Are you suggesting it would be considered “compassing or imagining the death of the King’s eldest son and heir”? I wonder if an abortion would be considered as causing a death, even without the Abortion Act.
Or were you thinking it would be “violating the King’s Companion”? Surely that’s limited to sexual intercourse?
In practice I don’t think anyone would do anything if Kate decided to have an abortion. The Daily Mail would go nuts though.
“Coronated” is perfectly acceptable in British English, I’m afraid. The idea being that anyone from Teen Miss America to the King of Burgers can be crowned, but only the monarch can be coronated.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
You’re off a generation. Christian IX was George VI’s great grandfather. His paternal grandmother, Queen Alexandra, was Christian’s eldest daughter.
[/QUOTE]
Wait a minute, the original statement was entirely correct - Prince Charles’s paternal grandfather was Prince Andrew of Greece, whose paternal grandfather was indeed Christian IX of Denmark. Not that it makes any practical difference as Prince Philip renounced his Danish titles.
Thankyou SecondJudith. My self respect has been restored.
OK, what about this scenario? Wills is dying of cancer, and before entering chemotherapy he banks some sperm to protect against later infertility. Sadly, the treatment fails and he dies. Two years late Kate uses the sperm to create a child? Where’s King Harry then?
I don’t think this is right. I’ve never seen “coronate” used as a verb (or anything) as far as I remember (always “crown”) and at least three dictionaries (Oxford, Cambridge and Chambers) appear to agree that there is no such word as “coronate” (or “coronated”) in British English.
I suspect they would have destroyed the sperm around the time the King died.
Most likely, an Act of Parliament to clear things up. If King Henry IX is acting more like II, V, VII, then he stays. If he is like VI and VII, then the new kid is gladly accepted.
Now THERE’S a situation that could get interesting…
My guess: 1. DNA test to confirm. 2. Harry’s reign is ended. He abdicates and possibly becomes Regent for his nephew. 3. The situation is likely to be somewhat more anticipated and planned for in the event that William did actually get cancer.
If Harry refused to abdicate, (assuming he could get as far as coronation with his brother’s frozen sperm in existence) his popularity–really the only thing that keeps the royals Royal these days–and that of his future children, would be shot for generations. They’d be seen as usurpers; that sort of thing might have been tolerated in the 14th century, but probably would not fly nowadays.
Unless, of course, there is some ironclad rule on the books about how long post-death the heir can born and still be legitimate. It seems like I’ve heard of a 10-month rule in some area of estate law. No idea if it would apply to royal succession, or it would even be applicable in these days of IVF and DNA testing.
:smack: You’re right, I appologize. I should have known that one! (Considering I’m such a royalty history buff)
It may be correct but it is highly unusual. As a Brit it jarred as soon as I read it - I have never heard any British commentator use it.
The Royal Family’s official web site always uses “crowned”.
Yes, I wouldn’t say it’s usual, just not incorrect (the same as “orientate”, another word that jars whenever I read it).
Chambers is out of my books ever since I discovered it lists “impact” as a verb.
I think the problem is that in most accessions, political expediency was a factor. It’s probably rarer in English history for a child to inherit from their parent with no fuss than for some heavy politics to be going on (either behind the scenes or on a battlefield).
No, in this case the fetus would be the sovereign; killing or assaulting the sovereign is the very defination of high treason. And it just occured to me that if the Cabinet objected to Queen Katherine getting an abortion they could simply confine her to a high security hospital room while trying to ram a special act through parliament giving them authority to do so.
I suppose so, but with all the various lower titles it seems like there must be some precedent from more recent history. Certainly any time an unborn heir would come into play things are already a little messy by definition, but it seems like the Henry Tudor example is the only one we’ve seen where the alternative was a perfectly good closely-related male. In all the other cases, it seems like they could be making an exception to avoid the title going to a female or some distant relation.