However the presumption that the elder person died first was the deciding factor. (Shortest peerage, or something of the sort.)

[Damfino]

Found the cite : [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfred_Stamp,_2nd_Baron_Stamp/] 2nd Baron Stamp was considered to have died a fraction of a second following his father after a bomb blast at their residence.

[Elendil's Heir]

Found the cite : [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfred_Stamp,_2nd_Baron_Stamp/] 2nd Baron Stamp was considered to have died a fraction of a second following his father after a bomb blast at their residence.

Link fixed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Stamp

[Damfino]

Thanks!

[Guinastasia]

In Sweden, though, the law was changed to allow succession without regard to gender. This caused the Crown Prince to lose his place as heir apparent to his older sister, and apparently the King wasn't too happy about it.

The same was done in Norway EXCEPT the Crown Prince was grand-fathered in, so even though his sister was older, he'd still be Crown Prince. His daughter, however, as the elder child, will inherit the throne, rather than her younger brother.

[dhkendall]

If [Prince Charles] was insane, then he'd be nudged aside with a Regency.

If????

Yes, but I think the process of becoming a republic would probably start quite quickly if they started offing each other. Like you say, sorting out the legalities could take years.

As was mentioned upthread (damn my being away from the Dope for a while!) what happened in Nepal. I would have thought Nepal would be one of the last places to go Republican, but once that happened, I figured it was just a matter of time (and was surprised it didn't happen sooner).

The Queen can change this by letters patent. She might choose to do it when she creates William a duke on his wedding day.

Helluva wedding gift ...

Thanks for the information, this is what I wanted to know. So if I understand correctly, Charles currently does not hold any title that can be inherited by his son at his death.

And yes, I'm aware that William is styled as Prince William of Wales (and I believe Harry is also styled as Prince Henry of Wales), but what I was wondering was what would be needed to make William THE Prince of Wales. Now I have the answer.

Another question, though: suppose Charles dies tomorrow. Are his children still styled as Prince XXX of Wales, as children of the (deceased) Prince of Wales?

As used by William and Harry, the "of Wales" is rather like the "von" in German aristocratic names, no? IOW more like a surname than a title.

Interestingly, when harry joined the Army, he was known as Officer Cadet Wales - Wales being the last name, even though his last name (when it is needed, as a titled royal, he doesn't have one) is Mountbatten-Windsor or Windsor. I guess if you don't have a last name, and you're high up in the line of succession, you can take any damn last name you want.

I could swear that a few years back Elizabeth II issued a proclamation about titles or succession or some such going to the eldest son or daughter in the generation following those currently living. I can't seem to find any evidence of this, which is really frustrating given the news of the past couple days.

Did I completely imagine this, or was the effect of her statement so minor that it hasn't been worth mentioning in recent discussion?

I remember this too, and thought the same thing. I guess it was something that the Queen would have liked to have, but hasn't been made law. I guess the Queen doesn't automatically get everything she wants, despite being the frickin' Queen.

[SciFiSam]

I remember this too, and thought the same thing. I guess it was something that the Queen would have liked to have, but hasn't been made law. I guess the Queen doesn't automatically get everything she wants, despite being the frickin' Queen.

Why would the Queen be bothered? She's already

[SciFiSam]

I remember this too, and thought the same thing. I guess it was something that the Queen would have liked to have, but hasn't been made law. I guess the Queen doesn't automatically get everything she wants, despite being the frickin' Queen.

Why would the Queen be bothered? She's already Queen and wouldn't have been affected by this change anyway, and neither would her children or grandchildren except in the extreme unlikely instance that Charles and his children all die.

[dhkendall]

Why would the Queen be bothered? She's already Queen and wouldn't have been affected by this change anyway, and neither would her children or grandchildren except in the extreme unlikely instance that Charles and his children all die.

Uhhh, maybe she does have a concern for women's representation in such things (being a woman). Sure, it won't do any difference now, but it's bound to come up some time.

[Tastes of Chocolate]

Henry VIII issued a couple of Succession Acts, first delaring Mary and Elizabeth bastards, and then returning them to to the line of succession, after his son Edward. So in 1544, the King was able to set, at least to some degree, the line of succession to follow him.

How about today? With the decreased power of the throne, who has the ability to change the line of succession? Could Elizabeth II decide that Prince Charles should be skipped, and appoint William as the heir apparent? Would that take an act of Parliment?

No matter who has the ability, are there set situations in which this may or must be done?

[Lord Feldon]

Succession can only be changed by an Act of Parliament. It would also take some involvement by the other countries that Elizabeth II is Queen of; the degree of involvement necessary is a matter of debate (for example, some people think that it could be done by an Act of the Canadian Parliament; others think it would take a grueling and painful constitutional amendment).

[Northern Piper]

I'm fairly sure that this doesn't actually require a constitutional amendment in any of the Commonwealth realms. This is because the various constitutions are written in such a way that while the existence of rules of succession is implied, the rules themselves do not form part of the constitution.


You seem to be changing your views on this. In Post 24 of this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13696003&postcount=24), you said, with respect to the Canadian Constitution, that a constitutional amendment would be required to depose a monarch.

[A. Gwilliam]

You seem to be changing your views on this. In Post 24 of this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13696003&postcount=24), you said, with respect to the Canadian Constitution, that a constitutional amendment would be required to depose a monarch.
Not so much changing my views, as not thinking them out properly! Mea culpa. :smack:

Clearly deposing the Sovereign would fall within the provisions of s. 41 of the 1982 Act. However, as an alteration to the rules of succession doesn't affect the Sovereign once they've become the Sovereign, I think my brain foolishly ignored s. 41 as not being relevant. But altering the rules of who gets to do a job is as much "in relation to ... the office" concerned as booting them out of that job. After all, changing the rules of who gets to be Governor-General would fall within s. 41... so of course changes to who gets to be Sovereign would be as well! :smack:

Thank you for pointing out this stupidity of mine; you've read my posts more clearly than I have! :o