British monarchy - question of succession
 

On a recent trip to Britain, a guide mentioned that if PRINCE CHARLES were to pre-decease his mother QUEEN ELIZABETH, that the crown would pass to his younger brother PRINCE ANDREW after his mother’s demise as the law now stands.


However, upon Prince Andrew’s death, the crown would revert to PRINCE WILLIAM since Andrew has no male heirs. Could this be true? Remember I am from the other side of the pond and not sure of these matters. Flanner? Others?

This would only be true if your trip had been in 1981, before the birth of Prince William.

29Feb, thanks so much - I am glad to hear it!

<i>- I am glad to hear it!</i>

Why? What's the difference?

one doltish idiot succeeds another - what different does it make what dolt it is - this is a doltocracy don't forget where by sheer birth right the Head of State is selected. Yes sounds medieval and is but...whilst the rest of the world laughs Brits are sold a bill of goods that the monarchy and all their many expenses the state pays turns a profit and every Brit profits - in fact all the Crown lands, etc should belong the the government and the people and royals should become commoners who would - yikes actually have to work for a living!

What possible difference can it make whether the head of state is hereditary or a politician? They all are less than we'd hoped for and cost too much but at least Brits are under no illusion that next time it'll be better. Get a grip.

"Get a grip" Wow! Sorry I asked...

"Wow! Sorry I asked..."

Wow? I thought it was a pretty straight forward point of view.

Rough crowd tonight - but the above posters surely realize there is widespread interest in the history of the British monarchy.

Hi 29FEB,

“Rough crowd tonight” – no problem. Somehow I expected it.

No government is perfect – especially these days. You are right, the British monarchy with all of its traditions and pageantry holds a fascination for those from other climes like myself.

My question – would most Brits dismantle the Windsor dynasty if it were put to a vote? Somehow I think not…

To go back to the original question, the line of succession historically was the first-born male descendant of the monarch. Only if he had no male heirs would the crown go to his eldest younger brother. So before the birth of Prince William, who was heir to his father, Charles, the Prince of Wales, the crown would have passed to Prince Andrew,and failing that, Prince Edward.

The law is being changed so that daughters are in line for the succession in their own right and not only in the case of lack of a male heir. Historically, daughters have sometimes inherited the crown when there was no prince available, as in the case of Mary I and Elizabeth I after the death of young Edward.

>>Only if he had no male heirs would the crown go to his eldest younger brother. <<

No, actually, only if he had no (legitimate) children at all - which is why we have the Queen rather than any of her (male) cousins. But, as Underhill says, a change in the law is winding its way through the legislative processes in the different countries to which it would apply.

And I'm afraid PQ's got it back to front a bit on the finances. The various Crown estates and so forth do turn a profit for the Treasury, and have done so consistently. The only issue is whether it would be a bit more of a profit (or less?) if we ran the head of state function differently and made alternative arrangements about the various heritage commitments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUY6...725hvbm1arSV9w

C G P Grey explains all you need to know with stick figures and some old paintings. Very clever.

"would most Brits dismantle the Windsor dynasty if it were put to a vote? "

Why would we dream for a nanosecond of anything so daft?

There are three broad options for the role of Head of State. Only two are worth considering in a civilised society.

Our system of constitutional monarchy is almost unique to stable, affluent, egalitarian, longstanding accountable democracies around the North Sea and the Commonwealth. It's cheap (none of us spend billions on tailor made Presidential helicopters), accountable (how much does the American nonsense cost? None of you have got the faintest idea, because the costs are mostly secret and you're too brainwashed to ask). It's almost universally popular (when was the last time anyone ran campaigns claiming our monarchs were born abroad?). It's non-sexist (remind me again when America last had a female Head of State, like its northern neighbour has had for most of the past 200 years). And it's constantly being questioned: the institution survives precisely because its constant scrutiny forces it to be forever changing. No-one deludes themselves into thinking that because a bunch of tax-dodging slave owners defined our monarchs' powers in a certain way over 200 years ago, those powers have to stay that way today. We're democracies: not slaves to the intellectual fads of pre-industrial hypocrites.

The other sane alternative is a non-executive president, whose job is almost entirely ceremonial, but can get dragged into sorting out a hung parliament. Mostly works in stable-ish countries with an uncomfortable recent past (like India and Germany). But works.

A handful of dictatorships (like Saddam's Iraq, or North Korea) have played with an executive presidency. The results have been so overwhelmingly appalling, they're the default argument for keeping the monarchy in the world's most civilised countries.

From Australia to Sweden: the easy answer to anyone proposing republicanism is to point to one of the executive presidencies. Intellectual cheating of course: non-executive presidencies work perfectly well, and a tiny few such presidencies (like Switzerland) have been as stable and democratic as consistently as the constitutional monarchies.

But the awfulness with which executive presidencies are governed is so spectacular it causes the case for republicanism to be always instantly laughed out of court.

For the anti monarchists : Show me an example of a better system.

>>For the anti monarchists : Show me an example of a better system.<<

I'm fairly agnostic on this - if we were setting up a state from scratch, I wouldn't propose what we have, but since we have it, and it works, we have far more important things to worry about. Quite apart from the substantive issues of any politics, like the economy, social services, foreign affairs and so on, there is the much bigger constitutional question of the residual monarchical power devolved to, in effect, the House of Commons and whoever commands a majority in it, tempered only by election and supposedly shared assumptions about what's right: and whether we need a more substantive constitutional document than the mishmash we have inherited.

That said, though, elected non-executive heads of state have worked quite well for Ireland, for example; and so far as I'm aware they've not been a conspicuous failure in most of the other countries that have them - and even if some of the incumbents have proved a bit of an embarrassment (I can think of two in Germany, for example), the point is that their term is limited and when they are chosen, the electors know more or less what they're choosing.

But there's no prospect or real point to changing our system; even if somehow it came to a referendum on the topic, I'd imagine there'd be a substantial majority for not changing things, on a very low turnout. Enthusiasts on either side are very small minorities. The crowds that turn out do so for the show, and to celebrate having something lasting to get together to celebrate.

flanneruk said <when was the last time anyone ran campaigns claiming our monarchs were born abroad?>

Oh, we fly that one out here fairly regularly in the outer reaches of the colonies, but, alas, to date it has not been effectively put!

As soon as I saw this innocent question, I chuckled and knew that PalenQ would wade in. You can almost see the veins standing out in his neck.
If anyone asked a question about the Queen going through the Channel Tunnel, he would spontaneously combust ;-)

I think royalty is kind of odd in this day and age, but don't think the royal family are doltish idiots, any of them (and least none of the ones most prominent in the news, don't know the others much). It can't always be that pleasant to have your life mapped out for you, like William does.

As for the sentiments on here, I think the original question by Michael is perfectly appropriate and was in response to the fact that the OP was "glad to hear it." I agree, what possible difference does it make, why be "glad" to hear that.

The various Crown estates and so forth do turn a profit for the Treasury, and have done so consistently>

Yes but those Crown Estates were stolen by the royal family long ago and really should belong to the country as a whole - the Crown Estates should be confiscated and returned to the benefit of the people not some dolt like Prince Charles who I guess owns half of Devon or Cornwall or both.

I suppose when the U.S. returns all the land that was stolen from Native Americans, there may be a precedent for the U.K. to follow. ;-)

flanneruk -

You are mixing apples and orange. What you are saying is awful about the president is a function of his being the head of government AND the head of state AND the commander in chief.

You need to compare not to the royal family but to the royal family plus the prime minister/government.

Really - there is no way to compare the two - since the way they came about it so different.

I grew up in England, and before I moved to the US I was a republican (small "r"). It didn't take me long to change my mind and I am now a big supporter of constitutional monarchy (only constitutional, lol). Apart from anything else, the amount it costs to elect a US president surely dwarfs the cost of the UK monarchy, with no tourist-attracting pageantry to show for it. Then there is the ridiculous amount of deference shown the president - I couldn't believe the lack of probing questions at press conferences when I first arrived. The whole US system is creaking at the seams, and is now apparently hopelessly locked into unproductive stasis.

>>Yes but those Crown Estates were stolen by the royal family long ago<<

Only in the sense that all land was stolen from someone by someone else until some authority decided that the then current pattern of ownership constituted a legal title. What there is now - and since, at the latest, the seventeenth century, is the product of a great many commercial decisions and developments under the legal and fiscal rules in force at that time, as approved by Parliament. And since the late eighteenth century, a good two-thirds of the income has gone back to the Treasury, i.e. the people.

<i>(none of us spend billions on tailor made Presidential helicopters</i>

and when England thought of itself as the world power, it spend an awful lot of money on all sorts of equivalents--that's why we now visit historical sights and wonder at the luxury that it represents.

As a tour guide pointed out in the Würzburg Residenz, Empress Maria Theresa traveled with her own bed and a caravan of 50 or more wagons to carry her stuff, and Reagan brought his own bed when he visited Europe, and our current resident in the White House has 10 planes behind Air Force One to support the presidential style and requirements.

Georeg W Bush it is says has more English royal blood in him than does QE 2 or any of the Windsors - both thru his poppy and more thru Barbara Bush's family (Walkers) - real blue-blooded royals and thus George W Bush could be King of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Berwick-on-Tweed - now that is what I mean by a doltocracy - any system where George W Bush could be king just because of blood lines - now of course that he was elected - actually selected President by our Supreme Court is even more a shame on The United States of America's voters and the Supreme Court that negated Al Gore's victory in Florida and awarded the Presidency to W.

AH YEH KING DUBYA THE LAST!

"His Royal Highness, King Dubya

Burke’s publishing director, Harold Brooks-Baker says Bush’s royal connections are startling.

“[Bush] is closely related to every European Monarch both on and off the throne,” says Brooks-Baker.

Some of the governor’s royal kin include Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II, the Queen Mother, Dutchess Sarah “Fergy” Ferguson and even the late Princess Diana.

His most prominent ancestor may be England’s King Charles II, who shared the governor’s vision of a strong military.

Going back nearly 1000 years, Brooks-Baker points out both the Bush and Pierce families [Barbara Bush’s maiden name is Pierce] were high society.

“Not one member of his family was working class, middle class, or even middle, middle class,” he notes).

Correcting my post above this one - Bush's mum was a Pierce not a Walker.

Well actually, my own family tree is directly descended from James VI & I and that makes me much closer in line of succession than GW Bush I'd guess.

But then I might also be in the line of succession (if there was one) of Genghis Khan as well. After all, 1 in 200 men is a direct descendant of him. Not bad odds. I'm wondering which I would rather claim descendance from.

Well we are all ultimately descended from the King of Kings - who created Adam in His own image - so does that make me a potential Pope?

This baloney about blood determining the Head of State is just so so ridiculous in not only this day and age but any day and age and generations from now they will be looking back at such hysterical celebrations as the royal baby's birth and just think how primitive those folks were.

Can a Catholic become monarch of Britain - I think not and that in and of itself seems like blatant discrimination against many British folk.

"This baloney about blood determining the Head of State is just so so ridiculous.."

My personal belief is that every office should be filled by draft, anyone on the street as likely to do a decent job as those who run for office. I'll extend the thought to include blood, so anyone born into a royal family has just as good a chance at being a decent head of state as by any other method. We are all human with the flaws and failures that entails. Being head of state, or of anything else, succeeds or fails by co-operation & the sharing of power and the goodwill of the people involved.

Off with their heads - all heads of states!

someday Britain will indeed be a democratic state later rather than sooner, alas!

Underhill, Patrick London, Flanner, PeterSale (neat video) et al, thanks for the clarification and your views.

ThursdaySD (always enjoy reading about your solo journeys) wrote: “Apart from anything else, the amount it costs to elect a US president surely dwarfs the cost of the UK monarchy, with no tourist-attracting pageantry to show for it.” Very true.


I had a glimpse of that “tourist-attracting pageantry” this June when I was in London strolling by Buckingham Palace on my way to the adjacent Queen’s Gallery. Suddenly I noticed hundreds of well dresses folks – women with those large hats or fascinators and gents in spiffy suits or old military uniforms. These were just ordinary Brits who really went out of their way for a special occasion.

I was told that some 5,000 had been invited that afternoon to the Queen’s Garden Party to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Grenadier Guards Association. They were so excited, reminded me of my students on prom night. I was really touched by their enthusiasm, pride, and love for the Queen.


Count me as among those American tourists who just loves the history and the show…

<i>Here Stuarts once in glory reigned,
And laws for Scotland's weal ordained;
But now unroof'd their palace stands,
Their sceptre's sway'd by other hands;
Fallen indeed, and to the earth
Whence groveling reptiles take their birth.
The injured Stuart line is gone,
A race outlandish fills their throne;
An idiot race, to honour lost;
Who know them best despise them most. </i>

- Robert Burns

>>and thus George W Bush could be King<<

Except that Parliament (you know, representatives of the people) set the rules otherwise.

>>Well actually, my own family tree is directly descended from James VI & I and that makes me much closer in line of succession than GW Bush I'd guess. <<

Through the Electress Sophia? That's the only link that counts in this game.

The big difference is the British would have GW as king because he was the son of the monarch, with minimal power.

They wouldn't go out and vote him in - twice.

Let's face it, they are all part of the international conspiracy
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/me...vingios_02.htm

A PalenQ, those not of the blood royal have always resented those of us who are.

Does the term 'sour grapes' ring any bells? Nananananana, I can, you can't, yourrrrrr just jealous. ;-)

Diana, Princess of Wales, and Sarah Ferguson were royal only by marriage.

The House of Stuart was pretty late on the scene, James VI of Scotland becoming James I of England in 1603. A mere blink of the eye in English / Scottish / British history.

In 1920, a feller created a family tree for my mob, linking us back to the Plantagenet kings, 1272. Doubtless the researcher was paid some sort of bonus for dredging up some royal connection. So there is possibly the odd shard of royal DNA in my system, but I’m not about to contact Burke’s Peerage any time soon to make a claim.

Peter, my children ( via their paternal relatives in Western Australia) can also trace back to The Plantagenets ( Henry 111)

While is was fun to take photos when they were young with " relatives" at Madame Tussuads, they are also not looking to give up their day jobs any time soon.