# Bizarre, preposterous videos about the UK royals on YouTube **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 27, 2024, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bizarre-preposterous-videos-about-the-uk-royals-on-youtube/1009292 "2024-10-27T09:20:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![UDS1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e47774/32.png) [@UDS1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS1)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2024, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bizarre-preposterous-videos-about-the-uk-royals-on-youtube/1009292/21 "2024-10-28T03:06:59Z")
> AIUI, doesn’t British law provide that the next in line of succession acts as regent when such is necessary? Since 1937, broadly speaking, yes. The Regency Act provides that, during the incapacity or minority of the monarch, the regent is to be the next person person in the line of succession who is over 21, British, domiciled in the UK, and a Protestant. Note that this won’t include the monarch’s spouse, who isn’t (barring a terribly incestuous marriage) in the line of succession, or at most isn’t very high up in it. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2024, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bizarre-preposterous-videos-about-the-uk-royals-on-youtube/1009292/22 "2024-10-28T03:51:59Z")
> [@DPRK](#): > > They’ll need to claim _something_ after they are turfed and exiled Even if that were to happen, it doesn’t mean that the federal republic of Germany would grant citizenship rights. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2024, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bizarre-preposterous-videos-about-the-uk-royals-on-youtube/1009292/23 "2024-10-28T04:39:28Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > Though in terms of bizarre preposterous stuff that doesn’t really seem all that. That seems like pretty bog standard monarch succession shenanigans You are completely right, but the problem that the media have is that: - anything concerning the UK monarchy rates its socks off like few other topics - the current monarchy are really, really boring and have been for decades so there is an entire media industry around building mountains out of molehills - or just fabricating mountains entirely - about the UK monarchy, just to try to get some content by any means available. ---
**Author:** ![StarvingButStrong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/starvingbutstrong/32/335_2.png) [@StarvingButStrong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StarvingButStrong)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2024, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bizarre-preposterous-videos-about-the-uk-royals-on-youtube/1009292/24 "2024-10-28T04:47:45Z")
Just curious about that Queen Mother title: suppose the widow isn’t, in fact, the mother of the new King or Queen? Suppose King Bob and Queen Flo never had a child, or did but all offspring have died already, so when King Bob dies his nephew becomes King Nick. Does Queen Flo still become Queen Mother, or is she now Queen Aunt? (Man, that sound’s weird.) Or, of course, the actual situation, with Camilla not being William’s mother. Again, what would they call her if/when William becomes king? Camilla, the Queen Stepmother? ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2024, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bizarre-preposterous-videos-about-the-uk-royals-on-youtube/1009292/25 "2024-10-28T05:10:58Z")
“Queen Dowager” seems likely to me; it was one of the titles Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon held in addition to Queen Mother. > **[Queen dowager](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_dowager#Status)** > > Philosophers > Works > A queen dowager or dowager queen (compare: princess dowager or dowager princess) is a title or status generally held by the widow of a king. In the case of the widow of an emperor, the title of empress dowager is used. Its full meaning is clear from the two words from which it is composed: queen indicates someone who served as queen consort (i.e. wife of a king), while dowager indicates a woman who continues to hold the title from her deceased husband (a queen who reigns in h... > [@](#): > > Thus it hath pleased Almighty God to take out of this transitory life unto His Divine Mercy the late Most High, Most Mighty and Most Excellent Princess Elizabeth, Queen Dowager and Queen Mother… ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2024, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bizarre-preposterous-videos-about-the-uk-royals-on-youtube/1009292/26 "2024-10-28T05:21:49Z")
She invented the term “Queen Mother” because she thought “Queen Dowager” was pretty dowdy and frumpy. She was never dowdy or frumpy. She was everyone’s grammie. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2024, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bizarre-preposterous-videos-about-the-uk-royals-on-youtube/1009292/27 "2024-10-28T05:30:42Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > > [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](#): > > > > the king unilaterally deciding that from now on it’s a sibling act > > It should also be pointed out that there have been plenty of shenanigans like this (if not quite as incestuous) since the glorious revolution, What are you thinking of in support of this statement? Since 1688, there have been three and only three changes to the succession: - Bill of Rights, 1688, excluded James II and his son, on the basis that James had abandoned the throne when he fled to France, in favour of William (his nephew) and Mary (his daughter), their issue (if any), and then Anne (his other daughter) (and her issue); - Act of Settlement, 1701, following the death of Anne’s last surviving child, provided that Sophia of Hanover would succeed Anne, followed by her issue; - His Majesty’s Act of Abdication, 1936, provided that Edward VIII would cease to be king, and his issue (if any) was excluded. His brother George VI became king. None of these were unilateral shenanigans by the monarch, all required parliamentary authority, and generally had strong support in Parliament. So what are the plenty of shenanigans that you’re referring to? ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2024, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bizarre-preposterous-videos-about-the-uk-royals-on-youtube/1009292/28 "2024-10-28T05:42:17Z")
> [@StarvingButStrong](#): > > Or, of course, the actual situation, with Camilla not being William’s mother. Again, what would they call her if/when William becomes king? Camilla, the Queen Stepmother? She’d probably be Queen Camilla, which is the norm for a queen dowager regardless of her relationship to the new monarch. That just didn’t work in 1952 because they were both named Elizabeth, so “Queen Mother” was turned into part of her formal style instead of just a descriptor. ---
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2024, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bizarre-preposterous-videos-about-the-uk-royals-on-youtube/1009292/29 "2024-10-28T07:50:58Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > the current monarchy are really, really boring and have been for decades Boring? You get jealousy among siblings, outsiders who married into the family getting ostracised, a child molester, and plenty of adultery and divorce. A family drama that screen writers couldn’t come up with. ---
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2024, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bizarre-preposterous-videos-about-the-uk-royals-on-youtube/1009292/30 "2024-10-28T07:54:57Z")
Well, there was a fourth one, the change from male-preference primogeniture to gender-indifferent primogeniture in 2012 (which also took an Act of Parliament, or rather parallel legislation in all the Commonwealth realms). But this one hasn’t had practical effects yet, and likely wont have for at least another two generations, depending on whether George’s first child will be a boy or a girl. Unless you mean, by changes to the succession, an ad hoc change that skips the person who’d be next in line under the current rules, rather than a change to the rules themselves. ---
**Author:** ![UDS1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e47774/32.png) [@UDS1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS1)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2024, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bizarre-preposterous-videos-about-the-uk-royals-on-youtube/1009292/31 "2024-10-28T07:57:32Z")
In general, “Queen Mother” doesn’t actually form part of the formal title of the widow of a king in the UK. After the death of George V his widow was formally styled “HM Queen Mary”; similarly the widow of Edward VII was “HM Queen Alexandra”. “HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother” had “Queen Mother” as part of her title only to avoid confusion with her daughter, also called Elizabeth, who was “HM the Queen”. The last Queen dowager who wasn’t the mother of the reigning monarch was Adelaide, the widow of William IV, who was the aunt, rather than the mother, of Queen Victoria. (Queen Victoria’s own mother had never been a queen herself, so she was “HRH the Duchess of Kent”). Formally Adelaide was “HM Queen Adelaide”, but you do find informal references to her as “Adelaide the Queen Mother” despite the fact that she wasn’t the mother of the monarch. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2024, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bizarre-preposterous-videos-about-the-uk-royals-on-youtube/1009292/32 "2024-10-28T11:53:23Z")
The various regency acts are the obvious one: > **[Regency Acts](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regency_Acts#Care_of_King_During_his_Illness,_etc._Act_1811)** > > The Regency Acts are Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed at various times, to provide a regent in the event of the reigning monarch being incapacitated or a minor (under the age of 18). Prior to 1937, Regency Acts were passed only when necessary to deal with a specific situation. In 1937, the Regency Act 1937 made general provision for a regent, and established the office of Counsellor of State, a number of whom would act on the monarch's behalf when the monarch was temporarily ... And the royal marriages act > **[Royal Marriages Act 1772](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Marriages_Act_1772)** > > The Royal Marriages Act 1772 (12 Geo. 3. c. 11) was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain which prescribed the conditions under which members of the British royal family could contract a valid marriage, in order to guard against marriages that could diminish the status of the royal house. The right of veto vested in the sovereign by this Act provoked severe adverse criticism at the time of its passage. > It was repealed as a result of the 2011 Perth Agreement, which came into force on 26 Ma... And the pains and penalties bill > **[Pains and Penalties Bill 1820](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pains_and_Penalties_Bill_1820)** > > The Pains and Penalties Bill 1820 was a bill introduced to the British Parliament in 1820, at the request of King George IV, which aimed to dissolve his marriage to Caroline of Brunswick, and deprive her of the title of queen. > George and Caroline had married in 1795, when George was still Prince of Wales. After the birth of their only child, Princess Charlotte of Wales, they separated. Caroline eventually went to live abroad, where she appointed Bartolomeo Pergami to her household as a courier... All were passed at the behest of one part of the royal family against another part. ---
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2024, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bizarre-preposterous-videos-about-the-uk-royals-on-youtube/1009292/33 "2024-10-28T12:03:00Z")
But none of these were unilateral shenanigans of the monarch of the day. They were all Acts of Parliament, or bills introduced in the hope that they would get adopted. This proves the point that it’s really Parliament that gets to call the shots. Also, a regency in the case of a monarch who is a minor is arguably a prudent solution to a problem of a temporary nature, and not shenanigans at all. ---
**Author:** ![md-2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@md-2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md-2000)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2024, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bizarre-preposterous-videos-about-the-uk-royals-on-youtube/1009292/34 "2024-10-28T12:49:18Z")
There’s a phenomenon I call “stupid for clicks” which I see on things like ExTwitter, and Instagram, and similar. People apparently get some sort of remuneration (or simply love the high of being the center of attention) based on the number of views, likes, and comments - ie. the audience particpation level. If you say something outrageously stupid, ten thousand people (sometimes I’m one) will reply to explain why you are wrong… thus feeding ego and wallet. It ranges from really bad home repair advice, financial advice (“never buy a home, it’s a waste of time”) to obviously, political extremism. Posting total crap about a hot-button topic like the Royals is an obvious attention getter. (I.e. “why haven’t we seen Harry and Meghan out together recently…? Spiltsville?”) I assume YouTube will follow the same pattern, suggesting videos that have large view numbers, thus increasing their popularity and resultant revenue. People with even mild curiosty will click to see it, and plenty will post to tell you you’re wrong. There’s no penalty for acting stupid on the internet, especially on ExTwitter. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2024, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bizarre-preposterous-videos-about-the-uk-royals-on-youtube/1009292/35 "2024-10-28T23:35:57Z")
> [@Schnitte](#): > > But none of these were unilateral shenanigans of the monarch of the day No but neither were they carried out purely by the elected government with the king just acting as a figurehead. They were all examples of the king (or the prince of Wales, who universally hated the king throughout the Hanoverian dynasty) using their faction in parliament to get the policies he wanted (which very often related to family members who’d pissed him often) enacted ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2024, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bizarre-preposterous-videos-about-the-uk-royals-on-youtube/1009292/36 "2024-10-29T01:57:07Z")
> [@Schnitte](#): > > Boring? You get jealousy among siblings, outsiders who married into the family getting ostracised, a child molester, and plenty of adultery and divorce. A family drama that screen writers couldn’t come up with. Seriously? You think screen writers couldn’t come up with this? Every single thing you describe with the possible exception of child molesting is absolutely standard plot material in family drama. It’s humdrum. Not only that but most of what you describe is factually doubtful nothing-burgers and weak-sauce largely frothed up by (or even drama caused by) the media itself. UK royalty used to kill one another, invade countries, chop off people’s heads and make actual governance decisions. ---
**Author:** ![bryanmaguire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/d07c76/32.png) [@bryanmaguire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bryanmaguire)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2024, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bizarre-preposterous-videos-about-the-uk-royals-on-youtube/1009292/37 "2024-10-30T15:11:18Z")
That is a very average week in Eastenders. ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2024, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bizarre-preposterous-videos-about-the-uk-royals-on-youtube/1009292/38 "2024-10-30T19:31:13Z")
> [@bryanmaguire](#): > > Eastenders AKA _Seven Wives For Two Brothers_ ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2024, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bizarre-preposterous-videos-about-the-uk-royals-on-youtube/1009292/39 "2024-11-12T00:58:23Z")
> [@md-2000](#): > > There’s a phenomenon I call “stupid for clicks” which I see on things like ExTwitter, and Instagram, and similar. People apparently get some sort of remuneration (or simply love the high of being the center of attention) based on the number of views, likes, and comments - ie. the audience particpation level. “Click bait” is the traditional term for headlines written on that premise. “Prince Harry was seen somewhere,” is boring. “Prince Harry ditched Megan to hit the town!” gets people to check it out. Mostly to find out Prince Harry was seen somewhere without Megan being by his side. Ho hum, but fodder for speculation for feeble minds. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2024, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bizarre-preposterous-videos-about-the-uk-royals-on-youtube/1009292/40 "2024-11-12T01:06:56Z")
The one I saw was headlined, “Prince Harry separates from Meghan” but when I actually read it, he just took a short trip without her. I really try to avoid falling for clickbait but I’m weak. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bizarre-preposterous-videos-about-the-uk-royals-on-youtube/1009292.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bizarre-preposterous-videos-about-the-uk-royals-on-youtube/1009292.md?page=3)