British monarchy - question of succession
Aug 10th, 2013, 01:48 PM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,989
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Aug 10th, 2013, 02:59 PM
#5
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Aug 10th, 2013, 03:58 PM
#6
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.
Aug 10th, 2013, 06:36 PM
#10
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,989
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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…
“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…
Aug 10th, 2013, 08:49 PM
#11
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 24,290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Aug 10th, 2013, 09:36 PM
#12
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,922
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>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.
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.
Aug 10th, 2013, 10:03 PM
#13
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
C G P Grey explains all you need to know with stick figures and some old paintings. Very clever.
Aug 10th, 2013, 11:35 PM
#14
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
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.
Aug 11th, 2013, 12:58 AM
#16
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,922
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>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.
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.
Aug 11th, 2013, 02:50 AM
#17
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Aug 11th, 2013, 03:58 AM
#18
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ;-)
If anyone asked a question about the Queen going through the Channel Tunnel, he would spontaneously combust ;-)
Aug 11th, 2013, 04:06 AM
#19
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 34,858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Aug 11th, 2013, 04:23 AM
#20
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
