# Update to Cecil's column on the British Royals **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [July 7, 2009, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/update-to-cecils-column-on-the-british-royals/502187 "2009-07-07T13:14:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/update-to-cecils-column-on-the-british-royals/502187/21 "2009-07-08T15:11:24Z")
**Cunctator** said: > [@](#): > > If, during the monarch’s lifetime, a Prince of Wales were to die leaving no sons, but one or more daughters, then his eldest daughter would become heiress apparent. Wouldn’t that only be true if the King had no other male relatives (brothers, sons, nephews)? ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/update-to-cecils-column-on-the-british-royals/502187/22 "2009-07-08T17:57:10Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Wouldn’t that only be true if the King had no other male relatives (brothers, sons, nephews)? Apparently not. Richard II and George III had living uncles when they succeeded, so it seems to be a depth-first algorithm. ---
**Author:** ![RobNYNY](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e274bd/32.png) [@RobNYNY](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RobNYNY)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/update-to-cecils-column-on-the-british-royals/502187/23 "2009-07-08T18:27:49Z")
> **[How can I become Prince of Wales?](https://www.straightdope.com/21341307/how-can-i-become-prince-of-wales)** "Not that there’s a whole lot of suspense–_ **only one British ruler** _, Edward III, \*\*\*has taken the throne \*\*\*_ **without the title** _ since Edward I acquired it for the English royal family by killing the last Welsh Prince of Wales in 1282. " This is true for very large values of one: Richard III, Henry VII, Mary I, Elizabeth I, James I, James II, William III, Mary II, Anne, George I, William IV, Victoria, George VI, Elizabeth II. ---
**Author:** ![picker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/picker/32/13969_2.png) [@picker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/picker)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/update-to-cecils-column-on-the-british-royals/502187/24 "2009-07-08T18:35:16Z")
> [@](#): > > A June 28 letter says whale meat in Japan has “a wholesale cost of around $160 a pound.” Greenpeace, in a fund-raising letter of Feb. 14, 1995, cited $160 a pound as retail cost, not wholesale. Both sums are exaggerated. The actual wholesale price is $17 a pound, while the average retail price in the Tokyo area is around $64 a pound. (sorry, couldn’t help it) ---
**Author:** ![Daithi\_Lacha](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/daithi_lacha/32/5430_2.png) [@Daithi\_Lacha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daithi_Lacha)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/update-to-cecils-column-on-the-british-royals/502187/25 "2009-07-08T18:59:18Z")
Apparently, in April 2009, the average house price in Wales was £122,242. Does this help? ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/update-to-cecils-column-on-the-british-royals/502187/26 "2009-07-08T19:04:40Z")
> [@John\_W.Kennedy](#): > > Apparently not. Richard II and George III had living uncles when they succeeded, so it seems to be a depth-first algorithm. See this - [http://www.britroyals.com/hanover.htm](http://www.britroyals.com/hanover.htm) - George IV then William IV had no surviving descendants when they died. Victoria’s dad was the 3rd prince, but died before William. She was the only daughter. Yet it lists surviving brothers of George and William being Ernst, Augustus and Adolphus - See? George III wasn’t that crazy! OTOH, look at the names - maybe he really was. Thank god they didn’t become kings. I guess, yes, once you take the title it belongs to you unless you have no surviving fruit of your loins. Then it goes back up one to try for another heir, and you don’t lose your spot by being dead, like Victoria’s dad. Depth-first it is. So Victoria was the presumptive. ---
**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:** [July 8, 2009, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/update-to-cecils-column-on-the-british-royals/502187/27 "2009-07-08T21:50:05Z")
> [@John\_W.Kennedy](#): > > More to the point, because, as a woman, she could never be the heir apparent. Well, in her situation, no. But a woman can be the heiress apparent. A only (or oldest) daughter to a deceased oldest son of a monarch is the heiress apparent, not presumptive. No one’s birth can displace her from her position as first in the line of succession. Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![bibliophage](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bibliophage/32/7615_2.png) [@bibliophage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bibliophage)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/update-to-cecils-column-on-the-british-royals/502187/28 "2009-07-08T21:50:20Z")
Since there’s already a thread remarking on the point, I’ll merge RobNYNY’s thread into the earlier one. ETA: The posts by picker and Daithi Lacha are in reference to the typo in RobNYNY’s former thread title. Resort to such wordplay should be severely pun-ished. ---
**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:** [July 8, 2009, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/update-to-cecils-column-on-the-british-royals/502187/29 "2009-07-08T21:57:36Z")
> [@Cunctator](#): > > Certainly it would not have been possible for Princess Elizabeth to be heiress apparent to her father King George VI. But the general notion of an heiress apparent is not an impossibility. If, during the monarch’s lifetime, a Prince of Wales were to die leaving no sons, but one or more daughters, then his eldest daughter would become heiress apparent. I’m sorry… I must have missed this post on the first reading of the thread. Zev Steinhardt ---
**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:** [July 8, 2009, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/update-to-cecils-column-on-the-british-royals/502187/30 "2009-07-08T22:01:28Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > **Cunctator** said: > Wouldn’t that only be true if the King had no other male relatives (brothers, sons, nephews)? No. Descendants of the monarch (male or female) _always_ precede other relatives. A fourth daughter of a fourth daughter of a fourth daughter precedes a brother, uncle or nephew. Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![Cunctator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Cunctator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cunctator)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/update-to-cecils-column-on-the-british-royals/502187/31 "2009-07-09T02:07:12Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Wouldn’t that only be true if the King had no other male relatives (brothers, sons, nephews)? No. As others have noted, a monarch’s descendants, of either sex, always take precedence over collateral heirs. The column could also be updated to recognise that Prince Andrew is now the Duke of York and Prince Edward the Earl of Wessex. ---
**Author:** ![Baker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bb73d2/32.png) [@Baker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baker)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/update-to-cecils-column-on-the-british-royals/502187/32 "2009-07-09T03:50:55Z")
Hijack related to monarch’s reigns: It’s my understanding, with the British monarchy, that the heir becomes the new monarch on the death or abdication of the previous monarch. So Elizabeth II became queen on February 6, 1952, the day her father Geroge VI died of cancer, not the day of her coronation. If this is correct then she doesn’t have all that much longer to go to be the longest reigning British king or queen. The record holder is Queen Victoria, who reigned from June 20, 1837, to 22 January, 1901. To beat that Elizabeth needs to hang on until July 1, 2015. Considering she seems to be in pretty good shape for her age, that her mother lived to be over one hundred years old, and that the queen gets the best of medical care, I wonder if bets are yet being taken on this issue? ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/update-to-cecils-column-on-the-british-royals/502187/33 "2009-07-09T04:42:48Z")
It wouldn’t surprise me, although it might strike some royalists as a bit ghoulish. From Wikipedia: \*The Queen’s reign is longer than those of her four immediate predecessors combined (Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, and George VI). She is the third-longest-reigning British or English monarch, the second-longest-serving current monarch of a sovereign state (after King Bhumibol of Thailand), and the oldest reigning British monarch ever. Elizabeth could become the longest-lived British head of state (surpassing Richard Cromwell) on 29 January 2012, the longest-reigning monarch in British history (surpassing Queen Victoria) on 10 September 2015 at age 89, and the longest-reigning monarch in European history (surpassing King Louis XIV of France) on 26 May 2024, when she would be 98.\* ---
**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:** [July 9, 2009, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/update-to-cecils-column-on-the-british-royals/502187/34 "2009-07-09T08:30:06Z")
[QUOTE=Cecil Adams on a really off day] only one British ruler, Edward III, has taken the throne without the title since Edward I acquired it for the English royal family by killing the last Welsh Prince of Wales in 1282. [/QUOTE] In addition to the numerous examples of English monarchs who became Kings and Queens of England without being Prince of Wales, there is the other long line of British monarchs who ascended to their thone without being Prince of Wales: the kings and queens of Scotland. **Cecil** apparently does not understand that “English” and “British” are not synonyms. Really, this column is one of the worst of Cecil’s efforts ever. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/update-to-cecils-column-on-the-british-royals/502187/35 "2009-07-09T13:58:48Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > Yet it lists surviving brothers of George and William being Ernst, Augustus and Adolphus - See? George III wasn’t that crazy! OTOH, look at the names - maybe he really was. Thank god they didn’t become kings. It’s extremely unlikely that, even if one of them had ascended the throne, they would have used their name. British monarchs choose what name to call themselves when their reign begins, just as Edward VIII’s brother Albert took the name George VI after Edward abdicated. Prince Charles may well opt to be styled George VII if and when he ascends the throne, given his known fondness for George III and his grandfather George VI. (The name Charles is associated with the deposed Stuarts, another reason he may choose not to use it as his regnal name.) ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/update-to-cecils-column-on-the-british-royals/502187/36 "2009-07-09T15:04:04Z")
> [@](#): > > _only one British ruler, Edward III, has taken the throne without the title since Edward I acquired it for the English royal family by killing the last Welsh Prince of Wales in 1282._ One might also quibble over whether ‘the last Welsh Prince of Wales’ was the one killed in 1282. Owain Glyn Dŵr certainly thought otherwise. > [@md2000](#): > > Yet it lists surviving brothers of George and William being Ernst, Augustus and Adolphus - See? George III wasn’t that crazy! OTOH, look at the names - maybe he really was. Thank god they didn’t become kings. But Ernst did become king. [Spoiler]Of Hanover. (And he kept his name, reigning as Ernst-August/Ernest Augustus.)[/Spoiler] ---
**Author:** ![BillBC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/74df32/32.png) [@BillBC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BillBC)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/update-to-cecils-column-on-the-british-royals/502187/37 "2009-07-09T17:00:13Z")
Well Cecil…you struck out this time…what a farrago of misinformation you gave us, fortunately corrected by those more knowledgeable than you are about British history. Any comment? Are you suitably abashed?🙂 ---
**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:** [July 9, 2009, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/update-to-cecils-column-on-the-british-royals/502187/38 "2009-07-09T19:03:20Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > It’s extremely unlikely that, even if one of them had ascended the throne, they would have used their name. British monarchs choose what name to call themselves when their reign begins, just as Edward VIII’s brother Albert took the name George VI after Edward abdicated. And their grandfather similarly took the title Edward VII instead of Albert, by which he had commonly been known. But it seems to be a recent custom. Are there any other examples where a king chose to reign under a different name than he had used prior to becoming king? For that matter, when did the custom of having more than one baptismal name come into fashion for the British royals? ---
**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:** [July 9, 2009, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/update-to-cecils-column-on-the-british-royals/502187/39 "2009-07-09T20:30:43Z")
> [@Apollon](#): > > I don’t think that’s a Royal Navy uniform. She’s wearing the uniform of the Blues and Royals (one of the guard cavalry units), whose colonel she is. I believe she’s wearing the dress uniform of a Rear Admiral of HM Royal Navy, just one of a bewildering array of honrary military titles she holds. These include (deep breath): Colonel-in-Chief, The King’s Royal Hussars Colonel-in-Chief, The Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters Regiment (29/45 Foot) Colonel-in-Chief, The Royal Corps of Signals Colonel-in-Chief, The Royal Logistic Corps Colonel-in-Chief, The Royal Army Veterinary Corps Commandant-in-Chief, The First Aid Nursing Yeomanry (Princess Royal’s Volunteer Corps) Colonel, The Blues and Royals Royal Colonel, The Royal Scots Borderers, 1st Battalion Royal Regiment of Scotland Royal Colonel, The 52nd Lowland Regiment, 6th Battalion Royal Regiment of Scotland **Rear Admiral and Chief Commandant for women, Royal Navy** Honorary Air Commodore, RAF Lyneham Honorary Air Commodore, University of London Air Squadron Royal Honorary Colonel, University of London OTC Commodore-in-Chief, Portsmouth “Commonwealth” Colonel-in-Chief, of The Grey and Simcoe Foresters Colonel-in-Chief, of the 8th Canadian Hussars (Princess Louise’s) Colonel-in-Chief, of the Communications and Electronics Branch Colonel-in-Chief, of the Canadian Forces Medical Service Colonel-in-Chief, of The Royal Regina Rifles Colonel-in-Chief, of The Royal Newfoundland Regiment Colonel-in-Chief, of the Royal Australian Corps of Signals Colonel-in-Chief, of the Royal New Zealand Corps of Signals Colonel-in-Chief, of the Royal New Zealand Army Nursing Corps Naval uniform tends to be the dress of choice for senior royals (perhaps to live up to the ‘Britannia Rules the Waves’ ditty) and traditionally senior male princes would choose the navy as their training ground (Prince Charles, Prince Andrew and Prince Phillip, plus Edward VIII, George V and VI and so on and so on). The current crop of young princes broke this trend by joining the army, although during his military service William has done stints with the Navy and the RAF as well - I guess if you’re one day going to have troops dying in your name, it helps to be one of the boys. ---
**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:** [July 9, 2009, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/update-to-cecils-column-on-the-british-royals/502187/40 "2009-07-09T20:35:16Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > Elizabeth could become the longest-lived British head of state (surpassing Richard Cromwell) on 29 January 2012, the longest-reigning monarch in British history (surpassing Queen Victoria) on 10 September 2015 at age 89, and the longest-reigning monarch in European history (surpassing King Louis XIV of France) on 26 May 2024, when she would be 98.\* Which doesn’t seem out of the question if you look at her mother. Poor Charlie. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/update-to-cecils-column-on-the-british-royals/502187.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/update-to-cecils-column-on-the-british-royals/502187.md?page=3)