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

British monarchy - question of succession

British monarchy - question of succession

Old Aug 14th, 2013, 11:43 PM
  #121  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The change in succession will not be retroactive.

Andrew's two daughters are too close for comfort as it is.

They were just taken down a notch.
Cathinjoetown is offline  
Old Aug 14th, 2013, 11:48 PM
  #122  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If the change were retroactive, wouldn't that put them even further back? By putting Princess Anne and her descendants ahead of Prince Andrew and his descendants?
jahoulih is offline  
Old Aug 15th, 2013, 01:10 AM
  #123  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,940
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
>>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.<<

No, it was genuine, i.e., he had been claiming British citizenship since, at the latest, 1933. And by marriage to Edward (not to mention the endless complaints over her not getting an HRH title and the fact of his being in military service, i.e., under oath of allegiance to his brother) she would have been considered a British citizen.

In any case, I'm not sure that citizenship as such is required: it could apply to anyone in the country - certainly that point was clarified in the Treason Act 1940 to enable enemy spies to be tried for treason.
PatrickLondon is offline  
Old Aug 15th, 2013, 06:16 AM
  #124  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Genuine in that it was not a forgery; but it was issued on the basis of a false application (since Joyce was not, in fact, a British citizen).

I think you're referring to the Treachery Act 1940, which created a new crime of treachery applicable to the conduct of aliens present in the UK. (Obviously it was necessary in Joyce's case to prove his duty of allegiance, since he wasn't in the UK when he made his broadcasts.)
jahoulih is offline  
Old Aug 15th, 2013, 08:39 AM
  #125  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,220
Received 26 Likes on 4 Posts
My husband termed himself a British "subject" rather than "citizen". Is it still correct?
MmePerdu is online now  
Old Aug 15th, 2013, 09:37 AM
  #126  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,940
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
>>Is it still correct?<<

It's complicated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_law
PatrickLondon is offline  
Old Aug 15th, 2013, 10:21 AM
  #127  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,220
Received 26 Likes on 4 Posts
Very interesting. Thank you Patrick.
MmePerdu is online now  
Old Aug 15th, 2013, 10:30 AM
  #128  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
who cares who is the legitimate monarch - IMO they are ALL illegitimate heads of state. Fussing over genealogy sums it all up - what IF - what If Cromwell's Republic or whatever it was took hold?

What if the Germans had conquered Britain - would the Windsors change there name back to Hapsburg or whatever German name it should be?

foolishness all
PalenQ is offline  
Old Aug 15th, 2013, 11:31 AM
  #129  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 27,617
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
"IMO they are ALL illegitimate heads of state"

Why do you think they are illegitimate? Parliament is elected, Parliament approved the order of succession.
thursdaysd is offline  
Old Aug 15th, 2013, 11:55 AM
  #130  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,084
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
>>What if the Germans had conquered Britain - would the Windsors change there name back to Hapsburg or whatever German name it should be?<<

Mountbatten, I think. That might make Prince Philip happy.
Trophywife007 is online now  
Old Aug 15th, 2013, 12:02 PM
  #131  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Can we change the subject to the matter of the U.S. Government, and its predecessors, imprisoning indefinitely and without trial people captured in foreign countries and keeping them in a base in another country (Cuba) and torturing them there?

Questions about Wallis Simpson and Lord Haw-Haw pale in comparison with that intereference with human rights.
chartley is offline  
Old Aug 15th, 2013, 12:07 PM
  #132  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,220
Received 26 Likes on 4 Posts
"Mountbatten, I think. That might make Prince Philip happy."

It would, I believe, be Battenberg (burg?), the pre-war form.
MmePerdu is online now  
Old Aug 15th, 2013, 12:08 PM
  #133  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No. You're in the wrong place, chartley. You'd better leave.
dwdvagamundo is offline  
Old Aug 15th, 2013, 12:25 PM
  #134  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
But Prince Philip hadn't yet married the future Queen.

Saxe-Coburg-Gotha?
jahoulih is offline  
Old Aug 15th, 2013, 12:29 PM
  #135  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Can we change the subject to the matter of the U.S. Government, and its predecessors, imprisoning indefinitely and without trial people captured in foreign countries and keeping them in a base in another country (Cuba) and torturing them there?>

And ad to that the shameless internment in work camps of Japanese U S citizens in WW 2 in California lest they, after a presumed Japanese invasion, would go over to aid and abet the enemy - these were patriotic citizens whose families had been here generations - many served with honor in the miliatry (well not those in the camps!)

Yes chartley - shameful and a akin to what British governments did repeatedly during the Troubles in Northern Eire, right.

GITMO is a national disgrace that I and many other Americans are ashamed of and should be done away with - Obama wants to badly but Congress won't let him - afraid to bring those guys onto American soil where they would have due process of law.
PalenQ is offline  
Old Aug 15th, 2013, 01:28 PM
  #136  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The way the succession worked before the new law is that sons would "trump" daughters but daughters still had rights after sons. Queen Elizabeth II had no brothers--which is why as George VI's oldest daughter--she was the heir presumptive during his reign. That would have changed had King George VI and Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother had a son, but they didn't. The place of Prince Andrew's daughters in the line of succession did not change by the new law. I read somewhere that Princess Anne did not want to be moved up. The change was made only for after born children so as not to mess up what was already in place.

The problem with misbehavior in younger members of the royal family (or those farther down the line), is, I think, rooted in the lack of a real job. Only one of them in each generation gets to wear the crown.

So to correct my previous line of succession, I herein submit a new one:

Charles, Prince of Wales
Prince William, Duke of Cambridge
Prince George of Cambridge
Prince Henry aka "Harry" (perish the thought and likewise for many of them)
Prince Andrew, Duke of York
Princess Beatrice of York
Princess Eugenie of York
Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex (who will take Prince Philip's title of Duke of Edinburgh when Prince Philip dies)
His Children
Princess Anne
Her Children and grandchildren
The rest are too far down the line to be relevant unless there is a mass wipe out. In case of a mass wipe out, we might get King Ralph.
lauren_s_kahn is offline  
Old Aug 15th, 2013, 02:49 PM
  #137  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's fiction, but Len Deighton wrote a novel called SS-GB, based on the hypothetical situation that Germany had invaded England, and won WWII. What happens with the monarchy, etc. Not a bad read, well researched. Deighton is a bit of a favourite of mine.
Peter_S_Aus is offline  
Old Aug 15th, 2013, 03:14 PM
  #138  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 10,884
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
The UK was at its best under the reign of a woman. Long live Queen Elizabeth.
kleeblatt is offline  
Old Aug 15th, 2013, 03:22 PM
  #139  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 24,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why would Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice (and their hats)take precedence over Prince Edward? He would be next in line until the male succession law is changed.
Underhill is offline  
Old Aug 15th, 2013, 03:39 PM
  #140  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No, under the old law it's Prince Andrew, then his descendants, then Prince Edward, then his descendants, and then Princess Anne and her descendants.

That's why Victoria took the throne in 1837. She was the daughter of the late Edward, Duke of Kent, the fourth son of George III. The throne did not go to her uncle, Ernest Augustus, the fifth son. (But he did become King of Hanover, which had different rules.)
jahoulih is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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