Not exactly. The late Queen Mother was never Queen, she was Queen Consort. That is, she was the wife of the monarch, but was not herself a monarch. This is constrasted with her daughter, Queen Elizabeth II, who is the monarch. (This is a bit wishy-washy because the English monarch doesn’t have a lot of power anyway any more, and Queen Elizabeth hasn’t used what she has, but nonetheless, she’s Queen and her mother never was.) When her husband was alive, the Queen Mum occupied essentially the same position that Prince Phillip occupies today and that Prince Albert occupied for many years during the reign of his wife, Queen Victoria. Prince Phillip is technically Prince Consort, although that title is used with him quite rarely, presumably in part because it is so well-associated with Prince Albert.
Had Prince Charles and Princess Diana stayed together (and she had lived), upon Charles’ ascension to the throne, Diana would have become Queen Consort. If she had lived long enough to see her son Prince William become King, she would herself have become Queen Mother.
No. A coronation is only a formality. The monarchy is constant-the minute the last monarch dies, the heir reigns.
Coronation and succession are NOT the same things.
Philip will still be a prince-technically, in his own right, he is a Greek Prince, although he gave that up when he became a British citizen, IIRC, and the Greek monarchy is no longer reigning.
However, he’s also the Duke of Edinburgh.
Question-before Elizabeth II became Queen, was she, technically, the Duchess of Edinburgh?
The Queen Mother would be known to most royalists as a dowager queen. Oddly enough, when her daughter came to the throne, there was another Dowager Queen still living-Queen Mary, consort of George V.
Really? I thought she has exercised the political power accorded her on at least a few occasions. If memory serves correct, she forcibly dissolved the Australian Parliament in the 1970s. This wasn’t, as far as I know, a mere rubber-stamp act on her part.
One further note about queens: The present queen (Queen Elizabeth II) became queen on her father’s death because he never had a son. If he had had any sons, the eldest one of them would have become king. The rule (for the U.K., anyway) is that when the reigning monarch dies, the eldest son becomes the reigning king. If the monarch had no sons, the eldest daughter becomes the reigning queen. If there was an eldest son or daughter who themselves had children but who died before the monarch, the next monarch is the eldest of the sons of the child (or daughters of the child, if there was no son). If the monarch never had any children, it gets more complicated. Basically, in that case you move up a generation and search for a living child in the same way (first the sons and then the daughters).
psychonaut writes:
> I thought she has exercised the political power accorded her on
> at least a few occasions. If memory serves correct, she forcibly
> dissolved the Australian Parliament in the 1970s.
That was a rare and somewhat weird case. I can’t think of anything like in the past century in the U.K. or in any of the Commonwealth countries where the Queen is the monarch. I suspect that if something like it ever happens again, Australia (or wherever it happens) will tell the Queen to shove it. Incidentally, the Queen made the order to dissolve the Australian Parliment and to call for new elections under the advice of the British Prime Minister.
I know, Dex had established that in his previous post and I was merely trying to point out that the pause in the coronation is due to the necessity of a mourning period. Sorry if I confused anyone.
Queen Victoria came to the throne following the death of her uncle, William IV. He had been the father of two legitimate children but they both died as babies or toddlers. Now William IV had become king on the death of his brother George IV, son of George III. G4 had had a daughter who married but still died before him. Victoria’s father was Edward, Duke of Kent, yet another son of George III, but he died when Victoria was a small girl, so he was never king. Victoria had male cousins but they were the children of still younger brothers of G4, W4, and Edward, so the succession passed to her.
In the present generations of British royals Anne is behind her two younger brothers Andrew and Edward, in the line of succession because she is female. But I heard that in the generation following William, the son of Charles, (assuming nothing happens and he becomes king, that the succession will be by birth order, not by gender and THEN birth order. So if William becomes king(he would be William V), and if his first child is a girl, then she will have precendence over younger brothers. About time!
Sorry, I’m kind of anal about this subject. For some reason, as an older girl, it always fascinated me.
> But I heard that in the generation following William, the son of
> Charles, (assuming nothing happens and he becomes king,
> that the succession will be by birth order, not by gender and
> THEN birth order. So if William becomes king(he would be
> William V), and if his first child is a girl, then she will have
> precendence over younger brothers. About time!
I’ve heard no such thing. It would take a vote of Parliament to change the rules on succession, and it would have been all over the news if it had happened. I think you’re remembering some idle discussion about changing the rules, not a decision to change it. I don’t think there has even been any serious discussion of changing the rules. There has been some discussion (not very serious, I think) of skipping Charles and going straight to William. I think there are more people in the U.K. who want to eliminate the monarchy entirely rather than change the rules for the succession. Indeed, if I were a betting man, I would bet that Elizabeth will be the last monarch. I would bet that before she dies the Parliament will declare that the monarchy will end on her death.
Perhaps Baker is thinking of Japan’s idea of toying with its rules for succession since Princess Masako gave birth to a girl, Aiko. The Japanese Constitution doesn’t allow for an empress as sovereign.
I think the emperor of Japan has even less power than the Queen/King of England however.
I happen to ADORE Toad’s In The Hole, but then I also crave Yorkshire Pudding like nobody’s business.
Having said that… my condolences to those who adored and loved her. She seemed to have transcended the tarnishing that the Royals suffered these last few decades.
Nope, totally erroneous end of the stick. This “rare and somewhat weird case” was the endgame of a domestic stand off. QEII’s involvment was only as figurehead and the British PM would not have been consulted on the matter.
OK, I bet you 50 pounds ( about 75 of your American ‘dollars’) that parliament does not abolish the monarchy. If I’m wrong, Britain becomes a republic, if I’m right, I get 50 pounds. I can’t lose!
The french king Louis 14 (who had, AFAIK, the longest reign in european history, close to 70 years) was suceeded by his great-grandson, since both his son and grandson died before him.
Concerning the rules of succession (with the eldest daughter being only next-in-line to her younger brothers), I know that similar rules have been changed during this century in one of the scandinavian countries (can’t remember which) to allow the eldest child to reign, without reference to his/her sex. I wouldn’t be surprised if a similar change was made in the UK if the first born of William was a girl. Even for an institution as traditional and old-fashionned as the british monarchy, I’m not sure that our modern societies can accept “sexist” rules.
Concerning the Japanese monarchy, AFAIK, historically there has been reigning empresses in the past (I’m not refering to the legendary goddess who was supposed to be the ancestor of the Japanese emperors, here), so it wouldn’t be unprecedented if a woman was to reign in Japan (well…it was more than 1000 years ago, but still, it’s a precedent).
Just as an interesting note, the line of succession is not necessarily the same in all commonwealth countries.
For example, the line of succession is defined in Australia by the Australian constitution. If, for example, England changed it’s succession laws in some way, let’s say to make William king instead of Charles when ERII dies, this would not automatically apply in Australia - we would have to change our constitution ourselves, so if we didn’t, Charles would be king of Australia and William king of England. I would guess it’s the same for other commonwealth countries. Having said that, at the moment, the laws of succession are the same anyway, but this might come into play should William have a daughter first (and then sons) and England (or Australia) changes the laws of succession to allow women equal standing with the men.
At the moment, however, the order of succession is as follows:
Charles
William
Henry
Andrew
Beatrice
Eugene
Edward
(any children that Edward and Sophie have would be inserted here)
Anne
Peter
Zara
The list is, of course, much longer, but it seems highly unlikely (save for disaster) that those near the bottom of this list would become monarch. The list is also not fixed, were William to father children, his children would be above Henry on the list. In fact, were any of the people on the list to have children, the children go immediately below them (sons first) and above the person below them.
When the current monarch (ERII) dies, the person at the top of the list becomes monarch. If he (or she) is dead, then it would pass to the next, and the next and so on. If the successor is under 18 or is incapacitated in some way, they will still be monarch, and a regent will be appointed to rule in their place.
The last monarch of the Austro-Hungarian empire (Franz-Joseph I believe) reigned from 1848 to 1918, but if we’re really going to get into that we should start a new thread.
> Nope, totally erroneous end of the stick. This “rare and
> somewhat weird case” was the endgame of a domestic stand
> off. QEII’s involvment was only as figurehead and the British PM
> would not have been consulted on the matter.
O.K., I screwed that up good. In any case, my point was that Queen Elizabeth was not the one who decided that it would be a good idea that the Australian Parliament should be dissolved. I knew that she was merely a figurehead in that affair, but I forgot (or maybe I never really understood) what was actually going on.
Usram writes:
> OK, I bet you 50 pounds ( about 75 of your American ‘dollars’)
> that parliament does not abolish the monarchy. If I’m wrong,
> Britain becomes a republic, if I’m right, I get 50 pounds. I can’t
> lose!
I know perfectly well what the exchange rate is. (50 pounds is closer to $70 than $75.) I check the exchange rate regularly because I have a British bank account. I lived in England for three years and I’ve kept my bank account since coming back to the U.S. I’m not a betting man, so I’m not going to bet you. But if I were, I’d bet that Elizabeth will be the last monarch.
At least two of the Scandinavian countries have made this change. Sweden was first, and as the change was made when the current King’s children were still quite small, the change was made applicable to them. Therefore Victoria, the eldest child, is crown princess although she has a younger brother.
By the time the Norwegian Parliament got around to amending the constitution to allow this, the children of the present King (then Crown Prince) were in their teens. Haakon Magnus, though younger, had been told his whole life he would ascend to the throne, and his older sister Märtha Louise had been told she wouldn’t. Märtha Louise, so the rumors go, was not at all happy with the possibility of being Queen. Whatever the reason, in the end the constitutional change meant that Märtha Louise was placed in the line of succession behind her younger brother - but prior to the change she wasn’t in the line at all, as women could not inherit the throne! CP Haakon’s first child will be next in line behind him, regardless of sex.
I’m not sure how Denmark’s line of succession works. At the moment it’s a moot point: Queen Margrethe had two children, both boys, and the elder appears to be in no great hurry to marry and start a family. His younger brother has, and their first (and at the moment only) child is also a boy. So it’s boys all the way down, so to speak.
