# Idle Curiosity re British royal succession **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 16, 2011, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618 "2011-04-16T16:27:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/41 "2011-04-17T23:48:12Z")
Also, keep in mind that the Queen holds this title in like 16 areas, where as some (like the Duke of York) are heir apparent in only some territories. I may have been wrong in my previous post. I think that grandsons of the His Majesty male offspring will get the His Highness title without the “Royal”. It depends on the monarch/current title holder in question. Children of non Royal Dukes and Earls are “Ladies” and “Lords”, I believe. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/42 "2011-04-17T23:56:27Z")
> [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](#): > > Remind me: would William become Prince of Wales in this case? He already is. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/43 "2011-04-18T00:47:01Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > He already is. No, his father is. There can only be on Prince of Wales at a time. ---
**Author:** ![A.Gwilliam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ea5d25/32.png) [@A.Gwilliam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A.Gwilliam)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/44 "2011-04-18T00:48:34Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Also, keep in mind that the Queen holds this title in like 16 areas, where as some (like the Duke of York) are heir apparent in only some territories. You’ve got a bit jumbled here somehow. There is only ever one “heir apparent”. The line of succession is identical in each of the Commonwealth realms. Ergo, the heir apparent is the same person in each realm… and that person is not the Duke of York. > [@CitizenPained](#): > > He already is. What’s your second guess? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/45 "2011-04-18T01:05:44Z")
> [@A.Gwilliam](#): > > You’ve got a bit jumbled here somehow. There is only ever one “heir apparent”. The line of succession is identical in each of the Commonwealth realms. Ergo, the heir apparent is the same person in each realm… and that person is not the Duke of York. I meant that the Duke of York is not in line for every succession in the Commonwealth. Am I wrong? I could be. 😕 > [@](#): > > What’s your second guess? 😃 His Royal Highness Prince William of Wales and HRH The Prince of Wales. I understand the difference with “THE”. Um. I guess I was just thinking that they were both _Princes of Wales_. The question was, “Remind me: would William become Prince of Wales in this case?” He is already styled HRH Prince William of Wales. He is not THE Prince of Wales. I thought the question was about who gets to be a prince and what he is a prince of (or from) and such. ---
**Author:** ![A.Gwilliam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ea5d25/32.png) [@A.Gwilliam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A.Gwilliam)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/46 "2011-04-18T01:05:46Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Um, I don’t think it’s treason if the British monarchy are just figureheads. Nope. [QUOTE=Treason Act 1351] When a Man doth compass or imagine the Death of our Lord the King, or of our Lady his Queen or of their eldest Son and Heir; or if a Man do violate the King’s Companion, or the King’s eldest Daughter unmarried, or the Wife [of] the King’s eldest Son and Heir; or if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be [proveably] attainted of open Deed by the People of their Condition: […] And it is to be understood, that in the Cases above rehearsed, that ought to be judged Treason which extends to our Lord the King, and his Royal Majesty […] [/QUOTE] That’s still the law in England and Wales, anyway. > [@](#): > > As far as Charles, succession and murder goes, I’m 99 per cent sure he’d lose his succession rights. I don’t know about his heirs, though. I’m 99 per cent certain you’re wrong as a matter of law, though of course practical politics is going to work out differently. But there’s no reason to assume that Prince William et al. would lose their place in the line of succession unless (a) they were believed to be complicit in the murder, (b) weren’t complicit but failed to condemn our putative murderer, or (c) the monarchy as a whole was abolished. ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/47 "2011-04-18T01:14:34Z")
> [@StarvingButStrong](#): > > If so, what I am curious about is what happens if the Queen and Prince Charles were to die simultaneously? For example, they’re strolling about on the grounds of whatever palace after Prince William’s marriage, and a giant flaming meteor hurtles down into them. Boom! Instant incineration. IOW, absolutely no way to determine which of them died first Then they are assumed to have died in order of succession, that is the Queen would be deemed to have died a fraction of a second before Charles. So Charles III would then be the shortest reigning monarch of all time. The only time this principle has been actually used (that I’m aware of) was during WWII when some British peer and his son flew a plane into a mountain; I’m trying to remember where I read that but haven’t been able to scare up anything from Google. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/48 "2011-04-18T01:16:51Z")
> [@A.Gwilliam](#): > > Nope. > I’m 99 per cent certain you’re wrong as a matter of law, though of course practical politics is going to work out differently. I did not say it was a law. > [@](#): > > But there’s no reason to assume that Prince William et al. would lose their place in the line of succession unless (a) they were believed to be complicit in the murder, (b) weren’t complicit but failed to condemn our putative murderer, or (c) the monarchy as a whole was abolished. I said I did not know about his heirs - the OP was clearly having a drama rama fest in potential outcomes of the Royal Family’s soap opera. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/49 "2011-04-18T01:21:14Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > His children would (probably) be children of a duke, i.e., Duke of York. It’s up to the monarch to give out those titles. His cousin, Princess Eugene, is not eligible for Dukedom. Any divorcee of a Royal loses the HRH title. Are you talking about Princess Eugenie? Why would she lose her HRH title? She had nothing to do with her parents’ divorce. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/50 "2011-04-18T01:24:54Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Are you talking about Princess Eugenie? Why would she lose her HRH title? She had nothing to do with her parents’ divorce. :dubious: No. I said she can’t handle a dukedom. As far as divorce goes: Diana lost HRH and became Diana, Princess of Wales. I should have hit “enter” for that sentence…I was starting to ramble. ---
**Author:** ![A.Gwilliam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ea5d25/32.png) [@A.Gwilliam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A.Gwilliam)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/51 "2011-04-18T02:03:12Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > I meant that the Duke of York is not in line for every succession in the Commonwealth. > > Am I wrong? > > I could be. 😕 The line of succession is **identical** for each of the Commonwealth realms. Although the precise legal framework varies from realm to realm, the net effect is the same. Ergo, the Duke of York is in the line of succession for each of the Commonwealth realms, and his place in that line is also identical for each of those realms. The parallel rules of succession would only be broken if one of the realms unilaterally altered the existing rules. This happened inadvertently following the 1936 abdication of Edward VIII: the last date of his reign and thus the first date of George VI’s reign ended up slightly different from the rest of the Commonwealth/Empire in both the Irish Free State and the Union of South Africa; this discrepancy was due to those two countries adopting their own form of legislation relating to the abdication, rather than joining in with British legislation that was applied to all the other territories. > [@](#): > > His Royal Highness Prince William of Wales > > and > > HRH The Prince of Wales. > > I understand the difference with “THE”. > > Um. I guess I was just thinking that they were both _Princes of Wales_. The question was, “Remind me: would William become Prince of Wales in this case?” > > He is already styled HRH Prince William of Wales. He is not THE Prince of Wales. I thought the question was about who gets to be a prince and what he is a prince of (or from) and such. I’m not sure what the technical terminology for this is, but Prince William is “of Wales” because his father’s title is “of Wales”. The best way to understand this is to look at his cousins. Thus, it’s “Princess Beatrice of York”, because her father’s title is “of York”; there’s no “Prince of York” (outside of Shakespeare). ---
**Author:** ![A.Gwilliam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ea5d25/32.png) [@A.Gwilliam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A.Gwilliam)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/52 "2011-04-18T02:24:31Z")
> [@Askance](#): > > Then they are assumed to have died in order of succession, that is the Queen would be deemed to have died a fraction of a second before Charles. So Charles III would then be the shortest reigning monarch of all time. > > The only time this principle has been actually used (that I’m aware of) was during WWII when some British peer and his son flew a plane into a mountain; I’m trying to remember where I read that but haven’t been able to scare up anything from Google. Not sure if this is the case you were thinking of, but it’s exactly the same principle. In 1941 Lord Stamp was killed in the Blitz. His eldest son died in the same bombing. The son was deemed to have succeeded his father before his own death. (A younger brother then succeeded in turn.) ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/53 "2011-04-18T04:45:44Z")
> [@Askance](#): > > Then they are assumed to have died in order of succession, that is the Queen would be deemed to have died a fraction of a second before Charles. So Charles III would then be the shortest reigning monarch of all time. > > The only time this principle has been actually used (that I’m aware of) was during WWII when some British peer and his son flew a plane into a mountain; I’m trying to remember where I read that but haven’t been able to scare up anything from Google. Actually, something very akin to it happened in Portugal. Carlos I, king since 1889, and his wife had two sons. On February 1, 1908, they were returning to the Royal Palace in Lisbon from a country estate when Manuel Buiça, a republican activist who was a former Army sharpshooter, fired five shots at them. The King was killed immediately; his elder son Prince Luis Felipe was mortally wounded, and the younger son Prince Manuel hit in the arm. Luis Felipe died 20 minutes later, after what is arguably the shortest reign on record. Manuel then became the King. [He was overthrown in a revoluition 2½ years later.] ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/54 "2011-04-18T07:19:13Z")
The basic formulary for British royal inheritance (there’s a minor difference for noble titles, discussed in others’ posts) is A. The order of succession is: 1. Sons and their heirs, oldest to youngest 2. Daughters and their heirs, oldest to youngest 3. Brothers and their heirs, oldest to youngest 4. Sisters and their heirs, oldest to youngest 5. Uncles and their heirs, oldest to youngest 6. Aunts and their heirs, oldest to youngest B. The same formula applies to each heir in succession, so that the eldest son’s sons and daughters inherit before the second son becomes eligible. C. Roman Catholics, those married to Roman Catholics, and illegitimate children are statutorily excluded. Note that this is not, or not predominantly, religious prejudice, but dates from the days when the king dictated what his subjects’ faith was going to be. And illegitimate in this context means the putative parents are or were not married to each other – a child born out of wedlock to a couple who then marry becomes legitimate. (There’s actually a case of this in the Lascelles family, listed after the Kents around 100 in that long list of order of inheritance, where the man and his wife separated, he moved in with his girlfriend, they popped out two boys, then he married her.) So the present order is Charles, William, Harry, Andrew, but if William fathers a child, that child slips into the line next after him, before Harry. If Harry marries and has kids, they in turn push Andrew down the list. And so on. When George VI took the throne in late 1936, the order of succession from then until 14 Nov 1948 was Elizabeth, Margaret, Henry of Gloucester (the king’s brother), but when Charles was born, he pushed his aunt and great-uncle down the list, as did Anne in 1950. But when Andrew was born in 1960, he pushed Anne down the list, by virtue of being a boy. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/55 "2011-04-18T07:43:19Z")
> [@A.Gwilliam](#): > > I’m not sure what the technical terminology for this is, but Prince William is “of Wales” because his father’s title is “of Wales”. The best way to understand this is to look at his cousins. Thus, it’s “Princess Beatrice of York”, because her father’s title is “of York”; there’s no “Prince of York” (outside of Shakespeare). Isn’t Charles HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE Prince of Wales? And William is HRH PRINCE WILLIAM of WALES? I understand the _of Wales_ is like a last name, but the question was if Prince William would become Prince of Wales. I said he already was. You said guess again. Charles is THE prince of Wales while William is A prince of Wales but they are both princes, no?! :smack: > [@](#): > > Prince of Wales (Welsh: Tywysog Cymru) is a title traditionally granted to the heir apparent – That’s Charles > [@](#): > > The Prince’s style and title in full: His Royal Highness Prince William Arthur Philip Louis of Wales, Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter. As a British prince, William does not use a surname for everyday purposes. – that’s Wills If Charles dies, he only becomes HRH THE Prince of Wales _if_ the Queen says so. but today He is a Prince of Wales (“of Charles”) no? ---
**Author:** ![mac\_bolan00](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b3f665/32.png) [@mac\_bolan00](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mac_bolan00)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/56 "2011-04-18T08:12:19Z")
interesting discussion about the POW. as to the princess royal, it seems simpler. anne replaced margaret, the queen’s sister, when she married mark philips. i know american wallis simpson became duchess of windsor only after her two ex-husbands died (the brits must have checked and re-checked.) ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/57 "2011-04-18T08:29:12Z")
> [@Bijou\_Drains](#): > > Beatrice and Eugenie are princesses , they are the kids of Andrew and Fergie They are in their early 20s No they’re not. I remember the wedding, their births, the toe sucking, the weight watchers advertisement and the reality show. If those two are in their 20s that would mean I am old and you should get off my lawn and stop spouting untrue information!! ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/58 "2011-04-18T08:30:57Z")
> [@A.Gwilliam](#): > > I’m not sure what the technical terminology for this is, but Prince William is “of Wales” because his father’s title is “of Wales”. T**he best way to understand this is to look at his cousins. Thus, it’s “Princess Beatrice of York”, because her father’s title is “of York”; there’s no “Prince of York” (outside of Shakespeare).** No, that’s not right. You wouldn’t look at his cousins to understand styling. “Last name”, maybe. Prince Andrew is the His Royal Highness the Duke of York. His daughter is Princess Beatrice of York. **But Charles is HRH The Prince OF Wales.** Even though he’s also the Duke of such and such, his\* title \* is Prince of Wales. The OP asked about titles - and it was a very poorly worded question about “Prince of Wales”. Anyway, ask a Welsh person what they think about the The Prince and his son the Prince and that’s much more fun. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/59 "2011-04-18T08:32:18Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > No they’re not. I remember the wedding, their births, the toe sucking, the weight watchers advertisement and the reality show. > > If those two are in their 20s that would mean I am old and you should get off my lawn and stop spouting untrue information!! Eugene is younger than I am. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/60 "2011-04-18T10:43:51Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > No, that’s not right. You wouldn’t look at his cousins to understand styling. “Last name”, maybe. > > Prince Andrew is the His Royal Highness the Duke of York. > His daughter is Princess Beatrice of York. > > **But Charles is HRH The Prince OF Wales.** Even though he’s also the Duke of such and such, his\* title \* is Prince of Wales. The OP asked about titles - and it was a very poorly worded question about “Prince of Wales”. > > Anyway, ask a Welsh person what they think about the The Prince and his son the Prince and that’s much more fun. 😛 +1 on this - I seem to remember that HRH The Prince of Wales resides with the next in line to the throne or something and Charlie only received the title upon his marriage? (yes, get off my damn lawn - I can also remember watching that wedding on TV) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618.md?page=4)