Queen Elizabeth II is Not the Second Queen Elizabeth..

[Nawth Chucka]

Her mother was. But when she was crowned in 1952 she chose the regnal name Queen Elizabeth II.
Could her mother have chosen that name when her husband became King and she his Queen Consort or does the consort position not have that right as they're not themselves reigning per se?

[Malacandra]

Yup, the numbers only go to reigning monarchs, not Queen Consorts.

/thread

[yabob]

Ordinals only apply to regnal names. It doesn't matter how many queen consorts named Elizabeth have existed between the regnal Elizabeths I and II.

[njtt]

I have never heard of anyone numbering consorts. Why would you? Clearly the current queen is Elizabeth II because she is the second regnant Elizabeth.

(And if you did number consorts, wouldn't that make Prince Phillip, Phillip II. That could be confusing, especially as one of the much more famous Phillip IIs would become Phillip I.)

[Polycarp]

The first Queen Elizabeth was not Henry VIII's saughter, but his mother.

However, by convention, the regnal numbers attach only to Queens Regnant, not Queens Consort. The present Queen, like her predecessor of the same name, two Marys, Anne, and Victoria, and all the Kings, has certain prerogative powers plus the role of embodying British sovereignty in one individual. For all the Queens Consort, those rights and duties subsisted in their spouses, the Kings. That they happen to share a title with some monarchs does not make them monarchs themselves.

[Giles]

The numbered queens are the queens regnant, so only Elizabeth Tudor and Elizabeth Windsor count. However, counting queens consort, the wife of King George VI is actually the fourth. You need to include Elizabeth Woodville (the wife of King Edward IV) and her daughter Elizabeth of York (the wife of King Henry VII, the mother of King Henry VIII, and so the grandmother of Queen Elizabeth I). So, if queens consort were included in the count, Elizabeth Tudor would have been Elizabeth III.

Edited to add:

Originally Posted by Polycarp

The first Queen Elizabeth was not Henry VIII's saughter, but his mother.

No -- his maternal grandmother.

[Nawth Chucka]

Originally Posted by njtt

I have never heard of anyone numbering consorts. Why would you? Clearly the current queen is Elizabeth II because she is the second regnant Elizabeth.

(And if you did number consorts, wouldn't that make Prince Phillip, Phillip II. That could be confusing, especially as one of the much more famous Phillip IIs would become Phillip I.)

I don't see the point in numbering monarchs either, it makes more sense to me when they added descriptors instead - Elder, Younger, the Lionhearted, the Lily-livered, what-have-you. If the numbering's for posterity it makes it harder to differentiate between monarchs in practice.

Polycarp wrote:'The present Queen, like her predecessor of the same name, two Marys, Anne, and Victoria, and all the Kings, has certain prerogative powers plus the role of embodying British sovereignty in one individual.' In light of Divine Right this makes sense in differentiating between a consort and a monarch in an immutable way, until one considers a consort who was previously an heir apparent.

[PaulParkhead]

Originally Posted by Nawth Chucka

I don't see the point in numbering monarchs either, it makes more sense to me when they added descriptors instead - Elder, Younger, the Lionhearted, the Lily-livered, what-have-you. If the numbering's for posterity it makes it harder to differentiate between monarchs in practice.

Polycarp wrote:'The present Queen, like her predecessor of the same name, two Marys, Anne, and Victoria, and all the Kings, has certain prerogative powers plus the role of embodying British sovereignty in one individual.' In light of Divine Right this makes sense in differentiating between a consort and a monarch in an immutable way, until one considers a consort who was previously an heir apparent.

Bolding mine. I'm sorry, don't understand this part. A consort who was previously heir apparent?

[Giles]

Originally Posted by PaulParkhead

Bolding mine. I'm sorry, don't understand this part. A consort who was previously heir apparent?

Elizabeth of York, the first daughter of Edward IV, was heir apparent until the birth of her younger brother Edward. (It's more complex than that, but that's good as a first approximation to the truth.)

[Nawth Chucka]

Originally Posted by PaulParkhead

Bolding mine. I'm sorry, don't understand this part. A consort who was previously heir apparent?

I'm thinking of the political marriages made between monarchs w/ their issue who are inline for the throne, either presumptive or apparent. Before they marry, they're entitled to a certain reverence on account of being born royal but when they marry a king or queen they lose that entitlement, being no longer on the road to sovereignty. Prince Albert was in the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha line when he married (became consort of) HM Queen Victoria for example.
How is one born w/ Divine Right but lose it along the way?

[PaulParkhead]

Originally Posted by Giles

Elizabeth of York, the first daughter of Edward IV, was heir apparent until the birth of her younger brother Edward. (It's more complex than that, but that's good as a first approximation to the truth.)

Thanks. But doesn't that make her heir presumptive rather than apparent?

[Giles]

Originally Posted by PaulParkhead

Thanks. But doesn't that make her heir presumptive rather than apparent?

Sorry, yes, you're right: a princess can never be heir apparent, since she can always be replaced by a son of the monarch.

[PaulParkhead]

Originally Posted by Nawth Chucka

I'm thinking of the political marriages made between monarchs w/ their issue who are inline for the throne, either presumptive or apparent. Before they marry, they're entitled to a certain reverence on account of being born royal but when they marry a king or queen they lose that entitlement, being no longer on the road to sovereignty. Prince Albert was in the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha line when he married (became consort of) HM Queen Victoria for example.
How is one born w/ Divine Right but lose it along the way?

I'm not sure that one does lose the right of succession simply by marrying someone further up that line. Is that what you're getting at?

I mean, I believe the Duke of Edinburgh is something like 485th in line for the British throne in his own right. My understanding is that if aliens invaded and killed off the other 484, he'd become King Phillip I or whatever he chose to style himself.

[Lord Feldon]

Originally Posted by Giles

Sorry, yes, you're right: a princess can never be heir apparent, since she can always be replaced by a son of the monarch.

She can be the heir apparent if her father (who isn't yet the monarch) dies.

[Nawth Chucka]

Originally Posted by PaulParkhead

I'm not sure that one does lose the right of succession simply by marrying someone further up that line. Is that what you're getting at?

I mean, I believe the Duke of Edinburgh is something like 485th in line for the British throne in his own right. My understanding is that if aliens invaded and killed off the other 484, he'd become King Phillip I or whatever he chose to style himself.

The Duke renounced his Greek and Danish titles before becoming naturalised and after obtaining permission to marry the Princess Elizabeth but was again styled HRH after his marriage. So, he was born a Prince, gave up his Prince title and was given it back in 1957 by his wife. I don't know what number he's in line but I bet you're right or close to it (I don't know who's married a Catholic lately.)

But I'm getting at something more abstract, which is that a monarch takes control of a country w/ the assertion that God (or some deity) has charged them w/ the responsibility of doing so and therefore they and their issue have a divine right to reign inborn. How can one give up or lose something inborn?

[Giles]

Originally Posted by Lord Feldon

She can be the heir apparent if her father (who isn't yet the monarch) dies.

No, the Princess Victoria would have ceased to be heir presumptive if her uncle -- her deceased father's older brother -- King William IV had had a legitimate child.

[Giles]

Originally Posted by Nawth Chucka

But I'm getting at something more abstract, which is that a monarch takes control of a country w/ the assertion that God (or some deity) has charged them w/ the responsibility of doing so and therefore they and their issue have a divine right to reign inborn. How can one give up or lose something inborn?

King Edward VIII did it, though by the time of his reign most people didn't believe in the divine rights of kings.

[PaulParkhead]

Originally Posted by Nawth Chucka

The Duke renounced his Greek and Danish titles before becoming naturalised and after obtaining permission to marry the Princess Elizabeth but was again styled HRH after his marriage. So, he was born a Prince, gave up his Prince title and was given it back in 1957 by his wife. I don't know what number he's in line but I bet you're right or close to it (I don't know who's married a Catholic lately.)

But I'm getting at something more abstract, which is that a monarch takes control of a country w/ the assertion that God (or some deity) has charged them w/ the responsibility of doing so and therefore they and their issue have a divine right to reign inborn. How can one give up or lose something inborn?

I don't really think there'a a GQ answer to this. I mean, Phillip's marriage to Princess Elizabeth didn't affect his position in the British line of succession. I was aware he renounced other titles, though not British ones. Presumably when someone does something like that, they discuss it with God beforehand and get His permission.

These days, no-one really takes the whole "divine right" thing seriously in any case.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by Giles

No, the Princess Victoria would have ceased to be heir presumptive if her uncle -- her deceased father's older brother -- King William IV had had a legitimate child.

That's because William was older than her father and therefore any child he had would automatically come ahead of Victoria in the line of succession.

But suppose George, Prince of Wales and Prince Regent, had instead died around 1810. His daughter, Princess Charlotte, would have been heir apparent from that point on - because there was no possibility of a prince being born who could come between her and the throne.

[Giles]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

But suppose George, Prince of Wales and Prince Regent, had instead died around 1810. His daughter, Princess Charlotte, would have been heir apparent from that point on - because there was no possibility of a prince being born who could come between her and the throne.

Yes, you're right. Furthermore, if she had given birth to a living daughter, that daughter would have been heir apparent from birth. In each case, there would have been the odd situation of an heir apparent who could not become Prince of Wales. However, I don't think the situation has ever happened historically.

[SCSimmons]

Originally Posted by Nawth Chucka

I don't see the point in numbering monarchs either, it makes more sense to me when they added descriptors instead - Elder, Younger, the Lionhearted, the Lily-livered, what-have-you. If the numbering's for posterity it makes it harder to differentiate between monarchs in practice.

No kidding. This is why I eventually gave up trying to learn the history of the French monarchy. Why in heaven's name did every freaking king have to be named Louis?

[TonySinclair]

Originally Posted by Malacandra

Yup, the numbers only go to reigning monarchs, not Queen Consorts.
/thread

That makes sense. What I've never understood is why they only started numbering after the Norman Conquest. For example, there were reigning kings of England named Edward, long before Edward I.

It's not simply because they changed dynasties, because that's happened several times since, e.g. when William of Orange was brought in, he wasn't William I. And William the Conqueror was not unrelated to the previous kings of England, so that's not it, either.

So why?

[yabob]

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

That makes sense. What I've never understood is why they only started numbering after the Norman Conquest. For example, there were reigning kings of England named Edward, long before Edward I.

It's not simply because they changed dynasties, because that's happened several times since, e.g. when William of Orange was brought in, he wasn't William I. And William the Conqueror was not unrelated to the previous kings of England, so that's not it, either.

So why?

Monarchical ordinals weren't actually used until later - they applied the numbers retroactively:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch...rdinal#History

Almost all monarchs and popes after mediaeval times have used ordinals. Ordinals are also retrospectively applied to earlier monarchs in most works of reference, at least as far as they are not easy to distinguish from each other by any other systematical means. In several cases, various sorts of "semi-regnal" members of dynasties are also numeraled, to facilitate their individuality in works of reference – in cases such as co-regents, crown princes, succession-conveying consorts, prime ministers and deputy monarchs. In the first centuries after the Middle Ages, the use was sometimes sporadic, but became established by the 18th century. In the past couple of centuries, European monarchs without an official ordinal have been rarities.

As a rule of thumb, medieval European monarchs did not use ordinals at their own time, and those who used were rarities and even their use was sporadic. Ordinals for monarchs before the 13th century are actually anachronisms, as are also ordinals for almost all later medieval monarchs.

The historians probably just decided arbitrarily that the Norman Conquest was a good place to start. After all, the Anglo Saxon Edwards were well known by their epithets, and most the rest all had really weird names that weren't going to get used again anyway ...

[alphaboi867]

Originally Posted by Giles

Sorry, yes, you're right: a princess can never be heir apparent, since she can always be replaced by a son of the monarch.

Originally Posted by Lord Feldon

She can be the heir apparent if her father (who isn't yet the monarch) dies.

Originally Posted by Giles

No, the Princess Victoria would have ceased to be heir presumptive if her uncle -- her deceased father's older brother -- King William IV had had a legitimate child.

Yes, if the heir apparent dies leaving only daughters his eldest one becomes heiress apparent. This has never happened in British history. There was however one heiress apparent; Anne. After her father, James II, was deposed her sister (Mary II) & brother-in-law (William III) were made joint-monarchs by Parliament. Princess Anne was placed after children they may have in the line of succession, but before any children William might have had with a future wife. So when Mary II died without leaving living offspring Anne become her brother-in-law's heiress apparent. In any even he never bothered remarrying.

[psychonaut]

Originally Posted by Giles

The numbered queens are the queens regnant, so only Elizabeth Tudor and Elizabeth Windsor count. However, counting queens consort, the wife of King George VI is actually the fourth. You need to include Elizabeth Woodville (the wife of King Edward IV) and her daughter Elizabeth of York (the wife of King Henry VII, the mother of King Henry VIII, and so the grandmother of Queen Elizabeth I). So, if queens consort were included in the count, Elizabeth Tudor would have been Elizabeth III.

Queens of what? Strictly speaking, the current Elizabeth II isn't queen of the same sovereign country as Elizabeth Woodville or Elizabeth of York. The current one is the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, whereas the former were Queens of England. If you are going to include in your numbered Elizabeths those from countries which joined the union, then you'll have to count the Scottish Elizabeth de Burgh (1306–1327) as well, as Elizabeth I; the current Elizabeth would therefore be Elizabeth V. Otherwise the current Elizabeth II really is Elizabeth II.

[Nava]

Originally Posted by Nawth Chucka

I don't see the point in numbering monarchs either, it makes more sense to me when they added descriptors instead - Elder, Younger, the Lionhearted, the Lily-livered, what-have-you. If the numbering's for posterity it makes it harder to differentiate between monarchs in practice.

But it's not for posterity, it's for the time of their reign; what's often attached for posterity, and many times by the regnant's enemies, is the nick.

I'm reasonably sure that Juan II of Aragon did not fancy being called The Usurper (name given by the Navarrese), nor Carlos II of Navarre as The Bad One (name given by the French). Both of them used the ordinals during their reigns.

[Giles]

Originally Posted by psychonaut

Queens of what? Strictly speaking, the current Elizabeth II isn't queen of the same sovereign country as Elizabeth Woodville or Elizabeth of York. The current one is the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, whereas the former were Queens of England. If you are going to include in your numbered Elizabeths those from countries which joined the union, then you'll have to count the Scottish Elizabeth de Burgh (1306–1327) as well, as Elizabeth I; the current Elizabeth would therefore be Elizabeth V. Otherwise the current Elizabeth II really is Elizabeth II.

Unfortunately for the Scots, there's a bit of Anglo-centrism going on here. Just as the parliament at Westminster took over from the parliament at Edinburgh, the numbering of the British and UK sovereigns took over from the English numbering, not the Scottish numbering. If it had been important to the Scots, they could have asked for the Parliament to meet at Berwick on Tweed. and could have asked for the first British sovereign to be dually numbered. However, after 1700, the first dually numbered British monarch would have reigned from 1820 as William IV and III -- so they would have been looking a long way into the future with that one.

[GuanoLad]

Didn't I read here somewhere that Prince Charles, if and when he becomes King, is not going to be Charles III, but instead take some other name entirely?

[Malden Capell]

Originally Posted by GuanoLad

Didn't I read here somewhere that Prince Charles, if and when he becomes King, is not going to be Charles III, but instead take some other name entirely?

It's believed he wishes to be called George VII, in honour of his grandfather.

[APB]

Originally Posted by Nawth Chucka

I'm thinking of the political marriages made between monarchs w/ their issue who are inline for the throne, either presumptive or apparent. Before they marry, they're entitled to a certain reverence on account of being born royal but when they marry a king or queen they lose that entitlement, being no longer on the road to sovereignty. Prince Albert was in the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha line when he married (became consort of) HM Queen Victoria for example.

But Albert never renounced his claim to Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, was its heir presumptive from 1844 and would have succeeded his brother, Ernest II, had he still been alive in 1893. His eldest son, the future Edward VII, did renounce his claim, but Albert's second son, Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh, then succeeded Ernest.

Originally Posted by Giles

Unfortunately for the Scots, there's a bit of Anglo-centrism going on here. Just as the parliament at Westminster took over from the parliament at Edinburgh, the numbering of the British and UK sovereigns took over from the English numbering, not the Scottish numbering. If it had been important to the Scots, they could have asked for the Parliament to meet at Berwick on Tweed. and could have asked for the first British sovereign to be dually numbered. However, after 1700, the first dually numbered British monarch would have reigned from 1820 as William IV and III -- so they would have been looking a long way into the future with that one.

One must however remember that in 1953, in the wake of MacCormack v Lord Advocate, Churchill supported the view that in future the higher number should be used. That is a particularly neat solution because (1) if applied retrospectively from 1707, none of the numbers would be different, (2) if applied retrospectively from 1603, only the two King Jameses would be different and they used both numbers anyway and (3) almost none of the names of pre-1603 Scottish monarchs where this would make a difference are ones that have been used for royal children recently.

Originally Posted by Malden Capell

It's believed he wishes to be called George VII, in honour of his grandfather.

A belief that Clarence House has in the past denied.

[Malden Capell]

Originally Posted by APB

A belief that Clarence House has in the past denied.

I stand corrected!

[Giles]

Originally Posted by APB

One must however remember that in 1953, in the wake of MacCormack v Lord Advocate, Churchill supported the view that in future the higher number should be used. That is a particularly neat solution because (1) if applied retrospectively from 1707, none of the numbers would be different, (2) if applied retrospectively from 1603, only the two King Jameses would be different and they used both numbers anyway and (3) almost none of the names of pre-1603 Scottish monarchs where this would make a difference are ones that have been used for royal children recently.

I look forward to the Prince of Wales, in the interests of good relations with his Scottish subjects, taking the regnal name Robert, and ruling as King Robert IV of the United Kingdom.

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by Giles

Sorry, yes, you're right: a princess can never be heir apparent, since she can always be replaced by a son of the monarch.

Originally Posted by Lord Feldon

She can be the heir apparent if her father (who isn't yet the monarch) dies.

Originally Posted by Giles

No, the Princess Victoria would have ceased to be heir presumptive if her uncle -- her deceased father's older brother -- King William IV had had a legitimate child.

Feldon is in the right here -- you can in theory have a Heiress Apparent, but he misspoke the definition of the specific circumstances.

If the Heir Apparent (or his heir apparent, etc.) dies having sired one or more daughters but no sons, his eldest (or only) daughter can be kept from the throne only by her own death (or revolution or abolition of the monarchy, of course). Those are the conditions for apparency rather than presumptivity.

[Peter Morris]

Originally Posted by Giles

I look forward to the Prince of Wales, in the interests of good relations with his Scottish subjects, taking the regnal name Robert, and ruling as King Robert IV of the United Kingdom.

But his given names are Charles Philip Arthur George. It would be very unusual to take a regnal name that isn't part of his birth name. Only Robert III ever did that in Britain.

Since he won't reign as Charles, and has denied that he will be called George, I therefore look forward to England getting itself a King Arthur at last.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by APB

(2) if applied retrospectively from 1603, only the two King Jameses would be different and they used both numbers anyway

Plus William of Orange, who was William II of Scots and William III of England.

[TonySinclair]

Originally Posted by APB

A belief that Clarence House has in the past denied.

I don't pay much attention to UK royalty, but I always thought that the dynasty name switched (to Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, or something hideous like that) when Victoria married Prince Albert, and that was what was later changed to Windsor. Yet the article keeps calling their descendants Hanoverians. Can someone explain?

[Nawth Chucka]

Originally Posted by Peter Morris

Since he won't reign as Charles, and has denied that he will be called George, I therefore look forward to England getting itself a King Arthur at last.

I understand Clarence House would find it unseemly for Charles to be known to have any kind of plan for after his mother dies; it implies at a basic level he looks forward to her death and people in line of succession who do such things have (though not recently but historically) found themselves in dire straits.
Even in his interview last year w/ American television Charles wouldn't broach the subject in the slightest. He'll admit to wanting his reign to be an honorable one and that's about it. How would you like it if your son said, "Mom, when you're gone I'm redoing this whole house to get your touch off it."?

Tldr - he'll be George. He wouldn't be Phillip, it would insult his father (or his father's memory), he won't be Charles as the article outlined and King Arthur would be a laugh. I think it's always been meant for him to be King George; when he was born it was known he'd reign some day and the names are picked deliberately.

[MarcusF]

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

I don't pay much attention to UK royalty, but I always thought that the dynasty name switched (to Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, or something hideous like that) when Victoria married Prince Albert, and that was what was later changed to Windsor. Yet the article keeps calling their descendants Hanoverians. Can someone explain?

The article says

The only British monarch to have been publicly tried and executed for treason is Charles I, beheaded in Whitehall at the end of the civil war in 1649. His clever, cynical son, who reigned as Charles II, is as much remembered for his lively love life as for his achievements.

The last of the would-be Stuart monarchs, Bonnie Prince Charlie, was known to some as Charles III.

He badly let down his Jacobite followers during the 1745 rebellion against the Hanoverian dynasty whose heir - with a non-German rebranding as Windsor - Prince Charles is.

The point here is that Charles's have had their problems as British monarchs and - from the last paragraph - our Prince Charles is actually descended from the Hanovarian kings who took over from the Stewart Charles's.

Later on the artice says

For an image-conscious monarch in search of brand strength that leaves the Hanoverian Georges, ...

Again making the point that George is a Hanovarian name brought over from Germany in the 18th century.

They are not suggesting that the royal family are Hanovarian, they are clearly the House of Windsor (or is it Mountbatten-Windsor?), but they do trace their descent from the Hanovarians.

[TonySinclair]

Originally Posted by MarcusF

They are not suggesting that the royal family are Hanovarian,

It seems like they are to me. They included George V in their list of "Hanoverian Georges." And although it's less clear, they also imply that it was the Hanover name that was changed to Windsor.

It's from an English paper, so maybe they just assume that everybody knows what they mean, but IMO it's confusing.

[Polycarp]

To be completely clear on this, it was the custom of the various British and Commonwealth nations that a royal House consisted of the first king to ascend the throne in that male lineage and all his heirs, male and female, descended from him in strict male descent. Inheritance through a woman changed the House name for her heirs to her consort's House, unless she married into a cadet line of her own House, as Mary Queen of Scots among others did.

Thus Henry II, great-grandson of the conqueror through Matilda, who married Geoffrey Plantagenet, began the House of Plantagenet. Margaret Beaufort, by male ancestry a Plantagenet, married Edmund Tudor, and her son Henry VII began the House of Tudor. James VI of Scots, a Stuart, was the great-grandson of Henry's daughter Margaret, who married James IV, and he began the English House of Stuart. His descendant Sophia was married to the Elector of Hanover, and her son George I took the throne as the next Protestant heir after Anne.

By this custom Victoria was the last monardh of the House of Hanover; her son Edward VII, who was of course also son of Prince Albert in his male lineage, began the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Buyt the second king of that House changed the House name to Windsor by Letters Patent.

By Letters Patent in 1956 and 1960, Her present Majesty changed that custom. She declared that the House name her grandfather had adopted 40 years before would continue to be the royal House of her own descendants. By those same Letters Patent "Mountbatten-Windsor" is the surname her male-line descendants should use when in need of a surname.

However, "Mountbatten" is like Windsor a coinage. The name "Battenberg" was the surname adopted by a branch of the Grand Ducal lineage of Hesse that descended from a morganatic marriage. One of them, Prince Louis of Battenberg, joined the Royal Navy, rose to command it, becoming a naturalized British subject, and at the time George V changed his House name to Windsor, he changed his own surname to Mountbatten. His daughter married Prince Andrew of Denmark and Greece. When their son Prince Philip renounced his distant claims to those two thrones to follow his grandfather's footsteps in the Royal Navy, he adopted his mother's maiden name.

Prince Charles and his sons and brothers belong by male lineage to the same royal house as the King of Norway, the Queen of Denmark, and the pretender to the Greek throne: the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg. Aboput seven generations back the Glucksburgs were a family of the minor Danish nobility with a shirttail relationship to the Danish royal house a dozen generations before. By an odd concatenation of events his fourth son became King of Denmark and set about creating a Danish cottage industry of exporting monarchs.

[Nawth Chucka]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

/snip/ Prince Charles and his sons and brothers belong by male lineage to the same royal house as the King of Norway, the Queen of Denmark, and the pretender to the Greek throne: the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg. Aboput seven generations back the Glucksburgs were a family of the minor Danish nobility with a shirttail relationship to the Danish royal house a dozen generations before. By an odd concatenation of events his fourth son became King of Denmark and set about creating a Danish cottage industry of exporting monarchs.

I think you left something out here - who's the object whose 4th son had subjects?

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by Nawth Chucka

I think you left something out here - who's the object whose 4th son had subjects?

Sorry. Him.

[Nawth Chucka]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

Sorry. Him.

That is...not a flattering picture. Lord help me, I'm waiting for him to say, "Giggity!".

Sorry, back to topic. Has male-only primogeniture come and gone during the history of the monarchy in England?

[Apollyon]

Originally Posted by yabob

The historians probably just decided arbitrarily that the Norman Conquest was a good place to start...

"William the First was the first of our kings, not counting Ethelreds, Egberts & things..."

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by Nawth Chucka

That is...not a flattering picture. Lord help me, I'm waiting for him to say, "Giggity!".

Sorry, back to topic. Has male-only primogeniture come and gone during the history of the monarchy in England?

LOL

I tried to leave your question for the English-history experts who would know for sure what they were talking about, but no one has stepped up.

To the best of my knowledge, male-precedence primogeniture has been the rule for succession by inheritance ever since the Norman conquest. Male-only primogeniture ("Salic law") inheritance, as practiced in France, Hanover, etc., was never seriously contemplated in England, and strict gender-neutral primogeniture (as adopted by the Scandinavian countries) is a modern invention. That said, the other two means of becoming King (named by Parliament, and conquest) have come into play more than once, and there were at least a couple of monarchs who attempted to bestow the throne by will -- but it didn't "take".