Go Back  Fodor's Travel Talk Forums > Destinations > Europe
Reload this Page >

British monarchy - question of succession

British monarchy - question of succession

Old Aug 13th, 2013, 11:34 AM
  #81  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Can the PM or Parliament sack the monarch?
PalenQ is offline  
Old Aug 13th, 2013, 11:46 AM
  #82  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
>>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.
PatrickLondon is offline  
Old Aug 13th, 2013, 12:11 PM
  #83  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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)
chartley is offline  
Old Aug 13th, 2013, 01:16 PM
  #84  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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!
PalenQ is offline  
Old Aug 13th, 2013, 01:33 PM
  #85  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Umm...it was Edward VIII who abdicated...and just when I was beginning to think you were a closet royalist! ;-)
Heimdall is offline  
Old Aug 13th, 2013, 01:56 PM
  #86  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 24,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why, oh why, does a simple question deteriorate into rants?
Underhill is offline  
Old Aug 13th, 2013, 02:48 PM
  #87  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
PalenQ is offline  
Old Aug 13th, 2013, 11:44 PM
  #88  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
>>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.
PatrickLondon is offline  
Old Aug 14th, 2013, 12:29 AM
  #89  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What about King Ralph?
lauren_s_kahn is offline  
Old Aug 14th, 2013, 12:42 AM
  #90  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
lauren_s_kahn is offline  
Old Aug 14th, 2013, 12:48 AM
  #91  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,060
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
....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?
Josser is offline  
Old Aug 14th, 2013, 12:49 AM
  #92  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wot - no 'Arry???

Is it because he's a ginger - poor lad
sofarsogood is offline  
Old Aug 14th, 2013, 01:08 AM
  #93  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
>>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.
PatrickLondon is offline  
Old Aug 14th, 2013, 01:24 AM
  #94  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 42,716
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
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.
Dukey1 is online now  
Old Aug 14th, 2013, 02:19 AM
  #95  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,060
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Make that two eejits
Josser is offline  
Old Aug 14th, 2013, 03:15 AM
  #96  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
MissPrism is offline  
Old Aug 14th, 2013, 03:39 AM
  #97  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
PatrickLondon is offline  
Old Aug 14th, 2013, 04:10 AM
  #98  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 27,617
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
thursdaysd is offline  
Old Aug 14th, 2013, 04:14 AM
  #99  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
bendigo is offline  
Old Aug 14th, 2013, 04:19 AM
  #100  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
bendigo is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Your Privacy Choices -