# 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:** 7
**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 20, 2011, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/121 "2011-04-20T10:23:06Z")
> [@APB](#): > > But there may also be some baser political calculations behind the current moves. Although the change itself will be utterly uncontroversial, the Government won’t want it becoming a pretext for discussions on other, more contentious issues. Passing it in the afterglow of the wedding reduces that danger. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this operated as a factor. Barbados has made noises about becoming a republic. Australian culture has a strongly egalitarian trend with a definite republican tendency. Public discussion of the monarchy might well get tangled up in various Caribbean nations with arguments over the merits of still allowing appeals to the JCPC (and vice versa). And discussion in any country might easily get tangled up with any dissatisfaction with the party of government. In 1936 the Irish government used the abdication of Edward VIII as an opportunity to abolish the office of Governor-General, and to otherwise all but eliminate the formal role of the monarchy within the constitution. Discussion of gender-neutral succession would also inevitably open up discussion of the various religious restrictions, which in turn must surely open up for discussion the relationship between the state and the Church of England… It’s all a bit of a potential hornets’ nest! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2011, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/122 "2011-04-20T18:44:47Z")
> [@APB](#): > > Also, if one was being really cynical, one might suspect that Cameron wants to give Clegg something to do after the AV referendum. Especially if AV is rejected. What in heck is the AV referendum? For that matter, who are Cameron & Clegg – British royals of some sort? ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2011, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/123 "2011-04-20T19:03:46Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > What in heck is the AV referendum? > For that matter, who are Cameron & Clegg – British royals of some sort? AV referendum - upcoming half-arsed vote on changing the voting system Cameron & Clegg - respectively, the current Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2011, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/124 "2011-04-20T19:20:19Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > AV referendum - upcoming half-arsed vote on changing the voting system > Cameron & Clegg - respectively, the current Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister OK, thanks. But what is a “half-arsed vote”? We’ve recently switched to Instant Runoff Voting (Ranked Choice Voting) for local elections here – is it anything like that? ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2011, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/125 "2011-04-20T19:29:58Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > But what is a “half-arsed vote”? We’ve recently switched to Instant Runoff Voting (Ranked Choice Voting) for local elections here – is it anything like that? Yeah, there’s ranking of preferences in the AV system, with lower ranked candidates dropping out until someone has \> 50%. I’m no expert, however. I meant “half-arsed” in that it isn’t a fully proportional representation system, which was the original plan. ---
**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 20, 2011, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/126 "2011-04-20T22:35:48Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > OK, thanks. > But what is a “half-arsed vote”? We’ve recently switched to Instant Runoff Voting (Ranked Choice Voting) for local elections here – is it anything like that? As I understand it, IRV and AV are different names for exactly the same thing. It’ll also be a half-arsed vote because I doubt many people really care about it or even understand the issues involved. It’d be like having a referendum in the US about whether the $2 bill should be scrapped. The Liberal Democrats (the UK’s third largest party) have traditionally argued that the present stupid electoral system be replaced with some form of proportional representation. Last year they ended up in an improbable coalition with the Conservatives. Inevitably part of the price the Conservatives had to pay was to agree to a referendum on changing the voting system… but they weren’t prepared to compromise so far as to adopt any form of PR, so we’re stuck with only having AV on offer. I doubt most people even realise there’s a distinction between AV and PR, especially given the spurious assertions generally being made by the official “No” campaign. We now return you to your scheduled thread! 🙂 ---
**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 20, 2011, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/127 "2011-04-20T22:49:26Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > Yeah, there’s ranking of preferences in the AV system, with lower ranked candidates dropping out until someone has \> 50%. I’m no expert, however. You’ve got it spot on. I’ve only just found out that the way the ballot papers are redistributed from the pile for an eliminated candidate is more complicated to explain than I’d realised. It’s hardly surprising that nobody seems to explain it properly! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Shirley\_Knott](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shirley\_Knott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shirley_Knott)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/128 "2011-04-21T02:25:55Z")
Quote: 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. The problem is that a King can not be tried in a British court of law - and the second the Queen dies, at his hand or in any other fashion, Charles would become King AT THAT INSTANT. Therefore he could never be convicted. ---
**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 21, 2011, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/129 "2011-04-21T02:39:18Z")
> [@Shirley\_Knott](#): > > …The problem is that a King can not be tried in a British court of law - and the second the Queen dies, at his hand or in any other fashion, Charles would become King AT THAT INSTANT. Therefore he could never be convicted. Well he wouldn’t be the first King Charles to wind up deposed and on trial in an ad hoc court. 😉 Parliament has shown on several occasions that it decides who sits on the throne, and has deposed monarchs. It wouldn’t even take a special act of Parliament to declare him unfit and appoint a regent (ala George III), current [law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regency_Acts#Regency_Act_1937) allows any three of the following people to declare the monarch incapacitated and trigger a regency; the royal consort, the Lord Chancellor, Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chief Justice of England & Wales, and the Master of the Rolls. Presumably Parliament would then pass a more permanent act dealing with the situtation. ---
**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 21, 2011, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/130 "2011-04-21T09:54:36Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > Well he wouldn’t be the first King Charles to wind up deposed and on trial in an ad hoc court. 😉 Parliament has shown on several occasions that it decides who sits on the throne, and has deposed monarchs. It wouldn’t even take a special act of Parliament to declare him unfit and appoint a regent (ala George III), current [law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regency_Acts#Regency_Act_1937) allows any three of the following people to declare the monarch incapacitated and trigger a regency; the royal consort, the Lord Chancellor, Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chief Justice of England & Wales, and the Master of the Rolls. Presumably Parliament would then pass a more permanent act dealing with the situtation. I think Parliament would indeed have to pass a special Act à la George III, as the Regency Act only applies in the case of “infirmity of mind or body”, or when the Sovereign is “not available for the performance of [the royal] functions”. I can’t see a judge being persuaded that “not available” includes someone who is physically around and mentally capable! Even if he were an axe-murderer. Incidentally, I’ve just noticed that they’ve not updated the legislation to take into account the creation of the Supreme Court. I can’t imagine that there’s a particular reason for this; it seems more likely to be yet another symptom of the sloppy way that the Constitutional Reform Act was put together. ---
**Author:** ![Damfino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Damfino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damfino)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/131 "2011-04-21T20:59:38Z")
> [@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. It was in the 1974 Guiness Book of Records. I believe it was a bomb explosion at their residence, although I can’t remember the details. However the presumption that the elder person died first was the deciding factor. (Shortest peerage, or something of the sort.) ---
**Author:** ![Damfino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Damfino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damfino)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/132 "2011-04-21T21:11:18Z")
Found the cite : [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfred\_Stamp,\_2nd\_Baron\_Stamp/](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfred_Stamp,_2nd_Baron_Stamp/)] 2nd Baron Stamp was considered to have died a fraction of a second following his father after a bomb blast at their residence. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2011, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/133 "2011-04-22T04:07:08Z")
> [@Damfino](#): > > Found the cite : [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfred\_Stamp,\_2nd\_Baron\_Stamp/](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfred_Stamp,_2nd_Baron_Stamp/)] 2nd Baron Stamp was considered to have died a fraction of a second following his father after a bomb blast at their residence. Link fixed: [Baron Stamp - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Stamp) ---
**Author:** ![Damfino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Damfino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damfino)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2011, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/134 "2011-04-22T18:36:13Z")
Thanks! ---
**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 23, 2011, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/135 "2011-04-23T17:18:24Z")
> [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](#): > > In Sweden, though, the law was changed to allow succession without regard to gender. This caused the Crown Prince to lose his place as heir apparent to his older sister, and apparently the King wasn’t too happy about it. The same was done in Norway EXCEPT the Crown Prince was grand-fathered in, so even though his sister was older, he’d still be Crown Prince. His daughter, however, as the elder child, will inherit the throne, rather than her younger brother. ---
**Author:** ![dhkendall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a9adbd/32.png) [@dhkendall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dhkendall)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2011, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/136 "2011-04-25T17:12:02Z")
> [@A.Gwilliam](#): > > If [Prince Charles] was insane, then he’d be nudged aside with a Regency. _If_??? > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > Yes, but I think the process of becoming a republic would probably start quite quickly if they started offing each other. Like you say, sorting out the legalities could take years. As was mentioned upthread (damn my being away from the Dope for a while!) what happened in Nepal. I would have thought Nepal would be one of the last places to go Republican, but once that happened, I figured it was just a matter of time (and was surprised it didn’t happen sooner). > [@alphaboi867](#): > > The Queen can change this by letters patent. She might choose to do it when she creates William a duke on his wedding day. Helluva wedding gift … > [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](#): > > Thanks for the information, this is what I wanted to know. So if I understand correctly, Charles currently does not hold any title that can be inherited by his son at his death. > > And yes, I’m aware that William is styled as Prince William of Wales (and I believe Harry is also styled as Prince Henry of Wales), but what I was wondering was what would be needed to make William THE Prince of Wales. Now I have the answer. > > Another question, though: suppose Charles dies tomorrow. Are his children still styled as Prince XXX of Wales, as children of the (deceased) Prince of Wales? > [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](#): > > As used by William and Harry, the “of Wales” is rather like the “von” in German aristocratic names, no? IOW more like a surname than a title. Interestingly, when harry joined the Army, he was known as Officer Cadet Wales - Wales being the last name, even though his last name (when it is needed, as a titled royal, he doesn’t have one) is Mountbatten-Windsor or Windsor. I guess if you don’t have a last name, and you’re high up in the line of succession, you can take any damn last name you want. > [@dqa](#): > > I could swear that a few years back Elizabeth II issued a proclamation about titles or succession or some such going to the eldest son **or** daughter in the generation following those currently living. I can’t seem to find any evidence of this, which is really frustrating given the news of the past couple days. > > Did I completely imagine this, or was the effect of her statement so minor that it hasn’t been worth mentioning in recent discussion? I remember this too, and thought the same thing. I guess it was something that the Queen would have liked to have, but hasn’t been made law. I guess the Queen doesn’t automatically get everything she wants, despite being the frickin’ Queen. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2011, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/137 "2011-04-25T19:23:41Z")
> [@dhkendall](#): > > I remember this too, and thought the same thing. I guess it was something that the Queen would have liked to have, but hasn’t been made law. I guess the Queen doesn’t automatically get everything she wants, despite being the frickin’ Queen. Why would the Queen be bothered? She’s already ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2011, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/138 "2011-04-25T19:24:49Z")
> [@dhkendall](#): > > I remember this too, and thought the same thing. I guess it was something that the Queen would have liked to have, but hasn’t been made law. I guess the Queen doesn’t automatically get everything she wants, despite being the frickin’ Queen. Why would the Queen be bothered? She’s already Queen and wouldn’t have been affected by this change anyway, and neither would her children or grandchildren except in the extreme unlikely instance that Charles and his children all die. ---
**Author:** ![dhkendall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a9adbd/32.png) [@dhkendall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dhkendall)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2011, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/139 "2011-04-25T23:29:34Z")
> [@SciFiSam](#): > > Why would the Queen be bothered? She’s already Queen and wouldn’t have been affected by this change anyway, and neither would her children or grandchildren except in the extreme unlikely instance that Charles and his children all die. Uhhh, maybe she does have a concern for women’s representation in such things (being a woman). Sure, it won’t do any difference now, but it’s bound to come up some time. ---
**Author:** ![Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tastes_of_chocolate/32/3232_2.png) [@Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tastes_of_Chocolate)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/140 "2011-04-29T22:49:19Z")
Henry VIII issued a couple of Succession Acts, first delaring Mary and Elizabeth bastards, and then returning them to to the line of succession, after his son Edward. So in 1544, the King was able to set, at least to some degree, the line of succession to follow him. How about today? With the decreased power of the throne, who has the ability to change the line of succession? Could Elizabeth II decide that Prince Charles should be skipped, and appoint William as the heir apparent? Would that take an act of Parliment? No matter who has the ability, are there set situations in which this may or must be done? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618.md?page=8)