Neither Edward VII nor Edward VIII were up to the job, though it didn’t really matter, as things went on fine without them.
And Victoria went MIA for a lot of the time after Alfred’s death, but fortunately British PM’s had worked out from the earlier Hanoverians how to suck up to, but basically otherwise ignore monarchs who didn’t have much idea about what was going on.
Charles will be a bit like his father: he will say embarrassing things from time to time, but will know his constitutional place, and not try to intervene when he shouldn’t.
OK, then let’s call them characters. FWIW, I don’t think Charles is actually stupid. Strange? Yes, but in an almost charming sort of way. I know the Brits are a bit antsy about being called “quaint”, but that’s what the royals are supposed to be, and the more colourful ones can’t hurt the image.
Agreed. Edward VIII was the last real disaster, then you have to go back all the way to George IV to find another. Most monarchs have been fairly unexceptional. And most monarchs in history were no more inbred than many of their subjects. Don’t forget, before the coming of the railways most people lived in the same small villages where their ancestors had lived for centuries. Cousin marriages were common, and the term “village idiot” would not have come into use if there wasn’t some truth behind it.
But what could he actually do in 21st century Britain that would be so bad? I don’t buy the argument that anything less than the current monarch’s stability will result in immediate disaster with some madman messing about with parliament. Like I said, Charles is a little odd sometimes, but he’s not actually dumb. The most you’ll get are some new sanctuaries for the rare hooded grebe and Christmas messages that will be met with howls of laughter down at the local. I can’t see any real crises happening.
I have read- though I don’t know its veracity (and would like to if anybody knows) that this was a reason for the tradition of posting bans and for the “if anyone can show just cause why these two should not be joined together…” part of a wedding: it was so that if anybody knew of a relationship between the two (legitimate or otherwise) they could let it be known.
Something that is definitely true is that there used to be traditional naming customs for each child. For example, the most common pattern for the first three sons and first three daughters was:
1st son- named for paternal grandfather
2nd son- named for maternal grandfather
3rd son- named for father
1st daughter- named for maternal grandmother
2nd daughter- named for paternal grandmother
3rd daughter- named for mother
While this was never law or canon and can’t even be followed in all cases (e.g. if your grandfathers are both named John or your father was a third son and thus his name and your paternal grandfather’s name are the same, etc.), it was very common. In the families of the earliest U.S. presidents for example you won’t find the names in this order, but you will find that three of the four oldest sons were usually named in some order for their father and their two grandfathers. (In America the mother’s maiden name as a given name was often added into the mix.)
One theorized reason for this was that in following it, each family was a mini-genealogy of the whole family, a particular advantage before most people were literate and when records were rarely kept of the peasantry. “Your name is John Hickenlooper and you’re the oldest son, and your dad was Ed Hickenlooper, so he must be the son of old Johnny Hickenlooper, whose sister Ann (which is the name of one of your sisters) was the grandmother of Cassiopiea Moongate so that makes you cousins— I wouldn’t date her.”
The whole point of primogeniture is to make it clear in advance who is next in line. This (a) allows the first in line to be groomed for the job in advance and (b) avoids power struggles between rival princes. The Monarch has no say in the order of succession; that’s settled by law, and the Monarch is not above the law. I doubt if, for instance, Queen Victoria would have allowed the succession to go to Edward VII if she could have stopped it; likewise George V expected Edward VIII to mess things up inside a year. (And he was right.)
Correct. Nobody knows the exact moment Princess Elizabeth became Queen Elizabeth II because her father, George VI, died in his sleep and unobserved. This was the first time that happened in centuries. Normally the dying monarch would be surrounded by family, clerics, and high officials.
I last checked this a few years ago, when a newspaper was campaigning against the Act of Settlement. As far as I can tell, the Queen may adopt children, but they cannot succeed to the throne. So Ringo’s out of luck.
It would be almost impossible for anyone to measure up to Her Majesty, but you’re selling Charles a bit short. His marriage was a train wreck and and affair with Camilla embarassing, but other than that he actually seems like a decent human being. He’s managed to carry off the wedding and marriage to Camilla with surprising slickness, he’s behind a lot of good causes, and he doesn’t stick hi foot in his mouth much at all.
He clearly got most of his mother’s brains, not his father’s.
I also suspect his reign could be longer than people think. He’s 60 this November. If his mother died in 15 years, he’ll be 75, and I’ll bet dollars to donuts he holds onto the crown until his dying day. Seeing how his father’s 87 and still chugging along nicely, it’s quite possible Charles could get in ten years at least.
