# In the future: Prince Harry of...? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 16, 2009, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-future-prince-harry-of/489664 "2009-03-16T20:43:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bluffcityguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ebca7d/32.png) [@Bluffcityguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bluffcityguy)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-future-prince-harry-of/489664/41 "2009-03-19T16:35:38Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > Her Majesty did offer Princess Anne’s 1st husband, Mark Phillips, an earldom when they married, but he declined. Later when Anne was pregnant with her 1st child the Queen offered to create Anne’s children prince(ss)s of th realm by letters patent, but Anne declined. That’s why today they’re plain “Mr Peter Phillips” and “Miss Zara Phillips”. And they are 11th and 12th in line of succession to the throne. Not that I wish ill on anyone, but I almost wish some freak accident would happen so that Mr. Phillips would become King… just to satisfy my curiosity as to what, if anything, they’d do in the case of a commoner ascending to the British throne. Anoint him or something? 😉 FWIW, this Wikipedia article: > **[Succession to the British throne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_British_throne)** > > Succession to the British throne is determined by descent, sex,\[note 1\] legitimacy, and religion. Under common law, the Crown is inherited by a sovereign's children or by a childless sovereign's nearest collateral line. The Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701 restrict succession to the throne to the legitimate Protestant descendants of Sophia of Hanover who are in "communion with the Church of England". Spouses of Catholics were disqualified from 1689 until the law was amende... lists 1587 persons who are in the line of succession. And then says “ **more still to be listed** ”. Like that isn’t enough to cover every practical eventuality? Because if we ever got to the bottom of that list, I’d be wondering if there was even a United Kingdom left to rule… Cheers, bcg ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-future-prince-harry-of/489664/42 "2009-03-19T19:09:27Z")
The Act of Succession (dating from about 1700) makes every descendant of Sophia Dorothea, Electress of Hanover, who (a) does not explicitly refuse to be in the line of successsion, (b) does not convert to Roman Catholicism, © does not marry a Roman Catholic without permission of the reigning monarch, or (d) does not trace his descent from the Electress through a Roman Catholic or the spouse of one. (What’s the issue with Catholics? See James II and the Stuart Divine Right hooha, then less than 20 years in the past.) So there is an enormous list of potential heirs and heiresses, all with lightning-strike improbability to inherit but listed in order just in case. And figuring out who is 1801st in line is the same sort of harmless detail-mongering that discussing what would happen if Pres. Obama appointed former Pres. Bush as Secretary of Health and Human Services, and then Al Qaeda moles set off a bomb in the Capital as Pres. Obama was giving his State of the Nation address… ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-future-prince-harry-of/489664/43 "2009-03-19T19:11:28Z")
> [@Bluffcityguy](#): > > FWIW, this Wikipedia article: > > [Succession to the British throne - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_British_throne) > > lists 1587 persons who are in the line of succession. And then says “ **more still to be listed** ”. Like that isn’t enough to cover every practical eventuality? Because if we ever got to the bottom of that list, I’d be wondering if there was even a United Kingdom left to rule… Given that all the current kings of Europe are on the list, there might not be an European continent by this point. Maybe this part of the list was posted on Wiki by number 1587, the last name appearing on it? 😉 I assume the numerous “skipped” are Catholic/Orthodox (when there’s no other reason given)? There are some people on the list I’d like to end up King of the UK : the prince Napoleon (heir of the emperor of the same name) around the 800 mark (actually, he’s amongst the skipped). Napoleon, king of the UK : doesn’t it sound good? Also, it could be king Soliman I (this one isn’t skipped), currently Soliman El-Hakim, about 1400th on the list. And I’m baffled by the number of descendants Victoria has : 700-800 or so, apparently. ---
**Author:** ![Cunctator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Cunctator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cunctator)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-future-prince-harry-of/489664/44 "2009-03-20T00:32:44Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > And I’m baffled by the number of descendants Victoria has : 700-800 or so, apparently. Well, she had nine children, eight of whom had children of their own. There were something like thirty-five grandchildren surviving to adulthood, who then all married into other royal familes. And royalty tend to be fairly philoprogenitive. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-future-prince-harry-of/489664/45 "2009-03-20T04:57:22Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > . . . I assume the numerous “skipped” are Catholic/Orthodox (when there’s no other reason given)? Catholic. The Act of Succession imposes no disability on Orthodox Christians, or on non-Christians. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-future-prince-harry-of/489664/46 "2009-03-20T06:02:48Z")
> [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > Alright. I get it. King of England, finished. Ignorance fought. > Right, and that much I gathered. When Charles accedes to the throne, what will his equivalent “surname” be? United Kingdom? You can give it to me straight, without any cracks about Delaware. 😉 I don’t think monarchs have surnames–don’t they just sign themselves as Firstname R (R for Rex)? I thought Prince Harry’s surname would be “_of_ Wales”, although the family name is actually Windsor, “surname” and “family name” not necessarily being equivalent. In the German nobility, which still exists somewhat as a social construct, a person’s full name is usually (given names) + “von” Surname, although in some cases there’s no “von”, or there may be a “zu” instead. But the person’s surname is considered to be just the Surname part. That’s where you would look them up in the German equivalent of Debrett’s (which still exists as an occasional publication), and how you would casually refer to them. I imagine you could also address them that way if you are on sufficiently cordial terms, e.g., Yo, what’s up, Hapsburg! ---
**Author:** ![chowder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@chowder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chowder)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-future-prince-harry-of/489664/47 "2009-03-20T07:40:04Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Joined? > > Entered a civil union? A Royal Rogering? ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-future-prince-harry-of/489664/48 "2009-03-20T18:34:52Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > The Act of Succession (dating from about 1700) makes every descendant of Sophia Dorothea, Electress of Hanover, who (a) does not explicitly refuse to be in the line of successsion, (b) does not convert to Roman Catholicism, (c) does not marry a Roman Catholic without permission of the reigning monarch, or (d) does not trace his descent from the Electress through a Roman Catholic or the spouse of one. Poly, are you sure about those? I’m not aware of any way a person could voluntarily remove him/herself from the line without becoming/marrying a Catholic. Likewise, I’m fairly certain that the children of a Catholic are still eligible for the throne unless they, themselves are (or marry) Catholics. Prince Michael is out of the line, because he married a Catholic, but his two children (Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella) are still in line for the throne. Lastly, I’m also fairly certain that a person who marries a Catholic loses their place in line, whether or not the Monarch gives his/her permission. Peter Phillips was going to marry a Catholic about a year ago, but she converted to the Anglican chruch in the end. However, I highly doubt that Elizabeth would not have offered a dispensation (especially since Peter has no real chance of ascending the throne anyway) if she could have to allow Peter to remain in the line. Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-future-prince-harry-of/489664/49 "2009-03-20T21:58:27Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > When he went to university, he chose to enroll simply as ‘William Wales’, avoiding using titles when leading a relatively normal life, and I presume this carried over into his time in uniform, so indeed ‘Wales’ actually _was_ his surname, at least at that time and in those situations. > > Edit: errrr, yes, I know that’s the other prince, but no doubt the little brother followed the example set. Makes sense to me. I would have thought, though, they’d go with Windsor. IIRC, regarding **Polycarp’s** example, the formal name of a peer is usually A\_String\_Of\_Given\_Names and their title, such as Duke of Marmaduke or Marquis of Marchmain or Earl Grey. The “Mortimer Marmaduke” form I thought would be used only by friends as an informal way of mentioning him, or am I mistaken? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2009, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-future-prince-harry-of/489664/50 "2009-03-21T00:31:02Z")
> [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](#): > > Makes sense to me. I would have thought, though, they’d go with Windsor. > > IIRC, regarding **Polycarp’s** example, the formal name of a peer is usually A\_String\_Of\_Given\_Names and their title, such as Duke of Marmaduke or Marquis of Marchmain or Earl Grey. The “Mortimer Marmaduke” form I thought would be used only by friends as an informal way of mentioning him, or am I mistaken? He’d be introduced as “Lord Luvaduck” or “Earl Greytea” or the “Duke of Pomfret” – he would **sign** things as firstname+specifier of title, or by title only. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2009, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-future-prince-harry-of/489664/51 "2009-03-21T00:35:42Z")
> [@zev\_steinhardt](#): > > Poly, are you sure about those? > > I’m not aware of any way a person could voluntarily remove him/herself from the line without becoming/marrying a Catholic. > > Likewise, I’m fairly certain that the children of a Catholic are still eligible for the throne unless they, themselves are (or marry) Catholics. Prince Michael is out of the line, because he married a Catholic, but his two children (Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella) are still in line for the throne. > > Lastly, I’m also fairly certain that a person who marries a Catholic loses their place in line, whether or not the Monarch gives his/her permission. Peter Phillips was going to marry a Catholic about a year ago, but she converted to the Anglican chruch in the end. However, I highly doubt that Elizabeth would not have offered a dispensation (especially since Peter has no real chance of ascending the throne anyway) if she could have to allow Peter to remain in the line. > > Zev Steinhardt I think you’re more nearly correct-- I was working from memory, which seems to be failing these days. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-future-prince-harry-of/489664.md?page=2)