Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Question about how British royalty works

UK Royalty Laws of succession

  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Christopher

Christopher
  • Demigod
  • 32,752 posts

Posted 16 April 2003 - 01:48 AM

How come Queen Elizabeth's husband is a Prince instead of a King?
"You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right." -- xkcd

"The first man to raise a fist is the man who's run out of ideas." -- "H. G. Wells," Time After Time


Written Worlds -- My homepage and blog
Facebook Author Page

#2 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 16 April 2003 - 01:59 AM

Edit: I crossed Elizabeth with Elizabeth. My bad.

God save the Queen!

:cool:

Edited by the 'Hawk, 16 April 2003 - 02:15 AM.

“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#3 Jid

Jid

    Mad Prophet of Funk

  • Islander
  • 12,554 posts

Posted 16 April 2003 - 02:04 AM

Christopher, on Apr 15 2003, 04:37 PM, said:

How come Queen Elizabeth's husband is a Prince instead of a King?
Queen Elizabeth I took the throne after her husband's death, IIRC.

QE II on the other hand, was the eldest of an all daughter line from QE I, and so took the throne.  Since her husband is not of the actual bloodline, he can't take the title of king through marriage, I believe.

Of course, I could be wrong, but that's what the little I remember of history class taught me - I think ;)
cervisiam tene rem specta

#4 jon3831

jon3831

    Iolanthe's evil conservative twin

  • Islander
  • 2,601 posts

Posted 16 April 2003 - 03:07 AM

Are we mixing up Queen Elizabeth I with Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mum and Queen Elizabeth II?

George V had several sons, the ones we're interested in are Edward and Albert...

Upon George V's death, Edward, Prince of Wales ascended, becoming Edward VIII.

He abdicated after 325 days to marry an American.

His brother, Albert then ascended and became George VI. His wife, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon then became "Queen Elizabeth".

George VI and Elizabeth had no sons, and presumably, there were no other male heirs from George V, so the eldest daughter, Elizabeth ascended the throne in 1952.

About Philip not being part of the bloodline, I think Jid's quite correct.

But here's a question: Why, upon George VI's death, wouldn't the throne go to another grandson of George V? There were several alive at the time, including the Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Kent...

Io?
"The issue is not war and peace, rather, how best to   preserve our freedom."
                    --General Russell E. Dougherty, USAF

WWCELeMD?

#5 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 16 April 2003 - 03:57 AM

the'Hawk, on Apr 15 2003, 06:48 PM, said:

Edit: I crossed Elizabeth with Elizabeth. My bad.

God save the Queen!

:cool:
So, what'd you get? :lol:  :lol:
The longest-running science fiction series: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans... Cybermen! They're still in the nursery compared to us. Fifty years of absolute fandom. That's what it takes to be really critical.

"Don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido

#6 AnneZo

AnneZo
  • Islander
  • 688 posts

Posted 16 April 2003 - 05:05 AM

jon3831, on Apr 15 2003, 11:56 PM, said:

But here's a question: Why, upon George VI's death, wouldn't the throne go to another grandson of George V? There were several alive at the time, including the Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Kent...
Because in England, a woman is not prohibited from ruling. :)  

The throne doesn't have to go to a man. It goes to the oldest child in the direct line, or the oldest member of the next line, as the case may be.

#7 jon3831

jon3831

    Iolanthe's evil conservative twin

  • Islander
  • 2,601 posts

Posted 16 April 2003 - 05:38 AM

Quote

The throne doesn't have to go to a man. It goes to the oldest child in the direct line, or the oldest member of the next line, as the case may be.


Ah, I knew I worded that wrong. ;)

Actually, I think my question related more toward my thinking that the crown had to pass among all the male heirs before it could pass on to the female line, but you and a quick googlesearch answered that question. :)

I was thinking too much in terms of 15th-16th Century England. I blame Iolanthe. ;) ;)

Edited by jon3831, 16 April 2003 - 05:38 AM.

"The issue is not war and peace, rather, how best to   preserve our freedom."
                    --General Russell E. Dougherty, USAF

WWCELeMD?

#8 Cardie

Cardie

    I'm a very *good* tailor

  • Administrator
  • 22,597 posts

Posted 16 April 2003 - 05:59 AM

No one has quite gotten it yet. The wife of a King of England is called Queen So-and-so, but is technically not the queen. She has no standing as monarch. However, the reverse is not true. No one can acquire the title of King by marrying a ruling Queen. This goes along with the idea that the man in the relationship confers status, elevating his wife; however, a woman cannot confer supreme status on a man, no matter whether or not she is the monarch. (It's the same principle of wives taking their husbands' names.) I think Philip is technically the prince-consort.

And while women may rule in England, the succession passes first to every one of the deceased monarch's male children before the oldest daughter is eligible. If the monarch is childless, it goes through all his surviving brothers in order of age, and then goes to his sisters--until you reach someone who has a son, who then succeeds after the parent monarch dies.  Although I think William gets to be King if Charles should pre-decease Elizabeth II. Direct male descent is always privileged.

Cardie
Nothing succeeds like excess.

#9 Iolanthe

Iolanthe

    Jon's evil liberal twin

  • Islander
  • 1,057 posts

Posted 16 April 2003 - 06:26 AM

Cardie, on Apr 16 2003, 02:48 AM, said:

No one has quite gotten it yet. The wife of a King of England is called Queen So-and-so, but is technically not the queen. She has no standing as monarch.
Officially, the wife of a reigning king is called a queen consort, while a woman ruling in her own right is a queen regnant...

Jon: And I happily accept the blame! ;) (Though I suspect you're really thinking of 14th-15th-century England... ;))
"Many have an Opinion not wise; That for a Prince to Governe his Estate; Or for a Great Person to governe his Proceedings, according to the Respect of Factions, is a Principall Part of Policy..." -- Sir Francis Bacon, Essayes or Counsell Civil and Morall
"You really do have a squee problem, you know that, right?" -- John
Visit Dangerously Slow Productions @ http://www.dsproductions.org Status: Complete. Go listen to the play! And coming soon, Henry IV, Part I, now in production!

#10 MegL

MegL
  • Islander
  • 1,394 posts

Posted 16 April 2003 - 11:56 AM

First, Elizabeth I is known as the Virgin Queen - she had no husbands :lol:
Two interesting side notes: First, the U.S. state of Viriginia is named after Elizabeth I and second, she was third in line for the thrown, when her father Henry VIII died.  

Second, while usually the husband of a Queen of England is a Prince consort, there is at least one exception. William the III was co-ruler with Mary II, at her request (it also didn't hurt he was also Mary's first cousin and had a claim on the thrown as well). For more on this particular royal soap opera, check here  :eek2:

You might try the site out above for for more information, since it seems to have a list of English Monarchs (however, I don't know how acurate the information on the site is, so keep that in mind :) )


Meg

#11 Christopher

Christopher
  • Demigod
  • 32,752 posts

Posted 16 April 2003 - 04:42 PM

Okay, I should've specified I meant QE II, not I.  (I thought my use of "is" instead of "was" would establish which one I was talking about.)
"You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right." -- xkcd

"The first man to raise a fist is the man who's run out of ideas." -- "H. G. Wells," Time After Time


Written Worlds -- My homepage and blog
Facebook Author Page

#12 Enmar

Enmar

    a Sabra

  • Islander
  • 2,021 posts

Posted 17 April 2003 - 08:22 PM

Cardie, on Apr 16 2003, 05:43 AM, said:

And while women may rule in England, the succession passes first to every one of the deceased monarch's male children before the oldest daughter is eligible. If the monarch is childless, it goes through all his surviving brothers in order of age, and then goes to his sisters--until you reach someone who has a son, who then succeeds after the parent monarch dies.  Although I think William gets to be King if Charles should pre-decease Elizabeth II. Direct male descent is always privileged.

Cardie
Absolutely.

See the official website of the Windsors... you'll see that Prince Charles is heir to the throne (1)

His sons (William and Harry) are his successors (2&3)

Than his brothers... and their sons, if they had any.

Than his sister Anne (Princess Royal)

Than his brother's daughters...

http://www.royal.gov...utput/Page1.asp <- homepage

http://www.royal.gov...put/page149.asp <- the royal family
Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: UK, Royalty, Laws of succession

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users