What happens if the Queen survives an heir (UK)?

[Voyager]

@friedo

Perhaps a more relevant example.

Even more relevant is The Bed Sitting Room where after the war succession passed to Mrs. Ethel Shroake of 393A High Street, Leytonstone, the late Queen’s former charwoman, and closest in succession to the throne.

[Miss_Mapp]

@dtilque

From what I understand, this is not at all certain. Years ago, he made some remark along those lines, but that’s all. It didn’t lock him into assuming that name.

I’ve heard it more than once, but will be pleased if he doesn’t (assuming he does outlive his mother). At least there hasn’t been a King Charles since 1675 and it will add a little variety to the pre-Elizabeth Edward,George,Edward,George pattern.

[SanVito]

@Miss_Mapp

There was one Stephen way back there.

Part of that is this tendency during the current dynasty not to use the first names they were given. Both Edward VII and George VI were named Albert, and known as “Bertie” among their friends and family, but chose another name at their coronations out of respect for the late Prince Consort. It looks like Charles intends to do the same and become another George (which makes me wonder why the Queen didn’t just name him after her father if that was always the intention).

I think Charles changing his name is highly unlikely at this point - he’s been in the public eye as Charles for about 70 years, I think the adjustment would be too great.

As for the Alberts - I don’t think it was out of respect for Prince Albert that they changed. Quite the reverse really - Albert wasn’t a traditional ‘royal’ name, and he was seen as rather the domineering foreigner of the Queen, so he just wasn’t all that popular. Victoria would have LOVED one of the heirs to become King Albert.

[zimaane]

Louis XIV of France lived so long that on his death his great grandson succeeded him, the intervening eligibles having already died.

[MEBuckner]

England could have wound up with a King Alphonso back in the 13th Century. Who knows, if he hadn’t died young, maybe he would have been “Alphonso the Great”, his reign looked back on as a Golden Age of English history, and we’d be up to Alphonso XXVIII by now.

[dtilque]

The current best hope for a new royal name is if Archie inherits… well, he’s what, 7th in line, I think, so it’s not looking good.

[mbh]

@SanVito

And Prince Arthur, Prince of Wales, son of Henry VII, died before his father and without issue, despite being married to Katherine of Aragon.

Which of course meant we got his brother Henry VIII, the course of modern British history was set, and I’m still waiting for a King Arthur.

All you have to do is murder 26 people, and Arthur Chatto will become king.

Anne, the Princess Royal, has some variety in the names of her descendants:
Peter, Savannah, Isla, Zara, Mia, Lena.

[dtilque]

@dtilque

The current best hope for a new royal name is if Archie inherits… well, he’s what, 7th in line, I think, so it’s not looking good.

Oops, I forgot about Prince Louis. He’s only 5th in line, so there’s more hope.

[Steophan]

@dtilque

Which is too bad, because they could use a bit more variety in the names of British kings. Something other than Charles, Edward, George, Henry, James, Richard, or William (which all but two kings have been named since 1066).

You are just thinking of English kings, not British here, and even then there’s 3 or 4 - Stephen, John, Philip and arguably Louis. You’d get another 7 or 8 from Scottish kings, and a similar number from Ireland between 1066 and 1177, if you count that. They may have been some other surviving kings on smaller islands as well.

[Si_Amigo]

@Nava

ISTR that particular situation hasn’t seen an actual ascent to the throne, though. Pretenders, yes; an actual new Tsar, no. And it still was only the Tsar’s nuclear family that got executed. There are a lot of actual changes of dynasty throughout European history (and, I’m sure, those of other places) which would apply more closely, but they often involve children dead of natural causes rather than massacres.

I was specifically replying to the pileup of bodies comment. As an American I don’t get into the nuances of European royalty.

[Nava]

@Si_Amigo

I was specifically replying to the pileup of bodies comment. As an American I don’t get into the nuances of European royalty.

Interesting that you’re saying that specifically in a thread about the nuances of royal inheritance.

[dtilque]

@Steophan

You are just thinking of English kings, not British here, and even then there’s 3 or 4 - Stephen, John, Philip and arguably Louis. You’d get another 7 or 8 from Scottish kings, and a similar number from Ireland between 1066 and 1177, if you count that. They may have been some other surviving kings on smaller islands as well.

I was using British as shorthand for English/Great Britain-ish/UK-ish, but I suppose you have a point about the Scottish. I don’t think the Irish get to count as British, though.

And Philip was some Spanish weenie, he doesn’t count. And I don’t even know what Louis you mean.

[Colibri]

@dtilque

And Philip was some Spanish weenie, he doesn’t count.

It’s rare to see Felipe to be listed among Kings of England, although he was recognized as such at the time.

And I don’t even know what Louis you mean.

I assume Louis VIII of France, who was proclaimed king in place of John but never actually crowned and eventually renounced his claim.

[dtilque]

@Colibri

I assume Louis VIII of France, who was proclaimed king in place of John but never actually crowned and eventually renounced his claim.

Next someone will be counting Jane as one of the queens of England.

[Well, I happen to like Queen Jane, but the victors get to write history and she wasn’t one of the victors.]

[Colibri]

@dtilque

[Well, I happen to like Queen Jane, but the victors get to write history and she wasn’t one of the victors.]

Other disputed/uncrowned claimants who aren’t usually counted include the Empress Matilda, Eustace, and Henry the Young King.

[Si_Amigo]

@Nava

Interesting that you’re saying that specifically in a thread about the nuances of royal inheritance.

What can I say, the thought of the pileup of Royal bodies intrigued me!

[UDS]

@Miss_Mapp

. . . It looks like Charles intends to do the same and become another George (which makes me wonder why the Queen didn’t just name him after her father if that was always the intention).

He was christened “Charles” when he was five weeks old. Preumably at that age he had not expressed the intention that you now ascribe to him, so the Queen could hardly be expected to know of it.

The facts are this:

1. Styles and titles are a matter for the monarch. If and when Charles becomes monarch, Charles will decide what regnal name Charles will use. Presumably he will take and consider advice from the ministers of the day, but this is not a decision that will or can be made for him by any of his predecessors.

2. SFAIK Charles has never publicly said anything whatsoever on this subject.

3. That he may choose not to have “Charles” as a regnal name is something people have speculated. If he decides not to, he can have any name, but all English/British/UK kings have used one of the names with which they have been christened and, if that convention is followed, the options other than “Charles” are “Phillip”, “Arthur” and “George”. Of these, “George” is thought to be the most likely to be chosen, since there are well-regarded historical kings named George. The only Phillip ever to use the title “King of England” was Philip II of Spain, and that didn’t work out well. And King Arthur is a mythical character.

[Northern_Piper]

There was one Scottish monarch who took a regal name other than his baptismal name: Robert III was christened John, but took the name Robert after he succeeded his father, Robert II.

[Northern_Piper]

@dtilque

Which is too bad, because they could use a bit more variety in the names of British kings. Something other than Charles, Edward, George, Henry, James, Richard, or William (which all but two kings have been named since 1066).

I think it’s a pity the Royal Family has been so English in their names. What about restoring some of the names of Scots kings? Alexander, Robert, Malcolm and Kenneth would all work in modern Britain. They could go a bit father afield, with Angus. Or David, which would be both Scots and Welsh. Patrick and Brian are both good Irish names.

[Tripler]

Thank you guys–all y’all! I was reading last night when I couldn’t get to sleep, and I said to myself. . .

@zimaane

Louis XIV of France lived so long that on his death his great grandson succeeded him, the intervening eligibles having already died.

. . . “Man, the Queen’s been going steady for a long time. She’s 93, and Charles is 70. If she keeps holding on, Charles’ll be one of the shorter reigns in British history before he knocks off. . . I wonder what’ll happen.”

@FinsToTheLeft

The order of succession is already set. The sovereign’s oldest male child, down to the oldest male grand child. The law has now been changed to allow for the oldest child, regardless of sex.

So, here’s a question: the order of succession is set, by the British Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701, which one (or both) were amended in '15. Is there a seperate, discreet law that is updated over time to accommodate succession, or is it just generally recognized as the families grow/pass on. . .

@Si_Amigo

I was specifically replying to the pileup of bodies comment. As an American I don’t get into the nuances of European royalty.

Me neither. It’s kind of fascinating to me how it all works, and Monarchy was pretty entertaining and informative to watch. I didn’t have a clue that it was a blend of Germanic traditions adapting to Roman law.

Tripler
Enquiring minds want to know.