Terminus Est writes:
> Her mother, the Queen Mum, lived to 102.
How do the Windsor (& Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg) men rate as far as longevity? Phillip is in his 80s and appears to be in very good health.
Not yet. Elizabeth assumed the throne at age 26. Willy still has a year to practice The Wave.
Or Camilla could convert.
But what’s so bad about being a Catholic? There’s lots of worse things out there. For instance, Chuck could convert to Scientology and try to donate the crown jewels to that “Church”.
You may recall a couple of centuries’ worth of English history largely preoccupied with that question.
It’s been made quite clear that even though there are separate thrones, one is the Monarch of Canada because one is the Monarch of the United Kingdom. Changing that arrangement would not be a constitutionally simple measure.
Wasn’t Edward VIII the King of Ireland for one day while George VI was King of the United Kingdom due to a delay of the Irish parliament to accept the abdication? If so, what would happen if one of the Commonwealth country’s parliament (like Canada’s) refuse to accept King George VII’s abdication?
It’s interesting that Prince Andrew’s daughters and Prince Edward’s daughter daughter are higher in the line of succession than the Queen’s own daughter. Is that accurate?
Yes, it is accurate. It’s perfectly normal within semisalic succesion, which is what England has.
The option of having the “first generation” come fully before the “second generation” actually ends up being more complicated and would be more likely to lead to such things as civil wars. Wars over who sits on the uncomfortable, overdecorated chair don’t seem like something you’d get in Europe right now, but the rules were established when those wars were likely to happen.
I know. It was a rhetorical question. My point was that this prohibition against Catholics is obsolete. There’s lots of religions out there that would probably be much worse (in the view of the typical Briton) than the Catholics. For instance, the Church of Elvis. You really want a monarch that worships the King?
Nava’s answered this correctly, but to elaborate: The monarch’s eldest son is first in the line of succession. His brothers, in order of age, follow after his descendants; his sisters follow his brothers. This principle is recursive, so Charles’s eldest son is first (after Charles himself), and then any brothers, and then any sisters. But William’s first child will follow directly after William in the succession. Under the present rules, if William’s first child is a daughter, she will be displaced by any of her brothers (and their descendants).
Anne, when she was born, was second only to Charles. She now comes in behind Charles, his children, Andrew, his children, and Edward and his children (in that order); and any more offspring in any of those families pushes her even further down. So although an England rugby player could in principle become Prince Consort, it’s not likely to happen.
Can y’all stop calling him “Chuck”? Nobody calls him that over here. “Charles” or “big-eared new age dork” will do just as well.
Spot on. 
Nothing. But by the laws of succession, the monarch is head of the Church of England. That and old laws require him/her not to be a Catholic.
As for Will, it doesn’t matter how old he is. Let’s say Charles had died before his son became of age, and then Lizabet kicked off. He’d STILL be King, but there would be a Regent in place, until he turned 18.
Hell, it wasn’t England, but in Spain, Alfonso XIII was King when he was born-his father died when his mother was still pregnant, and there was a regency until she gave birth. If Alfonso had been a girl, his sister would have become Queen.
(Alfonso being Juan Carlos’s grandfather)
So basically, William could be in diapers-he’d still be King. You know, “The King is dead-long live the King!”
Hear bloody here.
Mind you, the traditionalists must be having fits about William marrying a commoner.
Diana Spencer was a commoner.
Yup, king at -4 months of age. The Regency of María Cristina lasted until he turned of age, though.
Spain has semisalic succesion too. When the firstborn of our current Crown Prince turned out to be a girl, there was talk of changing the Constitution to succesion by primogeniture (applied only after Felipe*). When Letizia got pregnant a second time, the talk got loud and the Royal House was saying “eh, folks, maybe we should stop worrying about this until we know whether numbertwo is a boy or a girl?” Numbertwo is a girl and that has killed the talks of changing the succesion rules for some time, but we’ll see.
- The eldest princess isn’t the brightest bulb in that family tree; many people who would be perfectly happy to have Cristina as Queen go :eek: at the thought of Elena in that position.
Charlie successfully completed the British Army parachute course considered to be one of the hardest in the world AND then went on to do a water jump which got him a bollocking off of liz.
The fact is he didn’t have to do the course in the first place(haven’t seen many politicians lining up to do it). but did it voluntarily.
He’s also scuba dived under the arctic ice cap and as a kid survived a lot of bullying under the already spartan regime of Gordonstoun school.
(If his parents had intervened as any other parents are allowed to there would have accusations of preferential treatment and as heir to the throne he was a particular target for bullies).
So hes not that dorky.
To address the question of the "embarassament "of a Queen Camilla by another poster ,the fact is she will make a much more dignified and sane Queen then the neurotic,compulsive liar and nymphomaniac that Diana was.
Also Camilla has never tried to kill her own unborn baby in a temper tantrum caused by not receiving enough attention.
It is rumoured that Charlie would be happier if he could turn down the throne if he could but the rumour that Liz. is going to pass him by in the succession by decree are stories put about by the Diana Loonies who are not too unhappy to do a little shit stirring at each and every opportunity.
The Catholic debarment arose in a time when the Pope was as much a temporal ruler in Europe as he was a religous leader.
Popes were elected by blatant political wheeling and dealing ,blackmail,bribery and threats amongst the great families of Europe.( at least one Borgia was elected as I recall)
For many years there was a political divide in Europe that in some ways resembles our recent “Cold War” except that for a lot of the time it was a hot war.
This is why at that time it was forbidden for the U.K. to have a catholic king.
It would have been similar to having a Communist POTUS at the height of the cold War though today in the U.K.I doubt anyone cares much one way or the other except maybe the C.of E.
A believer in the constitutional monarchy myself ,I defend the right of any British who are dead set against it to voice their disapproval of it but what really pisses me off is when people from neighbouring republican countries make a point of settling in the U.K. uninvited and then start taking us to task for not getting rid of the monarchy (and bringing up their offspring in the same mind set)
If you dont wish to live in a C.M. then stay back home in your republic .
If I ever emigrate to Ireland I promise not to try and bully any of you into replacing your system with our system.
No she wasn’t, her father was was an Earl.
Assuming this is addressed to me (as I don’t see any Irish people in the thread), I’m a British citizen, born and bred.
My (admittedly feeble, based on one newspaper article) understanding is that it is entirely possible that he could be king of Canada having abdicated or otherwise removed as king of England (and the UK, Emperor of India, etc., etc.) Maybe Canada (and more likely, Australia) would take the opportunity to demonarchize.