Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-23-2018, 02:17 PM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,103
Could there be a Queen Meghan?

Suppose one night William, Prince of Wales and his wife and kids get some bad romaine lettuce in their Caesar salad and everyone keels over dead. It could happen.

That places the new Duke of Sussex, aka Henry, aka Prince Harry, aka Mr. Meghan Markle, third in line for the throne, after his grandmother, Elizabeth II, and his father, who presumably will be Charles III. Voila, Harry eventually becomes King Henry IX, unless he picks a different regnal name.

So if that happens, will Meghan Markle be properly Queen Meghan? My understanding is that Camilla will remain the Duchess of Cambridge, not Queen Camilla, when her husband becomes King; is Markle in the same boat, stuck at Duchess of Sussex no matter what?
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #2  
Old 05-23-2018, 02:21 PM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,555
Meghan has no history of being compared to St Diana, so no, she’ll be Queen.
  #3  
Old 05-23-2018, 02:28 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,342
I thought you had to be English to be Queen (Consort) (or King (Consort)). That's why Prince Philip wasn't called the King Consort, or King Philip.
  #4  
Old 05-23-2018, 02:31 PM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,447
Some Royal Facts

Quote:
So could the newest royal ever become queen?

If Prince Harry became king, his Los Angeles-born wife would become queen consort, or informally, Queen Meghan.

You may need to draw a diagram.
__________________
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
--Daniel J Boorstin
  #5  
Old 05-23-2018, 02:33 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
My understanding is that Camilla will remain the Duchess of Cambridge, not Queen Camilla, when her husband becomes King; is Markle in the same boat, stuck at Duchess of Sussex no matter what?
The title of Princess Consort has been mooted for Camilla when Charles becomes King. As AK84 says, Meghan has none of the Diana baggage, so in the unlikely event I can't see too many objections to her becoming Queen Meghan.
  #6  
Old 05-23-2018, 02:37 PM
BrotherCadfael BrotherCadfael is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vermont
Posts: 10,037
In general, a queen-married-to-a-king, is very, very different than a queen regnant (in her own right). George the Fifth's wife, Queen Mary, and her daughter-in-law, Queen Elizabeth (aka the Queen Mum) occupy a much smaller place than does Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.



Also, Charles has stated that if and when he succeeds to the throne, he will reign as George VII.
  #7  
Old 05-23-2018, 02:39 PM
PatrickLondon PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 2,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
I thought you had to be English to be Queen (Consort) (or King (Consort)). That's why Prince Philip wasn't called the King Consort, or King Philip.
Nothing to do with nationality*. He wouldn't be called King because he's not the monarch (and the last time anyone tried to make a reigning Queen's husband into a King, it did not end well - and that was a King Philip too). Why they decided not to reinvent the Prince Consort title, I don't know, but at least this way he's never confused with Albert.

*See every foreign-born Queen consort back from Alexandra to mediaeval times.
  #8  
Old 05-23-2018, 02:40 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 15,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
I thought you had to be English to be Queen (Consort) (or King (Consort)). That's why Prince Philip wasn't called the King Consort, or King Philip.
Philip isn't the King because husbands of ruling Queens are not called King in the UK. The only exception to this was Philip of Spain who was married to Mary I (and that ended badly), and William III, who was married to Mary II, but was second in line for the throne anyway (behind Mary's sister Anne), and he was allowed to keep the throne after Mary's death, and Anne succeeded him when he died.

King George V's wife, Queen Mary, was German.
Edward VII's wife, Queen Alexandra, was Danish.
William IV's wife, Queen Adelaide, was German.

Etc.
  #9  
Old 05-23-2018, 02:56 PM
Dewey Finn Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 26,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Suppose one night William, Prince of Wales and his wife and kids get some bad romaine lettuce in their Caesar salad and everyone keels over dead. It could happen.

That places the new Duke of Sussex, aka Henry, aka Prince Harry, aka Mr. Meghan Markle, third in line for the throne, after his grandmother, Elizabeth II, and his father, who presumably will be Charles III. Voila, Harry eventually becomes King Henry IX, unless he picks a different regnal name.
Nitpick, but given that the queen isn't "in line" for the throne, wouldn't Harry be second in line?
  #10  
Old 05-23-2018, 03:08 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherCadfael View Post
Also, Charles has stated that if and when he succeeds to the throne, he will reign as George VII.
This comes up fairly often, and I've stated the same myself on occasion, but this all seems to boil down to newspaper speculation. Charles himself is very unlikely to have stated anything publicly, it being somewhat crass to anticipate your own mother's death.
  #11  
Old 05-23-2018, 03:18 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Greenback View Post
The title of Princess Consort has been mooted for Camilla when Charles becomes King.
It does seem petty not to let her be Queen Camilla.
  #12  
Old 05-23-2018, 03:26 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 15,924
Clarence House, the Prince of Wales's official residence and administrative offices, recently removed from its website the phrasing that Camilla will be known as Princess Consort upon Charles's accession to the throne.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ves-statement/
(paywall)
  #13  
Old 05-23-2018, 03:30 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
It does seem petty not to let her be Queen Camilla.
Tbh, I think she'll end up being known as Queen Camilla. Perhaps not formally, but in common usage. The public tend to stick on a name, whether technically 100% accurate or not eg the Queen Mum, Princess Di etc.
  #14  
Old 05-23-2018, 03:34 PM
TruCelt's Avatar
TruCelt TruCelt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Near Washington, DC
Posts: 10,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
It does seem petty not to let her be Queen Camilla.
The King or Queen is the head of the Church. Prince Charles will become King by right of birth, and this can not be taken away from him. But his extra-marital relationship with Camilla directly resulted in the end of both their marriages.

The church, therefore, takes a very sour view of their current marriage. It is naught to do with her "being compared" to Diana, and a great deal to do with her having screwed around with someone else's husband rather than her own.

While the Church of England lately takes a kinder view of those who were not at fault in the end of their own marriages, they are still not condoning the act of cheating. And yes, it affects everything about Charles and Camilla's marriage, which therefore occurred at the registrars office, although it was later "blessed" in a chapel.

And it affects the honors to be bestowed upon her as a result of that marriage.

I don't mean to sound personally condemning here, I'm just passing on the church's views.
  #15  
Old 05-23-2018, 03:48 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,797
I get that, but I also get that Charles plans to be Defender of Faith, not The Faith. The C of E's views just may not matter very much when the time comes. I'm pretty sure he was far from solely responsible for his divorce from Diana, also.
  #16  
Old 05-23-2018, 04:23 PM
muldoonthief's Avatar
muldoonthief muldoonthief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 10,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
Nitpick, but given that the queen isn't "in line" for the throne, wouldn't Harry be second in line?
No, he's 6th. The rule is first born then all their first born descendants, recursively, until you get to the end of the branch, then go back up one generation to next born. So Charles, then Charles eldest descendant William, then William's eldest descendant George. George has no descendants, so then its William's next descendant Charlotte, who has no descendants, then William's next descendant Louis. Louis has no descendants, and we've exhausted William's descendants, so now it goes up a level back to Charles next descendant, Harry. Harry has no descendants, so after him it would go to Elizabeth's next born Andrew, and his kids, etc. etc.

Also note that if someone in line predeceases the monarch, their descendants aren't removed from the line of succession. So if William dies tomorrow, then George becomes 2nd in line, Harry 5th, etc.
  #17  
Old 05-23-2018, 04:25 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 15,924
The Byzantine Empire's inheritance rules were pretty bizarre. You couldn't inherit the throne unless you were born AFTER your parent held the throne. Your older siblings were ineligible, unless there were no younger siblings born after the coronation.
  #18  
Old 05-23-2018, 04:38 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,797
Is that why a new Byzantine emperor's first task was to have all of his siblings strangled?
  #19  
Old 05-23-2018, 04:39 PM
Dewey Finn Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 26,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by muldoonthief View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
Nitpick, but given that the queen isn't "in line" for the throne, wouldn't Harry be second in line?
No, he's 6th. The rule is first born then all their first born descendants, recursively, until you get to the end of the branch, then go back up one generation to next born. So Charles, then Charles eldest descendant William, then William's eldest descendant George. George has no descendants, so then its William's next descendant Charlotte, who has no descendants, then William's next descendant Louis. Louis has no descendants, and we've exhausted William's descendants, so now it goes up a level back to Charles next descendant, Harry. Harry has no descendants, so after him it would go to Elizabeth's next born Andrew, and his kids, etc. etc.

Also note that if someone in line predeceases the monarch, their descendants aren't removed from the line of succession. So if William dies tomorrow, then George becomes 2nd in line, Harry 5th, etc.
In the real world, yes, he's sixth in line. I was responding to a hypothetical scenario, set out in the OP, in which William and his family succumb to food-borne illness. Unless they remain in line but in ghost form.
  #20  
Old 05-23-2018, 05:13 PM
mbh mbh is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 4,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
The Byzantine Empire's inheritance rules were pretty bizarre. You couldn't inherit the throne unless you were born AFTER your parent held the throne. Your older siblings were ineligible, unless there were no younger siblings born after the coronation.
Monaco's traditional rules were weird, too. (They revised the laws a few years ago. Now they use more conventional rules.)
The throne had to pass from ancestor to descendant. (Usually father to son, sometimes grandfather to grandson.)
Once a new Prince inherited, only his descendants could inherit. All of the collateral branches ceased to be eligible.
Bastards were not eligible to inherit, but if the parents married, the child was retroactively legitimated.
Almost uniquely in Europe, adoptive children were eligible to inherit. A couple of Princes with no legitimate heirs used this rule to adopt an illegitimate descendant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Is that why a new Byzantine emperor's first task was to have all of his siblings strangled?
That was the Turkish Sultan, not the Byzantine Emperor. Under Ottoman law, all sons had equal inheritance rights. A new Sultan had to eliminate his brothers in order to avoid a civil war.
  #21  
Old 05-23-2018, 05:30 PM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back.
Posts: 27,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
Philip isn't the King because husbands of ruling Queens are not called King in the UK. The only exception to this was Philip of Spain who was married to Mary I (and that ended badly), and William III, who was married to Mary II, but was second in line for the throne anyway (behind Mary's sister Anne), and he was allowed to keep the throne after Mary's death, and Anne succeeded him when he died.
He wasn't second in line and allowed to keep the throne. The Bill of Rights provided that William and Mary were joint monarchs during their lifetimes.



Quote:
King George V's wife, Queen Mary, was German.

Mary was born in England, so she was British.
  #22  
Old 05-23-2018, 05:32 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 79,523
So what would happen under Monaco's system if a monarch died without any descendants at all (even adopted ones)?
  #23  
Old 05-23-2018, 05:43 PM
Baker Baker is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Tottering-on-the-Brink
Posts: 19,517
Prince Phillip became a British citizen, and so, it is assumed, will the Duchess of Sussex.

If you want the story of a dysfunctional marriage, you should read about George IV and his wife. They were, to say the least, estranged when he was crowned. Supposedly she tried to get into the cathedral during the coronation, and had to be turned away.

Last edited by Baker; 05-23-2018 at 05:45 PM.
  #24  
Old 05-23-2018, 06:01 PM
mbh mbh is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 4,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
So what would happen under Monaco's system if a monarch died without any descendants at all (even adopted ones)?
It would get annexed by France. Since Monaco's government is financed by the casinos, rather than income tax, Monaco's people take a much greater interest in succession crises than in other countries.
  #25  
Old 05-23-2018, 06:21 PM
alphaboi867 alphaboi867 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the Keystone State
Posts: 14,168
Barring an act of parliament to the contrary Camilla will automatically become queen consort the moment Charles ascended the throne; whether she actually uses the title is a different story. Right now she's legally just as much a Princess of Wakes as Diana was, she just uses one of her husband's lesser titles instead.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
__________________
No Gods, No Masters
  #26  
Old 05-23-2018, 06:25 PM
TSBG TSBG is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,211
Wiki says the Monaco succession rules changed in 2002 to allow collateral descendants to rule. Now, it may be that the page is being sabotaged by desperate potential Monegasque heirs. But also, that may not be the case.

Last edited by TSBG; 05-23-2018 at 06:26 PM.
  #27  
Old 05-23-2018, 06:54 PM
thelurkinghorror thelurkinghorror is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Venial Sin City
Posts: 13,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by muldoonthief View Post
No, he's 6th. The rule is first born then all their first born descendants, recursively, until you get to the end of the branch, then go back up one generation to next born. So Charles, then Charles eldest descendant William, then William's eldest descendant George. George has no descendants, so then its William's next descendant Charlotte, who has no descendants, then William's next descendant Louis. Louis has no descendants, and we've exhausted William's descendants, so now it goes up a level back to Charles next descendant, Harry. Harry has no descendants, so after him it would go to Elizabeth's next born Andrew, and his kids, etc. etc.
And even so, Charlotte would've been down 1 spot if she were older (2011 I think) due to gender. Now it's gender-agnostic.

Still no filthy Papists, though their spouses are allowed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbh View Post
That was the Turkish Sultan, not the Byzantine Emperor. Under Ottoman law, all sons had equal inheritance rights. A new Sultan had to eliminate his brothers in order to avoid a civil war.
Yeah, the Byzantines were more civilized. They only blinded and/or castrated potential rivals!
  #28  
Old 05-23-2018, 08:16 PM
UDS UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,312
If events unfold so that Harry becomes king, then his wife will formally be "HM the Queen" - no personal name involved. Of course, she will often be referred to as Queen Meghan, and that wouldn't be incorrect. But it's not what will appear in official documents, the court circular, etc.

Should King Harry die, and be survived by his wife, she would most probably then become "HM Queen Meghan", unless she chooses to use some other name, which is unlikely.
  #29  
Old 05-23-2018, 09:33 PM
GinoC GinoC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baker View Post
If you want the story of a dysfunctional marriage, you should read about George IV and his wife. They were, to say the least, estranged when he was crowned. Supposedly she tried to get into the cathedral during the coronation, and had to be turned away.
The story goes that upon the death of Napoleon, George IV was informed that his greatest enemy was dead and he replied, "is she, by God?".
  #30  
Old 05-23-2018, 10:52 PM
alphaboi867 alphaboi867 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the Keystone State
Posts: 14,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
...Should King Harry die, and be survived by his wife, she would most probably then become "HM Queen Meghan", unless she chooses to use some other name, which is unlikely.
The only reason Elizabeth II's mother was specifically styled "HM Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother" was because "HM Queen Elizabeth" would cause too much confusion with her daughter.
  #31  
Old 05-23-2018, 11:09 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 15,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
He wasn't second in line and allowed to keep the throne. The Bill of Rights provided that William and Mary were joint monarchs during their lifetimes.






Mary was born in England, so she was British.
He was second in line behind Anne. He got the throne under the Bill of Rights because he was second in line behind Anne.

Mary was of the Teck family. The Tecks were German nobility.
  #32  
Old 05-23-2018, 11:24 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 78,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Is that why a new Byzantine emperor's first task was to have all of his siblings strangled?
As noted, that was the Ottoman practice. The Byzantine practice was to mutilate your brothers. One of the requirements to hold the throne was that you couldn't have any physical disabilities. So if you wanted to eliminate your brother's potential claim, you would have him blinded or castrated or cut off his nose and therefore render him ineligible. You'd then usually send him off a monastery to avoid awkward conversations around the dinner table.

Last edited by Little Nemo; 05-23-2018 at 11:24 PM.
  #33  
Old 05-23-2018, 11:28 PM
UDS UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
He was second in line behind Anne. He got the throne under the Bill of Rights because he was second in line behind Anne.
Actually he got it because he was married to Mary, and she refused to take the throne except on terms acceptable to him, and he refused unless he could be co-sovereign with Mary. The he himself was relatively high in the succession may have made it easier for Parliament to accept his demands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
Mary was of the Teck family. The Tecks were German nobility.
Mary was not of the Teck family. She was Mary Stuart, a daughter of James II, and her mother was Anne Hyde.

Mary of Teck was a completely different person who married George V of England and was queen consort from 1910 to 1936.

There was no House of Teck during Mary Stuart's time. The last Duke of Teck died in 1439, and the title wasn't revived until 1863, when it was awarded to the man who a few years later begat Princess Mary of Teck.
  #34  
Old 05-23-2018, 11:39 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 15,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
Actually he got it because he was married to Mary, and she refused to take the throne except on terms acceptable to him, and he refused unless he could be co-sovereign with Mary. The he himself was relatively high in the succession may have made it easier for Parliament to accept his demands.


Mary was not of the Teck family. She was Mary Stuart, a daughter of James II, and her mother was Anne Hyde.

Mary of Teck was a completely different person who married George V of England and was queen consort from 1910 to 1936.

There was no House of Teck during Mary Stuart's time. The last Duke of Teck died in 1439, and the title wasn't revived until 1863, when it was awarded to the man who a few years later begat Princess Mary of Teck.
Who was talking about Mary Stuart? As I said, and as you were replying to,

Quote:
King George V's wife, Queen Mary, was German.
  #35  
Old 05-24-2018, 12:26 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 5,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
Mary was of the Teck family. The Tecks were German nobility.
And she was born at Kensington Palace to a British princess, and lived all but two years of her life in Britain. If having one German parent made her German, then she was also at least equally British.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 05-24-2018 at 12:28 AM.
  #36  
Old 05-24-2018, 12:59 AM
Isilder Isilder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
I thought you had to be English to be Queen (Consort) (or King (Consort)). That's why Prince Philip wasn't called the King Consort, or King Philip.

No you have to be female to be Queen. That is why Prince phillip is not Queen Phillip.
Basically, they don't call the consort King. But they do call the female consort Queen.


But the complication is that non-noble non-royal american divorcee Meghan.. well thats a different case.. there's no precedent but they are moving to be less strict.
  #37  
Old 05-24-2018, 01:18 AM
thelurkinghorror thelurkinghorror is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Venial Sin City
Posts: 13,294
Two different "jobs" (reigning queen and consort) being called queen isn't too weird. In English we use "Prince" for both the son of a king and a reigning leader of a principality, as in Monaco. A distinction is preserved in some languages, like German, which uses Prinz and Fürst.
  #38  
Old 05-24-2018, 01:36 AM
UDS UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isilder View Post
But the complication is that non-noble non-royal american divorcee Meghan.. well thats a different case.. there's no precedent but they are moving to be less strict.
There have been previous non-royal, non-noble and non-British consorts, although the combination of the three characteristics in one person is a first, I admit. But the only really novel aspect of Meghan Markle is that she's a divorcee. If she were to become queen consort she would, I think, be the first divorced person do to so. Queen Catherine Parr has been twice married before she married Henry VIII, but both of her earlier marriages had been ended by death, not divorce.

But Meghan's chances of her ever becoming consort are pretty small.
  #39  
Old 05-24-2018, 01:53 AM
Oswald Bastable Oswald Bastable is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Late Tudor period
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
As noted, that was the Ottoman practice. The Byzantine practice was to mutilate your brothers. One of the requirements to hold the throne was that you couldn't have any physical disabilities. So if you wanted to eliminate your brother's potential claim, you would have him blinded or castrated or cut off his nose and therefore render him ineligible. You'd then usually send him off a monastery to avoid awkward conversations around the dinner table.
Wow, that’s quite Byzantine.

OB
  #40  
Old 05-24-2018, 01:56 AM
thelurkinghorror thelurkinghorror is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Venial Sin City
Posts: 13,294
How is one royal but not noble?

Wallis Simpson was not all three, but of course abdicated before marrying her.

Last edited by thelurkinghorror; 05-24-2018 at 01:57 AM.
  #41  
Old 05-24-2018, 02:04 AM
UDS UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror View Post
How is one royal but not noble?
Well, Harry was royal (i.e. a member of the royal family) but not noble (a member of the nobility) before he married. Now he is both, since he has a title of nobility - namely, Duke of Suffolk.

Just to add; British nobility is narrowly circumscribed. Until Lady Diana Spencer married the Prince of Wales, she was a commoner. She was the daughter of an earl but, while an earl is not a commoner, his children have only courtesy titles, and they are commoners.

Last edited by UDS; 05-24-2018 at 02:07 AM.
  #42  
Old 05-24-2018, 02:36 AM
chappachula chappachula is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphaboi867 View Post
The only reason Elizabeth II's mother was specifically styled "HM Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother" was because "HM Queen Elizabeth" would cause too much confusion with her daughter.
Because after all, there's no other confusion about aristocratic titles, anyway, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine
You may need to draw a diagram
For my poor Yankee brain, even a diagram won't help.
Ya wanna rule the country, all ya gotta do is win the election, 'mkay?

But I do kinda like the sound of "Queen Meghan". Would the historians
  #43  
Old 05-24-2018, 03:18 AM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back.
Posts: 27,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
He was second in line behind Anne. He got the throne under the Bill of Rights because he was second in line behind Anne.
As UDS said, he got it because Mary would not rule as queen alone.

To put it another way, he got it the old-fashioned way: he earned it, by invading, chasing the former king (James II) out of the country, and being the clear choice for king of the powerful group of Englishmen that invited him to invade. Military force has often trumped strict hereditary claims. The only reason there was a vacancy on the throne was because of his military invasion, leading James II to leave, taking the Prince of Wales with him.

If you went by hereditary claims, William was fourth in line: James II's heir apparent was James, Prince of Wales; then Mary; then Anne, then William. If you insist on saying that he was second behind Anne, then you're acknowledging that by invading, William had excluded James II and James, Prince of Wales, from the succession.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
Mary was of the Teck family. The Tecks were German nobility.
Yes, her father was German. Her mother, however, was Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge, daughter of the Duke of Cambridge and grand-daughter of King George III. George III and the Duke of Cambridge were both born in Britain. Princess Mary Adelaide was born in Hanover, because her father, the Duke of Cambridge, was serving there as Viceroy on behalf of King George IV and then William IV. That didn't make Prince Mary Adelaide a German princess, anymore than the children of other officials serving abroad are considered not to be of the nationality of their parents.

Mary of Teck was born in the UK and lived there almost all her life, except for when her parents went abroad for a few years to save expenses. Her mother was a member of the British Royal Family and got a parliamentary grant to help cover her living expenses, which was not typically granted to non-British nobility.
  #44  
Old 05-24-2018, 03:46 AM
SanVito SanVito is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The Big Smoke
Posts: 4,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruCelt View Post
The King or Queen is the head of the Church. Prince Charles will become King by right of birth, and this can not be taken away from him. But his extra-marital relationship with Camilla directly resulted in the end of both their marriages.

The church, therefore, takes a very sour view of their current marriage. It is naught to do with her "being compared" to Diana, and a great deal to do with her having screwed around with someone else's husband rather than her own.

While the Church of England lately takes a kinder view of those who were not at fault in the end of their own marriages, they are still not condoning the act of cheating. And yes, it affects everything about Charles and Camilla's marriage, which therefore occurred at the registrars office, although it was later "blessed" in a chapel.

And it affects the honors to be bestowed upon her as a result of that marriage.

I don't mean to sound personally condemning here, I'm just passing on the church's views.
The church has no say in whether Camilla is Queen or not.

As others have noted, Camilla will be Queen, it's just mooted that they royal family may decide not to refer to her as such, much as they don't refer to her as the Princess of Wales, even though she is.

Prince Philip is not King because, in our sexist world, King trumps Queen, and you can't have that when the monarch is Elizabeth, not Philip. It's a ranking thing, is all.

Last edited by SanVito; 05-24-2018 at 03:46 AM.
  #45  
Old 05-24-2018, 03:50 AM
UDS UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,312
Mary of Teck was an English woman with strong German family connections (including a German father), but she was a German princess - as in, her princessiness was 100% German; a German title awarded by a German sovereign, and descending to her from her German father.

She was also a citizen of Wurttemburg from birth (as the daughter of a father with Wurttemburger citizenship) as well as being a British subject (both by virtue of being born in the UK, and by virtue of being a descendant of Sophia of Hannover, and a Protestant).

Last edited by UDS; 05-24-2018 at 03:52 AM.
  #46  
Old 05-24-2018, 03:50 AM
SanVito SanVito is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The Big Smoke
Posts: 4,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isilder View Post
But the complication is that non-noble non-royal american divorcee Meghan.. well thats a different case.. there's no precedent but they are moving to be less strict.
There's no complication. She's the legally married consort of Harry, and as such qualifies for Queendom, should the occasion arise.

Any complications arising from her divorced status would have come up at the engagement, and the Queen could have refused her consent, but she did not.
  #47  
Old 05-24-2018, 04:14 AM
bob++ bob++ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Worcestershire UK
Posts: 6,194
Anyone reading this thread might well come to the conclusion that British Royalty is much like the English language; inclusive and happy to adopt foreign imports whenever it is useful or desirable.

Last edited by bob++; 05-24-2018 at 04:14 AM.
  #48  
Old 05-24-2018, 04:43 AM
Leo Bloom Leo Bloom is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 13,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Greenback View Post
This comes up fairly often, and I've stated the same myself on occasion....
It's good you got this cleared away. But it's sensible to hold off on buying the stationery.
  #49  
Old 05-24-2018, 05:32 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,047
As far back as 2005, Prince Charles issued a "pained denial" of the story that he would reign as George VII, and "privately, senior officials were scornful" of the idea.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/...y.michaelwhite

But one of his middle names is Arthur, so perhaps he'll reign as King Arthur.
  #50  
Old 05-24-2018, 06:06 AM
SanVito SanVito is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The Big Smoke
Posts: 4,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
As far back as 2005, Prince Charles issued a "pained denial" of the story that he would reign as George VII, and "privately, senior officials were scornful" of the idea.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/...y.michaelwhite

But one of his middle names is Arthur, so perhaps he'll reign as King Arthur.
I think it would be weird for him to change his name when he becomes King, as we've known him as Charles for 70 years.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:08 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017