Can the PM or Parliament sack the monarch?

>>Can the PM or Parliament sack the monarch?<<

Yes, of course. It's been done twice in the seventeenth century, after all (that's how and why the prohibition on Catholics that exercises you so much came about: all Parliament's doing). And Edward VIII's pigheadedness and over-valuation of himself saved Parliament having to consider what might otherwise have been a possibility.

Oh Pal, you don't understand the U.K. one little bit. If there is a problem, it's all sorted through discussion behind closed doors. There is no need for a lot of fuss, and the population at large is likely to accept whatever is arranged. Mad kings or queens, drunkards, adulterers, it's all quietly sorted.

But why do you yanks care? And if you despise our sytem so much, why do you want to prove you have royal roots? Most of the aristocracy have written genealogies, while most commoners have difficulty establishing their ancestry before 1800 because the records no longer exist or are incomplete. If you can latch on to a proven genealogy published since 1800, you may be able to claim descent. If you say you have traced your family history yourself back to the Plantaganets, you have either been exceptionally fortunate or are telling porkies.

(P.S. Porkies = pork pies = lies)

There is no need for a lot of fuss, and the population at large is likely to accept whatever is arranged. Mad kings or queens, drunkards, adulterers, it's all quietly sorted>

So why does it never ever happen? And if Edwared VII had not abdicated would he have been removed and by what mechanism -we'd call that a coup d'etat!

Umm...it was Edward VIII who abdicated...and just when I was beginning to think you were a closet royalist! ;-)

Why, oh why, does a simple question deteriorate into rants?

Why, oh why, does a simple question deteriorate into rants?>

the OP{ has her answer so let us have fun - rants to you are a discussion to others.

>>So why does it never ever happen?<<

Why does what never happen? What the Establishment of the day considers necessary and considers it can get Parliament's approval for, gets done. Prime Ministers have been dispatched with a fair degree of speed and brutality by their own party as much as by the electorate. In George III's time, the battle over a Regency during his madness was a proxy for the battle between different forces in Parliament, but since then, the headship of state is treated with more circumspection and solemnity with most of the argument going on behind closed doors till there's a consensus to put before Parliament and people. That there may be on occasion a brushing under the carpet of what (depending on circumstances) might in the US be a long drawn-out public politico-legal battle over impeachment is neither here nor there.

What about King Ralph?

For those who really want to know about the line of succession:

Charles, Prince of Wales
Prince William, Duke of Cambridge
Prince George of Cambridge
Prince Andrew, Duke of York
Princess Beatrice of York
Princes Eugenie of York
Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex

Further than that you don't need to know because the rest are irrelevant.

King Ralph is rather far down the line.

....Why, oh why, does a simple question deteriorate into rants?..

Apart from one eejit, the discussion has been quite sensible and civilised.
Now, an interesting scenario might have been.
Hitler invades the UK. He takes Nelson's Column to Berlin (honestly that's what he planned), and reinstates his mates, King Edward VIII and Queen Wallis.
He is defeated by the Allies and George VI and Queen Elizabeth return.
Trial for treason?
Hanging with a silken rope?
Wallis claims American citizenship?

Idea for a novel, somebody, or has it already been done?

Wot - no 'Arry???

Is it because he's a ginger - poor lad

>>Trial for treason?<< Possibly, unless:

>>Hanging with a silken rope?<< a pistol went mysteriously undetected in their quarters and at least he did the decent thing (given what actually happened to people who did go and actively support the Nazis, she might only have got something like ten years in prison, with as quiet an early release as possible).

>>Wallis claims American citizenship?<< Irrelevant in the law of the time, I suspect.

Were folks like our esteemed poster from the sticks of the Cotswolds alive when the stupid and daft and whatever else former colonists arrived back in the 1940's with their money, food, and manpower to save the tight little island from that nasty man hanging out over on the Spree?

Better yet, is he now alive BECAUSE of it?

Regardless, we remain more than a bit fascinated by the House of Windsor and all those other "houses" which came before. We routinely swoop in with our money and wide eyes to enjoy all things Anglo including the gardens, the countryside, the improving cuisine, and that ever-fab weather!

The ever-evolving "As The World Turns" soap opera which occurs with "that family" just adds icing to the already glorious cake.

Make that two eejits :-)

What a film that would make.
The triumphant return of King George, Queen Elizabeth and the two princesses.
The reinstalling of Nelson in Trafalgar Square.
The trial in Westminster Hall.
The hushed vigil outside Holloway Gaol and then the roar of approval as the notice is posted announcing Wallis's execution.
Would we sell it to the American's though?
I like Patrick's scenario.
An army officer enters the former king's apartments in the Tower, carrying a bottle of whisky, a glass and a pearl handled revolver.

Actually, why would the Germans have bothered? He wouldn't have been much use to them, or of much significance; there would probably have been enough of the legitimate regime hiding out somewhere in Scotland, or in Canada, to make any attempt at a figleaf of legitimacy pointless - in the end, the occupiers made their own "legality" wherever they were. He would probably have become a nuisance to them quite quickly, complaining about personal inconveniences and slights and the like. They never bothered with the King of Belgium, and tended to disregard even dedicated local Nazis in other countries.

Those who are really interested in the line of succession can visit: http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRo.../Overview.aspx

Prince Harry, conspicuously absent from the list above, is now fourth in line.

Wot - no 'Arry???

Is it because he's a ginger - poor lad

Harry, as the second son of Charles, of course remains in the order between George and Andrew.

And I love how confused Americans are supposed to be regarding English Royalty.

There was of course the story about the film "The Madness of George III". For release in America the title was changed to "The Madness of King George".

It was alleged at the time that this was so that Americans would go to see it, and not assume that they would not be able to pick up the story having not seen Parts I and II.

At least no-one tried to cast Stallone as George.

Josser: Really just one eejit. And by the constant posting and claims of universal knowledge you can assume he is one of the millions of unemployed 'murcans.

If it's the eejit I'm thinking of, actually he's Canadian. ;-)

And, no, I don't mean you. :-)

Yeah, I left prince Harry off my list. He's after the infant Prince George and before Prince Andrew. My apologies.

Heimdall: I believe he is from Michigan.

Somewhere, I'm sure I've seen a site where some obsessive person has listed the line of succession (according to them) - or at least descent, since it includes all the ineligibles: up to about 2000 people, IIRC.

Thursdaysd, thank for the link to the article about succession - informative.

I once heard a talk by a librarian at the National Library of Scotland. She said that in the summer they have a steady stream of Stuart pretenders. If they are told that there are no papers proving their claims, they say that the librarians are part of the Hanoverian conspiracy.
I still like the man who wrote to the College of Heralds for assistance with his family tree. "It might help you to know that I am descended from Norman the Conqueror"

I like that too, MissPrism! Perhaps he was descended from this not so royal gentleman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_...st_(footballer) :-))

where in the succesion of eejits do the corgis fit in - they are certainly as fit as most royals it would seem - doing only excatly as told or trained to do and have not one iota of free will in anything - their whole lives being orchestrated by protocol - Princess Di was the main exception and she was killed off by the M-% if Harrods owner is to be believed.

Poor old former Harrods owner — he tried so hard to be accepted by the establishment. Bought Harrods, Punch magazine (which failed), a Scottish castle, Fulham Football Club, and even thought he might one day be step-grandad to the future king. He still couldn't get a British passport.

That pesky good character requirement...

Lauren,

Is the change to males-first being made retroactive to include Prince Andrews's daughters? Otherwise, how do they figure up high in the line of succession?

TorontoSteven on Aug 14, 13 at 6:34am
..."millions of....'murcans."

Not to be confused with merkins.

Apparently there is some doubt as to whether or not Queen Elizabeth is the rightful monarch:

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/06/...h-throne-dies/

I watched a 40 minute you tube link a few days ago outlining the theory and interviewing "Lord Michael" but mysteriously, I can't get it to play now. I'm thinking something hinkey is going on.

Trophywife007 - interesting story. Who knows?

I finally got the link to work, I hope. The idea is that Edward IV had to have been illegitimate because his father, according to letters at that time, was off at war and was not around for the conception. Therefore, everyone from Henry VII onward is a usurper and Michael I, who moved to Australia in the 1960's should have been king.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5fIwLo1Trs

>> The idea is that Edward IV had to have been illegitimate because his father, according to letters at that time, was off at war and was not around for the conception. Therefore, everyone from Henry VII onward is a usurper and Michael I, who moved to Australia in the 1960's should have been king.<<

Tony Robinson's underlying point was the absurdity of the hereditary principle when "it's a wise child that knows its own father". But the overt assumptions of the programme are irrelevant anyway. Even at the time, precise heredity was less important than winning battles (why else was Henry VII accepted? Not because marrying Elizabeth of York gave him some greater heredity, but because it removed any risk of alternative claimants from that side).

And in any case, all that was superseded by the events of the 17th century, which comprehensively settled that, in the end, Parliament decides. The Act of Settlement trumps any proof of hanky-panky in the 1440s.

<i> >>Wallis claims American citizenship?<< Irrelevant in the law of the time, I suspect.</i>

If she were not a British citizen, I don't think she could be tried for treason against Britain. (But I imagine she was a British citizen.)

Lord Haw-Haw, as I recall, was tried and hanged for treason even though he was not a British subject, on the basis that he had availed himself of a fake British passport.