How to become the Prince of Wales

There’s this website called Internet Royalty & Nobility. It’s
The Prince of Wales hasn’y been bought yet, check it out!

So is this a reply to a Cecil Column, or a MPSIMS thread?

And, what the fuq?

It sounds like the groups selling real estate on Mars - they have no basis for their claim to ownership, so what they are selling they have no right to convey. They just want your money.

And frankly, royalty? Please - feudalism died centuries ago.

Irishman (judging by your name, I guess the title of Prince of Wales wouldn’t interest you?), I think it’s supposed to be a joke. I didn’t read all the pages at that site though. If they’re getting a commission on sales, then some people found a clever way to make easy money!

Here’s the link, I believe:

“If you prick me, do I not…leak?” --Lt. Commander Data

Also, this old column could use an update. Though I’m no expert, I’m pretty sure that the male heirs of Charles precede both Andrew and Anne in line for the throne.

“If you prick me, do I not…leak?” --Lt. Commander Data

Arnold, it didn’t read like a joke. They tried very hard to sound serious.

It reads like a scam. [mock statements] “Sign up now to reserve your title in the new internet monarchical government. We’re the only official site that can do this, so don’t be fooled by any other site to reserve titles. Just a small fee.” [/mock statements]

Like I said, it sounds exactly like the folks selling real estate on the Moon and Mars - “Reserve your official block of land on the Moon, complete with an official certificate of registration.” What they don’t tell you is they have no authority to sell titles to blocks of land on the Moon, and the first people to settle the Moon (and Mars) will in all probability get squatters’ rights. So pay your money for a worthless piece of paper. Okay, if it makes you feel like part of something and encouraging the eventual growth to settlement, maybe it’s worth it to some people for sentimentality, but don’t expect it to stand up in court when someone actually gets there to use the land. Same thing with this internet monarchy - it’s a load of BS trying to get you to cough up cash.

There is absolutely nothing to keep me from putting “King of the World via Internet” as my title on all my emails and posts from now on. It has just as much legitimacy as this stupid site, and I don’t have to pay a dime for it. Of course nobody else on the planet (or those aliens out hiding on Pluto :wink: ) has to acknowledge or accept it - and that’s just like the web site, too.

  • Irishman
    Official King of the World via the Internet, and Master of All Mere Mortals, Slayer of Evildoers and Spammers, Invincible Hero of the Lovelorn, Champion of the SDMB and All Enemies of Ignorance, Wondrous and Most Mighty God of All Life Throughout the Multiverse!!! (Anybody got change for a dollar?)

I think this raises a valid question: Who does have the right to create royalty? What makes a King, a King?

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that QE2 dropped dead tomorrow and was utterly without heirs. The line ended with her. How would a new monarch be selected?

Would the people elect one? Would the House of Lords select a King/Queen from among their number? How does the “divine right” of Kings enter the equation? Does this mean the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope would select the next King or Queen?

This dilemma tends to demonstrate that the monarchy is anachronistic in the new millenium. But I’ve been thinking lately that a King serves a very useful purpose. As I understand it, the King (or Queen) is the head of state, who then employs the Prime Minister (or some other politician) to be the head of government. I find this a very useful distinction.

There’s something about the very nature of politicians that makes them somewhat unsavory characters. Just look at some of our most sucessful pols (pointing to both ends of the political spectrum, to be fair) Nixon, Reagan, LBJ, Clinton. Each political very effective. As human beings, role models, exemplars, symbols for a nation? Lousy.

The two functions are very different and require very different skills and characteristics. A King should be a hero, a paragon, Father of the Country, above reproach. A Prime Minister/President/Premier simply needs to be a highly effective politician – a negotiator, a schemer, an operator.

If we had a King (or Queen) in this country as well as a President, we could have avoided the whole Lewinsky scandal. We could rightfully crucify a King for that sort of behavior. We should expect it from a politician.

Perhaps I’m rambling a bit now.

Plunging like stones from a slingshot on Mars.

From Frequently Asked Questions about Queen Elizabeth II:

I couldn’t find anything on what would happen if a monarch died with no children or siblings. Presumably the crown would pass to the nearest surviving relative. I know very little about British history, but I’m sure something like this must have happened at some point. It was probably a lot easier when there were more royal families in Europe and they were all related to each other.

Good examples exist at each end of the Stuart line. Elizabeth I (the last Tudor) died with neither offspring nor siblings. The crown passed to James I, then James VI of Scotland, starting the Stuarts. He was descended from Henry VII, Elizabeth’s grandfather, through I don’t know how many generations, making him some kind of cousin to her.

Queen Anne was the last of the (recognized) Stuarts and died without heir or “acceptable” siblings (James Edward Stuart was around but was Catholic). They backed up and down a couple generations again and came up with George I, elector of Hanover.

IIRC, Henry the VI’s daughter Margaret (the sister of Henry VIII, Elizabeth’s father) was James’ either grandmother or great-grandmother; I think it was the latter.

Certain statutes affect the right of succession now, too. For example, no Roman Catholic can be king or queen of England.


See I was thinking of James I also, but he was Mary I’s son, and Mary I was Henry VIII’s daughter so that falls into the rules of succession I described previously. Elizabeth I had no offspring so the crown went to her sister’s oldest son.

No Otto, wrong. Mary I died childless – otherwise that child would have become king or queen instead of Elizabeth.

James I (VI of Scotland) was the son of the ill-fated Mary, Queen of Scots, who was Elizabeth’s cousin.

Starting with Henry VII:

Henry VII had a daughter, Margaret Tudor, and a son, Henry VIII (other kids too, but not important to this discussion).

Mary I and Elizabeth I, both of England, were the daughters of Henry VIII. Mary was the elder daughter (from a different mother), and she became queen before Elizabeth did. When she died, childless, Elizabeth became queen.

Margaret Tudor married James IV of Scotland. Their son was James V of Scotland, and their granddaughter, daughter of James V, was Mary, Queen of Scots.

James I of England (who was also James VI of Scotland) was the son of Mary, Queen of Scots.

So Elizabeth I was the granddaughter of Henry VII (through Henry VIII), and James I was the great-great-grandson of Henry VII (through Margaret).



If all else fails, one can raise an army, conquer the country of his choice, and declare himself King.

Well, it’s true!

“In my nightmares I am chased by algorithms”–crewman Celes, ST:V

Ah. I read an article from an ancient encyclopedia which appeared to state that Mary Q of S was the same person as Mary I, which is why I left her out of my post to begin with.

Well, Foolsguinea has come closest to addressing my question. I’m not so much interested in the rules of sucession as in how a King is created – that is, how does a nation find a King where there was none before.

My gut feeling is there are no rules for this sort of thing – it’s purely a power trip. One must have a mandate from the people or the nobility or an army behind one, or something of that nature.

I’m planning on ascending to the throne, in case you are wondering. Just need to get some details first.

To quote Pratchett: “We hath the crown, by the lord Harry, and pity any whoreson who tries to take it away” - yep, grab the country and make your claim stick. It’s worked before.

Of course, you can always try to find an aging monarch without offspring:

"Charles XIV (Charles John; Jean Baptiste Jules Bernadotte), 1763-1844, king of Sweden and Norway (r.1818-44), was a French Revolutionary general. He served under Napoleon in Italy (1796-97), was French ambassador at Vienna (1798), and was minister of war (1799). In 1810 the aging and childless Charles XIII of Sweden adopted him, and he was elected crown prince by the Riksdag. "

How 'bout that ?


Originally posted by Frankd6:

One only has to look at the royal family in England to show the fallacy of your argument.

A better reason is to have a distraction - while the people are busy focusing on the private life of the royals, they forget to pay attention to the real seat of power. Thus Clinton could nail all the interns he wanted without fear of discovery - we’d be too busy worrying over King Ralph’s private affairs.

Right. : :rolleyes::

Regarding “How to Grow Royalty at Home in Your Spare Time”:

  1. Support your local dictator. This is always the most reliable method for growing royalty, with such sterling precedents as Napoleon and Bokassa. What, after all, is difference between president-for-life and King? Cf. Pat Buchanan.

  2. Inquire discreetly of available, unemployed princes. Norway’s a good example. When Norway gained full independence from Sweden in 1905, the Norwegian polity cast around for a good monarchical person, and found one in the form of Prince Charles, second son of King Frederick VIII of Denmark. He became Haakon VII of Norway, despite having (in all likeihood) nor more relationship to Haakon VI than you or I would.

Two other choices are available if you either need to get rid of a current king, or you’ve an interregnum of some years:

  1. Find a cooperative neighbor. A good example would be William and Mary, titular heads (stadtholders) of the United Netherlands. Their genetic link to the English throne was fairly weak (fourth in line) but Protestantism and good sense recommended them as an alternative to the hated James II (who by the time of his forced abdication had in fact produced a male heir).

  2. Skip a generation or two. Juan Carlos of Spain is the grandson of the prior King, Alfonso, who fled in 1931.

Any of the last three have a chance of working out. Haakon VII was lauded for his leadership of the Government in Exile in World War II. Juan Carlos is widely credited with being the main democratizing force in Spain after Franco. William and Mary were praised for bringing stability and the Acts of Tolerance, ending at least the most virulent forms of religious discrimination. And Napoleon is credited with destroying France, and Bokassa with developing an unseemly taste for his enemies.

…oh, never mind…

Actually, Mary was a direct descendant (James II’s daughter). Your description of William and the general situation is apt. During the “Glorious Revolution”, James II was deposed, his Catholic son James passed over, and the crown passed to Protestant daughter Mary. Husband William more or less demanded that he be allowed to rule as King rather than being a Prince Consort for him (and his money and army) to go along with the deal.

I’d rather forgotten about Mary! Very correct; “fourth-in-line” refers properly to William himself, who was a grandson of Charles II. Even with the birth of a (half) brother, Mary was still second in line in her own right.

…oh, never mind…