# On English Royalty **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 18, 2025, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-english-royalty/1024083 "2025-10-18T21:29:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![SanVito](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sanvito/32/2805_2.png) [@SanVito](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanVito)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2025, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-english-royalty/1024083/21 "2025-10-20T07:59:27Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > My argument is complicated by the fact that William III was James II’s closest male heir, though Mary I, Elizabeth, sort of Mary II, and Anne show that the British weren’t averse to reigning queens in that era. I don’t think we can imagine that Parliament ever loved the idea of a female monarch, they would also lean male if they could. ---
**Author:** ![UDS1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e47774/32.png) [@UDS1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS1)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2025, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-english-royalty/1024083/22 "2025-10-20T08:52:14Z")
> [@SanVito](#): > > I don’t think we can imagine that Parliament ever loved the idea of a female monarch, they would also lean male if they could. But the issue here was definitely not gender; it was religion. When James VII and II was deposed Mary was put on the throne, along with her husband William; she was succeeded by Anne, _not_ with her husband George. And in 1701, while Anne was on the throne, they enacted legislation to skip over about 50 Catholics and land on the next most senior Protestant; Sophia. Sophia was widowed at the time, but there was no provision in the legislation for her to co-reign with any husband she might marry; she would have reigned alone. (As it happens, Sophia died a few weeks before Anne did, so she never reigned at all; Anne was eventually succeeed by Sophia’s son George.) At no point did Parliament ever displace a woman so that the succession would fall to a man; it consistently displaced Catholics so that the succession would fall to a Protestant, frequently a Protestant woman. ---
**Author:** ![md-2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@md-2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md-2000)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2025, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-english-royalty/1024083/23 "2025-10-20T13:14:07Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > \*excluding James’s son and issue from the line of succession; Didn’t parliament (or was it Edward VII?) do the same when he abdicated in 1937? Exclude all potential future issue? So was that a decree of parliament or the king to change the succession? IIRC during the last days of Henry VIII he reversed what he had done before. Originally he delcared Mary and Elizabeth illegitimate; near the end, he restored the standard order of succession and declared them legitimate so they were next in line after Edward. I seem to recall these were laws passed by parliament too, but obviously they took their marching orders from the king. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2025, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-english-royalty/1024083/24 "2025-10-20T13:31:04Z")
> [@UDS1](#): > > But the issue here was definitely not gender; it was religion. Sort of. Why put William on the throne at all, then? Mary was _right there_. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2025, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-english-royalty/1024083/25 "2025-10-20T13:45:10Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > Why put William on the throne at all, then? They needed William’s army, simple as that. He took England by force of arms, landing with an overwhelming force of ~20,000 troops and James’ brief attempt to resist quickly collapsed and he fled. Attempts to sideline William as a consort failed both because his wife refused to go along with it and more importantly because William had Parliament over a barrel. If William withdrew as he threatened to do they might have been screwed, vulnerable to a counter-coup by James and his residual supporters. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2025, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-english-royalty/1024083/26 "2025-10-20T13:47:48Z")
> [@md-2000](#): > > Didn’t parliament (or was it Edward VII?) do the same when he abdicated in 1937? Exclude all potential future issue? So was that a decree of parliament or the king to change the succession? It was Parliament, in the Abdication Act. By that point, unlike Tudor times, the succession was set by statute law. The king had no power to unilaterally change the succession, and a statute was needed to implement the abdication and exclude Edward’s potential progeny. ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2025, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-english-royalty/1024083/27 "2025-10-20T14:07:39Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > Why put William on the throne at all, then? Mary was _right there_. Because William made it clear that he wouldn’t accept any deal that didn’t make him King and Mary strongly agreed with him. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2025, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-english-royalty/1024083/28 "2025-10-20T15:20:40Z")
Plus, he was a military leader. Mary wasn’t. That’s why he was invited to invade England, and there was the possibility that James could try to come back, with French support. ---
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2025, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-english-royalty/1024083/29 "2025-10-20T17:28:26Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > As best I can read it, “HRH Prince Charles of [whatever he used to be]” is the odds-on favorite. It wouldn’t be “Prince Charles of…” because in the UK, Prince is a title that doesn’t come with a territorial designation; it’s just “Prince”, no “of”. The exception is Prince of Wales, which is a special case and exists outside the rest of the system (and which would, in the scenario we’re talking about, in all likelihood be used for George). Prior to becoming King, Charles held a number of peerages, such as Duke of Rothesay (by convention used for the heir apparent to the Scottish throne) and Baron Renfrew (which he used as an alias on the dating scene when he was young). But when he became King, he lost these titles - merged into the Crown and fell extinct; so any new peerage for him would have to be created from scratch by William. ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2025, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-english-royalty/1024083/30 "2025-10-20T19:01:00Z")
Footnote - it’s their custom to add to a family member’s primary English territorial title supplementary titles so that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are acknowledged. ---
**Author:** ![UDS1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e47774/32.png) [@UDS1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS1)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2025, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-english-royalty/1024083/31 "2025-10-21T00:53:36Z")
> [@Schnitte](#): > > It wouldn’t be “Prince Charles of…” because in the UK, Prince is a title that doesn’t come with a territorial designation; it’s just “Prince”, no “of”. Princess Beatrice of York, Princess Eugenie of York, Prince Michael of Kent and many others would disagree. ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2025, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-english-royalty/1024083/32 "2025-10-21T01:00:02Z")
If they really wanted to fuck with people, they could call him Prince Charles of Wales (not Charles, the Prince of Wales). ---
**Author:** ![UDS1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e47774/32.png) [@UDS1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS1)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2025, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-english-royalty/1024083/33 "2025-10-21T01:46:27Z")
When he _was_ the Prince of Wales, his sons were Prince William of Wates and Prince Henry of Wales (until they became Duke of Cambridge and Duke of Sussex respectively). That’s how it works. “Prince/Princess X” is the son or daughter of the monarch. If you’re a male-line grandson/granddaughter, then it’s “Prince/Princess X of Y”, with “Y” being your father’s territorial designation. That’s why it’s, e.g., Princess Beatrice of York. If the succession falls to your father, then you’re now the son/daughter of the monarch and you drop your territorial designation. So the woman born as Princess Elizabeth of York in 1926 became Princess Elizabeth in 1937 when her uncle abdicated and her father became King. ---
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2025, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-english-royalty/1024083/34 "2025-10-21T08:06:21Z")
> [@UDS1](#): > > Princess Beatrice of York, Princess Eugenie of York, Prince Michael of Kent and many others would disagree. Those are short forms, not actual titles. Beatrice and Eugenie are Princesses, and they’re also daughters of the Duke of York, hence the contraction as “ Princesses of York”. Similarly, Michael is a Prince and the younger son of a former Duke of Kent (George, brother of Edward VIII and George VI and hence an uncle of Elizabeth II). But there are no peerages called “Prince of York” or “Prince of Kent”; if they were, there couldn’t be two people of the same style - every peerage exists only once and is held by only one person. ---
**Author:** ![UDS1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e47774/32.png) [@UDS1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS1)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2025, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-english-royalty/1024083/35 "2025-10-21T08:45:53Z")
“Prince” is not a peerage; it’s just a title or style. And the style of the daughters of the Duke of York is “Princess X of York”. ---
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2025, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-english-royalty/1024083/36 "2025-10-21T09:25:54Z")
> [@UDS1](#): > > “Prince” is not a peerage; it’s just a title or style. That’s what I’ve been saying. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2025, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-english-royalty/1024083/37 "2025-10-21T10:02:37Z")
> [@ASL\_v2.0](#): > > If they really wanted to fuck with people, they could call him Prince Charles of Wales (not Charles, the Prince of Wales). Or, as the illustrious Donald Trump (self-appraised Stable Genius) once referred to him on a social media post, the Prince of Whales. I’m not making this up! ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2025, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-english-royalty/1024083/38 "2025-10-21T10:22:35Z")
Consider the precedent of George III: He still held the title of King through his hospitalization and until death, and his successor was regent until then. I quite imagine Charles would do something similar. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2025, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-english-royalty/1024083/39 "2025-10-21T10:41:23Z")
That would require a change to the Regency Act, which requires incapacity by the monarch. It doesn’t cover a straight retirement. The King cannot unilaterally change an Act of Parliament, so that approach would need the agreement of the government; Charles could not just retire and appoint William as regent. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2025, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-english-royalty/1024083/40 "2025-10-21T11:30:28Z")
King Charles could certainly arrive at the point of incapacity by simple inaction. But given modern medicine and what we know or suspect of his case, the degree of incapacity to accomplish routine royal duties is very different from the degree of incapacity used for other legal purposes among ordinary folks. IIRC QEII wasn’t putting in much work her last 6 months or so. But was probably functional enough and lucid enough to have sound opinions up until near her last day. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-english-royalty/1024083.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-english-royalty/1024083.md?page=3)