The Crown never dies. Notionally, at least, the succession happens the moment that the monarch dies. The coronation is just a formality.
Well, if that is what rex quondam rexque futurus refers to, I think it’s a dirty trick.
-
If a British monarch chose the name Arthur, would he be referred to as Arthur I or Arthur II? Granted, the Arthur of Mallory’s stories is probably fictional, but don’t Brits like to pretend he was real? Would they take this pretense to the point of numbering a new Arthur after him?
-
Granted that King Ralph was ridiculous, not least because he would’ve been a bastard king. But what about his Americanness? If the next-in-line to the British throne, genealogically, was a native and resident of the U.S. or some other non-Commonwealth nation, would that be a bar to serving?
-
The monarchy is patrilineal where possible. Thus, Charles is the heir apparent, even though he has an older sister. If something happened to Charles, succession would pass through his two sons, then on to his younger brother, Andrew.
Now, here’s where I’m confused. Given the bias toward male successors, you’d think after Andrew the line would go to his younger brother, Edward. But it doesn’t! Instead it goes through Andrew’s daughters first, then to Edward. What’s up with that? I’d have thought they’d want to go with the nearest male heir…otherwise, they should just go back and crown Charles’s older sister in a pinch, right?
No, it would not pass from Andrew to Edward, because, well, that’s just the way they do it…I’m not sure about that either, but I think that the offspring of a monarch has more claim than the sibling.
Obviously then, Queen Victoria would NEVER have become Queen. (she had, I believe, three or maybe even FOUR uncles after her…)
I don’t know if you have to be a British citizen…or of British descent. And remember: the royal family by blood is mostly GERMAN, except for the Queen Mum and the late Princess of Wales.
(Philip’s paternal family was GERMAN by BLOOD, even though they came from the Danish, Russian and Greek royal houses…his mother was German…hell, Queen Victoria was German.)
There were also the Hanovers, who ruled both Hanover and England until Victoria, since Hanover used the Salic law.
Um…Anne is NOT the oldest of Lilibet’s children. Charles was born in 1948; Anne was born in 1950.
If i’m not mistaken it would go from Andrew to his oldest daughter (Beatrice or Eugnie…don’t know which is older), then to Edward and his children. I saw a website with all of the current successors (including Lord Fredrick and Lady Gabriella - who are like #23 and #24 - don’t ask…) but I can’t find it now. Sorry 
Quite simply, for each person it goes, sons in order of birth, daughters in order of birth, brothers in order of birth, sisters in order of birth, uncles in order of birth, aunts in order of birth. The trick is that that applies to each potential heir.
So Charles is first in line, as Elizabeth’s eldest son. Then Wills, as his eldest son. Then Harry, since Wills doesn’t have any children and he’s sole brother. Then up to Andrew, since Harry has no children or younger siblings. Then, since he has no sons, to Beatrice. And from her back up to her uncle, Edward. And if he has no children, up to his sister Anne, to her kids, son first, and any kids they may have, then up to Margaret, when you run out of Elizabeth’s heirs. From there it goes to the Gloucester line, being descendents of George VI’s next-youngest brother, then to the Kents, and then to the Harewoods (descendents of George VI’s sister). After that, if I remember right, is King Harald of Norway, heir-of-line of George V’s eldest sister Maud.
And eventually it works its way to Victoria’s daughters’ heirs, and Prince Philip is in the line in his own right. Of course, most of the upper nobility of England and half the royalty of the Continent has to die off first, but he’s in there…
Sorry.
It was www.movie-mistakes.com**. Forgot the hyphen.
Polycarp you missed one . Inbetween Edward VI and Mary I there was Lady Jane Grey who was Queen for nine days .
This gives a list of Monarchs since 802AD with genealogies and bio’s of all .
Guin: But Edvard V never reigned or ruled, and was ruled illegit. His inclusion in the list is just a bit of Tudor propaganda, for after making folks beleive the lie that richard killed him, they wanted to make it look worse that Richar killed a “king”, thus is was OK for Edward VII to kill Richard. There are several other cases of the “next in line” being not crowned, such as Edward the Atheling, but they are not considered “kings”.
Polycarp,
assuming all of George V’s descendents get wiped out, wouldn’t the line go through the Dukes of Fife, descended from Louisa, the Princesss Royal? I think she was older than Maud.
Guinastia,
It may seem a bit odd that David became Edward VIII, and Bertie became George VI, but you have to remember that ther upbringing was lavish, even in the matter of names. Their full names were: Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David, and Albert Frederick Arthur George - so they both had a fair bit of choice.
Five,
If Charles used Arthur as his regal name, he would likely be Arthur I (even if you assume there was a historical King Arthur). The numbering system starts with the Norman Conquest. Edward I, for example, reigned in the 13th century. Edward the Confessor (d. 1066) was not Edward I.
Duke,
Thanks for the link. It does mostly the same sorts of lists of mistakes as what you can find in the Internet Movie Database if you click on Goofs. The problem is that these are mostly continuity errors, which I find rather boring. Yeah, if I play the videocassette of the movie and carefully stop the tape at certain scenes, I can see that certain items were appearing or disappearing from the set, but that’s not the sort of thing that most people actually notice when they’re in a movie theater.
Far more interesting to me are actual plot errors, like the ones I listed for King Ralph. These aren’t caused by sloppy continuity problems on the set, but by screenwriters who are writing about subjects that they don’t remotely understand. Incidentally, the problem is not just that people in Hollywood don’t understand other countries. It’s clear to me that they don’t even understand the rest of the U.S. (Maybe they don’t even get California right. I’m not qualified to say.) It’s always a hoot to those of us who live near Washington, DC whenever a Hollywood movie is set here. Whenever a character travels from one location to another, they take a circuitous path that makes no sense but will get lots of the monuments into the background. And I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Hollywood movie that got the feel of living in DC right.
jti - Given that Edward VIII’s first Christian name was Edward, it was not that strange that this was the name he used as king. The use of a middle name as a family nickname is a practice which is hardly confined to the Royal Family.
There has been some speculation that Charles might take the name George VII, partly as a tribute to his late grandfather and partly because Charles II was the most famous of all royal adulterers.
The cases of Edward V and Lady Jane Grey are both debatable. Richard III did not date his accession until 26 June 1483, eleven weeks after the death of Edward IV. Mary I refused to recognise Lady Jane Grey and she redated the start of her reign to the death of her brother, in much the same way Charles II dated his accession from 1649. Each of these was a political act, but, then again, accessions always were.
Hasn’t it? I thought that the “Glorious Revolution” of 1689 was about exactly this: after James II fled to France and left the throne vacant, Parliament offered the crown jointly to William and Mary, thereby establishing a Parliamentary precedent.
yojimbo: thanks for adding Lady Jane Grey to the list of putative monarchs. If nothing else, her story illustrates another stage in the evolution of the concept of “right” to the crown.
Does anyone know if her nine-day reign (such as it was) was the origin of the phrase “nine day’s wonder”? Is there a Straight Dope column on this?
As for Charles’ royal name if/when he becomes king: I would strongly advise against choosing the name “Richard”. It hasn’t been especially lucky for the three Richards so far!
MJH - I suspect that the point made by Dr. Starkey to which Duke alluded was that the 1701 Act of Settlement only provides for a line of succession deriving from the heirs of the body of Sophia of Hanover. In the event of that line dying out (the chances of which are, in actuarial terms, virtually nil), the problem which that Act was intended to solve would resurface. That problem relates directly to the point you made - the Convention of 1689 had altered the succession and had also barred Catholics from succeeding. The purpose of the Act of Settlement was to clarify the implications of the Declaration/Bill of Rights. Since 1701 the only basis on which the succession to the Crown has rested has been statute.
APB – Thanks. I should’ve noticed that the two dates in question, 1689 and 1701, suggest a cause-and-effect, not effect-and-cause.
I know that royalty all has long names. But that doesn’t mean they use their first names…Edward VII’s first name was Albert, as was George VI’s.
Daniel-I get what you’re saying, but if he wasn’t included, then the later Edwards-VI, VII, and VIII wouldn’t be numbered thus. It gets confusing, does it not?
As to legitimacy…well, it’s debatable what happened…
After all, Queen Mary Tudor was declared illegitimate by her father, and after Ann Boleyn was killed, everyone thought of Elizabeth as a bastard.
(Besides, does anyone REALLY believe that there haven’t been any bastards on the throne? I’m sure that at least one or two have been the result of affairs.)
Besides, there have been attempts to have King Arthurs before. I believe the son of Geoffrey, brother of King John, was named Prince Arthur and was killed. Henry VIII’s older brother’s name was Arthur, Prince of Wales, and his wife was Katherine of Aragon. After Arthur died, his widow, Katherine, now Dowager Princess of Wales, was married to her brother in law. It was highly unlikely that Arthur’s and Katherine’s marriage was consummated.
BTW, aren’t most monarchs of Europe, those still around, and those who aren’t really ruling, just existing…(the Russian royals, for example), descendents of Queen Victoria, for the most part? Juan Carlos of Spain’s grandmother was Queen Ena of Spain, a granddaughter of Victoria.
Plus, are there not some who are disqualified, for being married to or converted to Catholicism? Like Prince Michael of Kent? (those his heirs are eligible…)
Oh, I just LOVE the history of European Royalty…mostly starting from Queen Victoria until the end of the 2nd World War…(although my favorite period was Victoria-end of 1rst World War…)
If I recall correctly, there are still 10 nominal monarchies in Europe: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Spain, Monaco, Liechtenstein and the UK. I’m not certain how many of these are actively governing monarchs, or mostly ceremonial (as in the UK). Technically, I believe the Prince of Monaco is the only one considered an absolute monarch.
And there are other non-ruling royal families floating around, as you say – stray Romanovs, Hapsburgs, Hannovers, et al. One tidbit of trivia (which ties back into the main thread): Princess Caroline of Monaco recently married (as her third husband) Ernst of Hannover – a marriage which, because of Ernst’s place in the English succession, required QEII’s permission.
Charles I and II aren’t exactly remembered with fondness either.
Coincicdentally, Charles Dickens wrote a history of England based on each Monarch’s ‘term’. It’s full of Victorian biases, but a good overview of anything ‘major’ that happened whilke Monarch X was on the throne.
Um…hmmm…the funny thing is, so many of those monarchies are descendents of either Queen Victoria or else King Christian IX of Denmark-his children included Queen Alexandra of England, Frederick something of Denmark, King George I of Greece (Prince William of Denmark), and the Empress Maria Feodorovna of Russia. Another daughter was Thyra, Duchess of Cumberland, whose son was Ernest, Duke of Brunswick, who married Princess Viktoria Luise of Prussia, daughter of Kaiser Wilhelm II. If I’m not mistaken, isn’t Ernst of Hanover Viktoria Luise’s grandson? More of her grandchildren and children married into the Danish and Greek Royal houses…some of the Romanian royals might also be around.
The funny thing is too, George of Greece married Grand Duchess Olga Konstantinovna of Russia, granddaughter of Nicholas I, which means that Prince Philip has Romanov blood…as does the Queen’s cousin, Prince Michael of Kent, who I have a great amount of respect for.
There are Romanovs in the US, I believe, descendents of Nicholas II’s sisters, Olga and Xenia. There is also Prince Nicholai of Russia, head of the Romanov Family Organization!
Whew!
Also, up in Erie, which isn’t THAT far from Pittsburgh, one of Queen Victoria’s great-granddaughters is buried…Mother Alexandra, an Orthodox Nun. Mother Alexandra was born Princess Ileana of Roumania, daughter of Queen Marie and King Ferdinand I. Marie, or Missy, was a granddaughter of Tsar Alexander on her mother’s side, Victoria on her father’s side.