Monarchy Question....Im confused - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ShaniFaye · 03-21-2005, 04:07 PM

I was reading the article today
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe....ap/index.html

Quote:

UK minister: Camilla can be queen

Monday, March 21, 2005 Posted: 1:33 PM EST (1833 GMT)

LONDON, England (AP) -- Camilla Parker Bowles can become queen after all, despite earlier statements by Prince Charles that she will take a lesser title after marrying him, the government has said.

Replying to a question from a lawmaker, Constitutional Affairs Minister Christopher Leslie said in a written statement Monday that the marriage of Charles and Parker Bowles would not be "morganatic" -- in which the spouse of inferior status has no claim to the standing of the other.

"This is absolutely unequivocal that she automatically becomes queen when he becomes king," said Andrew Mackinlay, the lawmaker who raised the question.

The Department for Constitutional Affairs confirmed that interpretation, saying that legislation would be required to deny Parker Bowles the title of queen. Similar legislation apparently would be required in more than a dozen countries -- such as Australia, Jamaica and Canada -- in which the British sovereign is the head of state.

In a gesture to public sentiment against Parker Bowles ever becoming queen, Charles said when he announced the April 8 marriage that she would take the title of "princess consort" if he succeeds to the throne.

Until then, she would be known as Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall following the civil wedding.

Prime Minister Tony Blair's office was in no hurry to address any complications over the bride's title.

"The position at the moment is limited to what the title would be on her marriage. In terms of any future events, let's wait until future events arise," Blair's official spokesman said.

Asked whether she would automatically become queen in the absence of specific legislation about her title, the spokesman replied: "I'm not disputing what you have said."

Mackinlay said that if Charles insists on his wife not being queen, legislation would be needed in those countries where the British monarch is head of state.

"I'm perfectly happy for the Prince of Wales to marry whoever he likes, but altering the constitution is parliament's business and this does require an alteration to the constitution," Mackinlay said.

"It shouldn't be done for one man and one man alone."

When Charles announced the wedding, he said "it is intended that Mrs. Parker Bowles should use the title HRH the Princess Consort when the Prince of Wales accedes to the throne."

Some commentators believe Charles was seeking to buy time to win over public acceptance of his wife as queen while maintaining respect for the memory of his first wife, the late Princess Diana.

Public opinion polls have indicated broad public support for the marriage, but continued strong resistance to giving her the title of queen.

Diana, who died in a car crash in 1997, had blamed Parker Bowles for the breakup of her marriage.

Can someone explain how this works? Im confused because Prince Phillip didnt become "king" when he married Elizabeth...was it because she was already Queen when they married?

Charlatan · 03-21-2005, 05:41 PM

As I understand it, if Philip became King, he would have more power than Elizabeth...

As consort he is in his place.

Cujo · 03-21-2005, 07:54 PM

I still don't understand why Charles won't be forced to abdicate like his great uncle Edward VIII did. If it wasn't proper for Edward why is it now proper for Charles?

lindseylatch · 03-21-2005, 08:11 PM

weeeeell, this is a different day and age than that of his great uncle, I would think.
And I thought she already agreed to be Consort instead of Queen? That it was part of the marriage contract?
But I didn't follow it much, only what little bit I overheard on the news.

meembo · 03-21-2005, 08:19 PM

British royal doings are best watched from afar. You don't need to understand them, just enjoy the circus.

omega2K4 · 03-21-2005, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meembo

British royal doings are best watched from afar. You don't need to understand them, just enjoy the circus.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

DJ Happy · 03-22-2005, 01:13 AM

I'll have a dab at explaining:

The blood monarch (i.e. the individual from the Windsor blood-line) must enjoy an elevated status over everyone else in the House but can still only be awarded a title in matching with their gender. Therefore, if the blood monarch is a woman ((like the current Queen Elizabeth II), then she can only be called a Queen and must be the highest ranking individual in the house. The person she marries cannot be called the King as he would then rank above her. As such, he is awarded the title of Prince Consort, ranking him above other princes but below the Queen.

If the blood monarch is a man, however, he will be the King and his wife will be the Queen.

In the case of Prince Charles and Horse-Face, the objection to her becoming Queen is not a legal one but more of a moral one. Because of the affection the public has for the late Lady Diana, it was decided that Camilla should not become Queen once Charles succeeds his mummy.

In the case of Edward the VIII's abdication, that was necessary as he was marrying a divorcee, unnacceptable for someone who would become head of the Church of England. Although it appears to be perfectly acceptable for the head of the Church of England to be a divorcee himself, thanks in part to Henry VIII.

mirevolver · 03-22-2005, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Happy

I'll have a dab at explaining:

The blood monarch (i.e. the individual from the Windsor blood-line) must enjoy an elevated status over everyone else in the House but can still only be awarded a title in matching with their gender. Therefore, if the blood monarch is a woman ((like the current Queen Elizabeth II), then she can only be called a Queen and must be the highest ranking individual in the house. The person she marries cannot be called the King as he would then rank above her. As such, he is awarded the title of Prince Consort, ranking him above other princes but below the Queen.

If the blood monarch is a man, however, he will be the King and his wife will be the Queen.

In the case of Prince Charles and Horse-Face, the objection to her becoming Queen is not a legal one but more of a moral one. Because of the affection the public has for the late Lady Diana, it was decided that Camilla should not become Queen once Charles succeeds his mummy.

In the case of Edward the VIII's abdication, that was necessary as he was marrying a divorcee, unnacceptable for someone who would become head of the Church of England. Although it appears to be perfectly acceptable for the head of the Church of England to be a divorcee himself, thanks in part to Henry VIII.

And on a related note, asprin sales have quadrupled in the UK.

But seriously, I couldn't have explained it better myself. Honestly I think it's possible to write a college thesis on the orginization and structure of the British royal family. And only then might everything be fully explained.

mazagmot · 03-22-2005, 01:53 AM

Why not write some legislation that puts the blood of the windsor line automatically above everyone if they ascend to the throne, and do away with the hierarchy of king over queen? Leave the throne only in the hands of the windsors and maybe avoid some of this fun next time around.

DJ Happy · 03-22-2005, 02:10 AM

What do you mean? The throne is only in the hands of the Windsors. That's the whole point. Only a Windsor can ascend to the throne.

mazagmot · 03-22-2005, 02:15 AM

If the king is supposed to outrank the queen, then a non-windsor consort to the queen, if given the title king, would ascend to the throne (I think?). I was thinking that if you just say that windsor always outranks if ascending to the throne, then it doesn't matter if they have the title king or queen, they win. Thus, prince-consort Phillip could be king, but it wouldn't matter, since Queen Elizabeth is the one with the blood. I was just trying to think of a way to eliminate the title prince-consort. :-p

ShaniFaye · 03-22-2005, 04:20 AM

Thanks for the explanation DJ Happy....I wasnt aware that a King over ruled a Queen even if the Queen was the one with the blood line.

DJ Happy · 03-22-2005, 04:54 AM

No problem. To be honest, I can't stand the Royal family myself. I find the whole concept antiquated, elitist and irrelevant.

settie · 03-22-2005, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Happy

No problem. To be honest, I can't stand the Royal family myself. I find the whole concept antiquated, elitist and irrelevant.

I couldn't have said it better myself

ngdawg · 03-22-2005, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Happy

In the case of Prince Charles and Horse-Face, .

.

Lockjaw · 03-22-2005, 10:54 AM

And Prince Charles isn't a horse-face?

But somebody answer this one for me.

Let's say....Henry and William(is that their names? The sons of Philip?)
Both die. William falls off another horse or something and snaps his neck, and Henry gets shot in a bad drug deal or something.

Queen Elizabeth then kicks off.

Charles would be king and Camila would be queen.
Now let's say he dies.
Who would become the ruler? Would Camilla become queen?
Would some other blue blood Brit get the crown? What gives there?

So very confusing. I admire the British I really do. But one thing has always confounded my American sensibilities...why put up with the Royals? Seriously is there ANYBODY under 40 that cares about them any more?

thejoker130 · 03-22-2005, 11:11 AM

If all the direct heirs to the throne suddenly kick off then the blood line would probably switch over to Camila of no other suitable heir could be found. therefore any children of hers could be next in line to the throne. But in the case of the british monarchy there are legitimate heirs in line to the throne all over the freaking place. Poyzun used to date a guy who had a cousin, who's now a plumber, that was some rediculous number in line to the throne.

superiorrain · 03-22-2005, 11:42 AM

I'm think if all those royals died then i think i'd be next in line, makes sense to me.

ShaniFaye · 03-22-2005, 11:45 AM

here is the succession line taken from here http://www.etoile.co.uk/Rsucc.html

1. HRH The Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales (1948)
2. HRH Prince William of Wales, eldest son of The Prince Charles (1982)
3. HRH Prince Henry of Wales, younger son of The Prince Charles (1984)
4. HRH The Prince Andrew, The Duke of York, second son of HM Queen Elizabeth II (1960)
5. HRH Princess Beatrice of York, elder daughter of The Prince Andrew (1988)
6. HRH Princess Eugenie of York, younger daughter of The Prince Andrew (1990)
7. HRH The Prince Edward, The Earl of Wessex, youngest son of HM Queen Elizabeth II (1964)
8. Lady Louise Alice Elizabeth Mary Mountbatten Windsor, daughter of HRH The Prince Edward, The Earl of Wessex (2003)
9. HRH The Princess Anne, The Princess Royal, only daughter of HM Queen Elizabeth II (1950)
10. Peter Phillips, son of The Princess Anne (1977)
11. Zara Phillips, daughter of The Princess Anne (1981)
12. David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley, son of The Princess Margaret (1961)
13. The Honorable Charles Patrick Inigo Armstrong Jones (1999), son of David, Viscount Linley
14. Margarita Elizabeth Rose Alleyne Armstrong-Jones (2002), daughter of David, Viscount Linley
15. Lady Sarah Chatto, daughter of The Princess Margaret (1964)
16. Master Samuel Chatto (1996), son of Lady Sarah Chatto
17. Master Arthur Robert Nathaniel Chatto (1999), son of Lady Sarah Chatto
18. HRH Prince Richard, The (2nd) Duke of Gloucester, surviving son of HRH The Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, who was the 3rd son of HM King George V (1944)
19. Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster (1974), son of Richard, Duke of Gloucester
20. Lady Davina Windsor (1977), daughter of Richard, Duke of Gloucester
21. Lady Rose Windsor (1980), daughter of Richard, Duke of Gloucester
22. HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent (1935), son of George, Duke of Kent
George Windsor, The Earl of St. Andrews (excluded himself from succession by marrying a Roman Catholic)
Edward Windsor, Baron Downpatrick (1988), son of George, Earl of St Andrews - excluded himself by becoming a Roman Catholic
23. Lady Marina Charlotte Windsor (1992), daughter of George, Earl of St Andrews
24. Lady Amelia Windsor (1995), daughter of George, Earl of St Andrews
Lord Nicholas Windsor (1970), son of Edward, Duke of Kent (excluded himself by becoming a Roman Catholic)
25. Lady Helen Taylor (1964), daughter of Edward, Duke of Kent
26. Columbus Taylor (1994), son of Lady Helen Taylor
27. Cassius Taylor (1996), son of Lady Helen Taylor
28. Eloise Taylor (2003), daughter of Lady Helen Taylor
29. Estella Taylor (2004), daughter of Lady Helen Taylor
Prince Michael of Kent, son of George, Duke of Kent (excluded himself from succession by marrying a Roman Catholic)
30. Lord Frederick Windsor (1979), son of Prince Michael of Kent
31. Lady Gabriella Windsor (1981), daughter of Prince Michael of Kent
32. HRH Princess Alexandra. the Hon. Lady Ogilvy (1936), daughter of George, duke of Kent
33. James Ogilvy (1964), son of Princess Alexandra
34. Alexander Ogilvy (1996), son of James Ogilvy
35. Flora Ogilvy (1994), daughter of James Ogilvy
36. Marina Ogilvy (1966), daughter of Princess Alexandra
37. Christian Mowatt (1993), son of Marina Ogilvy
38. Zenouska Mowatt (1990), daughter of Marina Ogilvy
39. George Lascelles, 7th Earl of Harewood (1923), son of Princess Victoria Alexandra Alice Mary & Sir Henry George Charles Lascelles, 6th earl of Harewood
40. David Lascelles, Viscount Lascelles (1950), son of George Lascelles, 7th Earl of Harewood
41. (Hon.) Alexander Lascelles (1980), son of David Lascelles
42. (Hon.) Edward Lascelles (1982), son of David Lascelles
43. (Hon.) James Lascelles (1953), son of George Lascelles, 7th Earl of Harewood
44. Rowan Lascelles (1977), son of James Lascelles
45. Tewa Lascelles (1985), son of James Lascelles
46. Sophie Lascelles (1973), daughter of James Lascelles
47. (Hon.) Jeremy Lascelles (1955), son of George Lascelles, 7th Earl of Harewood
48. Thomas Lascelles (1982), son of Jeremy Lascelles
49. Ellen Lascelles (1984), daughter of Jeremy Lascelles
50. Amy Lascelles (1986), daughter of Jeremy Lascelles

Strange Famous · 03-22-2005, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cujo

I still don't understand why Charles won't be forced to abdicate like his great uncle Edward VIII did. If it wasn't proper for Edward why is it now proper for Charles?

I would have thought Edwards abdicatation had more to do with him having strong Nazi sympathies?

But, even if you take it at face value - times and values change. You might ask why Charles should care, since Henry VIII divorced two of his wives, and had another two murdered.

Strange Famous · 03-22-2005, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lockjaw

And Prince Charles isn't a horse-face?

But somebody answer this one for me.

Let's say....Henry and William(is that their names? The sons of Philip?)
Both die. William falls off another horse or something and snaps his neck, and Henry gets shot in a bad drug deal or something.

Queen Elizabeth then kicks off.

Charles would be king and Camila would be queen.
Now let's say he dies.
Who would become the ruler? Would Camilla become queen?
Would some other blue blood Brit get the crown? What gives there?

So very confusing. I admire the British I really do. But one thing has always confounded my American sensibilities...why put up with the Royals? Seriously is there ANYBODY under 40 that cares about them any more?

No, you cannot marry yourself into the line of succession.

And I honestly think Americans tend to care more about the Royal Family as personalities than British people do. I only care about the obscene amounts of wealth stolen from the British working class, and working people of many former colonies. When Charles returns the Crown Jewells to India, I might respect him.

440sixpack · 03-22-2005, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

here is the succession line taken from here http://www.etoile.co.uk/Rsucc.html

(snip)

I always get a kick out of joking that I'm somewhere WAY down the succession line, supposedly Princess Anne's first husband, Mark Phillips, is part of my family somehow, so her kids would be distant relatives of mine. Don't know if this is family legend or what, but it's a kick to think about sometimes.

Yakk · 03-22-2005, 03:22 PM

My mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's father's father's father's father (I think, I almost certainly miscounted somewhere in there, but it is a maternal then paternal line) was a noble of some kind, and killed by King Charles I for being overly sympathetic to the Cromwellian cause.

(His son fled to America. His son fought against the NY-staters who wanted to annex Vermont (green mountain rebellion?). His son fled to Canada as a Loyalist after the Colonial Tax-revolt of 1775.)

So, it's quite possible I'm about the 1 billionth (or so) in line to the throne. . . =)

Personally, I view the Monarchy as a reminder that government exists solely at the consent of the governed. In the event that the government goes wrong, an ambiguous contest of legitimacy between parliament and the monarchy exists. A check and balance on the grandest scale.

And I'd like to thank the English for paying for my Queen's upkeep/rent. Thank you! You are keeping her nice and shiny.

ShaniFaye · 03-22-2005, 03:34 PM

/eddie izzard voice

But in Britain we don't win many gold medals at the Olympics… because we've chosen not to! It's a political statement! Because we hate our national anthem. Because it's “God Save the Queen,” you see? “God Save the Queen.” Now the Queen lives in a very big house, she has barbed wire outside, and people with guns in front of that. That's one saved fucking queen, I'll tell you! That's the problem! She's overly saved! She has no idea of the struggle of human existence. We have to work for a living, raise a family… we don't have nannies all running around the place. It's what you've got to do in your life, you know? So it's "God Save the Queen." No! It's too saved. It's "God Attack the Queen," that's what it should be! ( singing ) "God attack the Queen, send big dogs after her that bite her bum. Let them chase after her and rip her knickers off..." That'd be fantastic! Then she'd have to fight the crazy dog with a handbag with a brick inside of it.

"Crazy dog! Crazy dog!"

"Arrgghh, kill the Queen!"

"No - crazy dog!"

And maybe she'd kill the crazy dog and everyone in Britain would go, "Hey, fair play to the Queen,- killed the crazy dog." And the Queen would have self-respect for the first time in her life! Yes. It would work. It'd be fantabulous.

/end eddie voice

I think I just jacked my own thread

guthmund · 03-22-2005, 09:19 PM

I was wondering when Izzard would make an appearance!

I swear ever since I saw his special on HBO, everytime I see the Queen on television I hear "Crazy Dog! Crazy Dog!"

Gold star for ShaniFaye and thank you for flying Church of England.

lindseylatch · 03-22-2005, 09:40 PM

cake or death?

muttonglutton · 03-22-2005, 09:48 PM

Call me ignorant and hateful...

But why do people still care about this?

mazagmot · 03-22-2005, 11:11 PM

Because it has a lot of history behind it. They've been doing it for so long, it's kind of hard to stop now. And, it's their government. Let them do what they want.

DJ Happy · 03-23-2005, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lockjaw

But somebody answer this one for me.

Let's say....Henry and William(is that their names? The sons of Philip?)
Both die. William falls off another horse or something and snaps his neck, and Henry gets shot in a bad drug deal or something.

Queen Elizabeth then kicks off.

Charles would be king and Camila would be queen.
Now let's say he dies.
Who would become the ruler? Would Camilla become queen?
Would some other blue blood Brit get the crown? What gives there?

As someone else said, Prince Andrew would be King. Camilla would become some non-entity royal, like the late Queen Mother (Queen Elizabeth II's mother who was once queen herself but who faded into the background once King George VI died).

Personally, I find it somewhat ironic that Bush's greatest ally in his global quest to spread democracy is a country who's head of state is not elected by the populace, but born into position.

d*d · 03-23-2005, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Happy

Personally, I find it somewhat ironic that Bush's greatest ally in his global quest to spread democracy is a country who's head of state is not elected by the populace, but born into position.

Head of state she may be but it's as a figurehead only she wields no real power

DJ Happy · 03-23-2005, 01:56 AM

This is really only because she chooses not to. Theoretically, she could fire Tony Blair and replace him with an arthritic chimp.

The real question is, would anyone notice?

jwoody · 03-23-2005, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lockjaw

So very confusing. I admire the British I really do. But one thing has always confounded my American sensibilities...why put up with the Royals?

Because in days of old they (the Royal family) fought hardest for and founded the country.

Because they own the armed forces, the police, the courts and the prison system.

Because of the continuity it provides in the political structure of the country. I believe it's of utmost importance to have one person giving the final word on any issue which affects the running of a country, business, household, web-forum, etc...

Take the issue of gay marriage; if the Queen thinks two gays joining together in wedlock is a bad thing for her church, then gays aren't allowed to marry. No ifs buts or maybes about it, issue resolved.

*That woman in a permanent semi-vegative state; Queenie could solve the matter with a simple thumb gesture.

*technically speaking, of course.

Quote:

Seriously is there ANYBODY under 40 that cares about them any more?

.

thejoker130 · 03-23-2005, 10:14 AM

I think we care because the british monarchy takes us back to a time long ago of grand castles, brave knights, and fantastic legends. The idea of Kings and Queens is just a very romantic-esq thought.

As a matter of fact i've always kind of thought in the back of my mind that what america needs is a good king with absolute power (you'll notice the *good* in front of the king.) Because the way our government is now there is too much power in the hands of too many bad people. we need to scale it back a bit.

Yakk · 03-23-2005, 11:09 AM

Modern Constitutional Monarchies are ambiguous institutions.

While the US holds up the Constitution as the basis of their government, Constitutional Monarchies hold up comprimise. You do things because that is what works. You don't do things because it doesn't work.

Sure, the Queen is increadibly powerful. On paper. If the Queen exercised that power, the government might feel ethically justified in opposing the Queen. In the same way, if the government exercised their power, the Queen might feel ethically justified in opposing the government.

In the USA, opposing the President is opposing the State, an act many associate with treason. In Britian and Canada, the Prime Minister is technically just a functionary (with lots of power) -- opposing the PM is just disagreeing with one elected random joe, not the personified embodyment of the nation.

Meanwhile, the head of state, the Queen, does very little. You can hold her up as a figurehead -- and while opposing her is technically treason, she doesn't stand for any political policies. Disagreeing with the government is no longer treason. Saying your head of government is an idiot, an asshole, or a fool is acceptable.

When the government's power is only restricted by words in a lawbook, the government is unrestrained. Because laws have no power over man. Tradition does.

Lockjaw · 03-23-2005, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

here is the succession line taken from here http://www.etoile.co.uk/Rsucc.html

1. HRH The Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales (1948)
2. HRH Prince William of Wales, eldest son of The Prince Charles (1982)
3. HRH Prince Henry of Wales, younger son of The Prince Charles (1984)
4. HRH The Prince Andrew, The Duke of York, second son of HM Queen Elizabeth II (1960)
5. HRH Princess Beatrice of York, elder daughter of The Prince Andrew (1988)
6. HRH Princess Eugenie of York, younger daughter of The Prince Andrew (1990)
7. HRH The Prince Edward, The Earl of Wessex, youngest son of HM Queen Elizabeth II (1964)
8. Lady Louise Alice Elizabeth Mary Mountbatten Windsor, daughter of HRH The Prince Edward, The Earl of Wessex (2003)
9. HRH The Princess Anne, The Princess Royal, only daughter of HM Queen Elizabeth II (1950)
10. Peter Phillips, son of The Princess Anne (1977)
11. Zara Phillips, daughter of The Princess Anne (1981)
12. David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley, son of The Princess Margaret (1961)
13. The Honorable Charles Patrick Inigo Armstrong Jones (1999), son of David, Viscount Linley
14. Margarita Elizabeth Rose Alleyne Armstrong-Jones (2002), daughter of David, Viscount Linley
15. Lady Sarah Chatto, daughter of The Princess Margaret (1964)
16. Master Samuel Chatto (1996), son of Lady Sarah Chatto
17. Master Arthur Robert Nathaniel Chatto (1999), son of Lady Sarah Chatto
18. HRH Prince Richard, The (2nd) Duke of Gloucester, surviving son of HRH The Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, who was the 3rd son of HM King George V (1944)
19. Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster (1974), son of Richard, Duke of Gloucester
20. Lady Davina Windsor (1977), daughter of Richard, Duke of Gloucester
21. Lady Rose Windsor (1980), daughter of Richard, Duke of Gloucester
22. HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent (1935), son of George, Duke of Kent
George Windsor, The Earl of St. Andrews (excluded himself from succession by marrying a Roman Catholic)
Edward Windsor, Baron Downpatrick (1988), son of George, Earl of St Andrews - excluded himself by becoming a Roman Catholic
23. Lady Marina Charlotte Windsor (1992), daughter of George, Earl of St Andrews
24. Lady Amelia Windsor (1995), daughter of George, Earl of St Andrews
Lord Nicholas Windsor (1970), son of Edward, Duke of Kent (excluded himself by becoming a Roman Catholic)
25. Lady Helen Taylor (1964), daughter of Edward, Duke of Kent
26. Columbus Taylor (1994), son of Lady Helen Taylor
27. Cassius Taylor (1996), son of Lady Helen Taylor
28. Eloise Taylor (2003), daughter of Lady Helen Taylor
29. Estella Taylor (2004), daughter of Lady Helen Taylor
Prince Michael of Kent, son of George, Duke of Kent (excluded himself from succession by marrying a Roman Catholic)
30. Lord Frederick Windsor (1979), son of Prince Michael of Kent
31. Lady Gabriella Windsor (1981), daughter of Prince Michael of Kent
32. HRH Princess Alexandra. the Hon. Lady Ogilvy (1936), daughter of George, duke of Kent
33. James Ogilvy (1964), son of Princess Alexandra
34. Alexander Ogilvy (1996), son of James Ogilvy
35. Flora Ogilvy (1994), daughter of James Ogilvy
36. Marina Ogilvy (1966), daughter of Princess Alexandra
37. Christian Mowatt (1993), son of Marina Ogilvy
38. Zenouska Mowatt (1990), daughter of Marina Ogilvy
39. George Lascelles, 7th Earl of Harewood (1923), son of Princess Victoria Alexandra Alice Mary & Sir Henry George Charles Lascelles, 6th earl of Harewood
40. David Lascelles, Viscount Lascelles (1950), son of George Lascelles, 7th Earl of Harewood
41. (Hon.) Alexander Lascelles (1980), son of David Lascelles
42. (Hon.) Edward Lascelles (1982), son of David Lascelles
43. (Hon.) James Lascelles (1953), son of George Lascelles, 7th Earl of Harewood
44. Rowan Lascelles (1977), son of James Lascelles
45. Tewa Lascelles (1985), son of James Lascelles
46. Sophie Lascelles (1973), daughter of James Lascelles
47. (Hon.) Jeremy Lascelles (1955), son of George Lascelles, 7th Earl of Harewood
48. Thomas Lascelles (1982), son of Jeremy Lascelles
49. Ellen Lascelles (1984), daughter of Jeremy Lascelles
50. Amy Lascelles (1986), daughter of Jeremy Lascelles

I think I just had a mild stroke reading that.
But thanks for the info.

And thanks the rest of you for clueing me in on the whole royal "thing".
Strange Famous you may be right about America's obsession with the Royals. It's one of my lasting bits of shame about my country. We are so vapid that we have large blocks of pop culture dedicated to keeping up with a group of people we fought two wars to get away from. No offense to anybody out there but whenever Princess Diana's death rolls around it annoys me to no end that we have 5 minutes of newstime dedicated to her passing. Heck I think I've seen more conspiracy theories and specials about her dying than I have concerning Martin Luther King.

Lockjaw · 03-23-2005, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thejoker130

I think we care because the british monarchy takes us back to a time long ago of grand castles, brave knights, and fantastic legends. The idea of Kings and Queens is just a very romantic-esq thought.

As a matter of fact i've always kind of thought in the back of my mind that what america needs is a good king with absolute power (you'll notice the *good* in front of the king.) Because the way our government is now there is too much power in the hands of too many bad people. we need to scale it back a bit.

It's already scary how much power the elites have in this country. Give them birthright power to rule is just flat scary. You guys think two Bushes was bad.

Think how crappy things would be if Jenna got the nod.

Or if Clinton had passed.
Hillary with absolute power? Eeek!
Or say Chelsea and Hill went away...Roger Clinton as king.
**shudder**

Macheath · 03-24-2005, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Happy

This is really only because she chooses not to. Theoretically, she could fire Tony Blair and replace him with an arthritic chimp.

The real question is, would anyone notice?

Well, a lot of Australians noticed when it happened to us back in 1975.

But this; this feels like just another nail in the coffin...

stevie667 · 03-24-2005, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

When the government's power is only restricted by words in a lawbook, the government is unrestrained. Because laws have no power over man.Tradition does.

Very well said.

Janey · 03-24-2005, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muttonglutton

Call me ignorant and hateful...

But why do people still care about this?

Why wouldn't people care about it? with the weight of history, tradition, institutionalism, power, wealth, history. Did i say history? well, what about precedence. Just about every law we have is based on English precedence.

We care because it shows where our nation evolved from. Even if we don't support the institution of monarchy in this day and age* ignoring it is cultural and historical myopia.

I think there is so much more to say on both sides of the "This", but in the end, why deny where we started from?

* I have a bone to pick about the monarchy. We maintain a set of representatives of the head of state in our country. The Governor General (nationally) plus Leiutenant-Governors (provincially). We are always moaning and griping at the cost of maintaining these offices. My question is, if this continues merely to havethe Queeen's representative maintained in Canada, why isn't Buckingham Palace paying the shot????

muttonglutton · 03-24-2005, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janey

Why wouldn't people care about it? with the weight of history, tradition, institutionalism, power, wealth, history. Did i say history? well, what about precedence. Just about every law we have is based on English precedence.

We care because it shows where our nation evolved from. Even if we don't support the institution of monarchy in this day and age* ignoring it is cultural and historical myopia.

I think there is so much more to say on both sides of the "This", but in the end, why deny where we started from?

* I have a bone to pick about the monarchy. We maintain a set of representatives of the head of state in our country. The Governor General (nationally) plus Leiutenant-Governors (provincially). We are always moaning and griping at the cost of maintaining these offices. My question is, if this continues merely to havethe Queeen's representative maintained in Canada, why isn't Buckingham Palace paying the shot????

My words were probably a bit harsh. Yes, monarchy is definitely soemthing we should all know about, and have interest in, as a historical fact, and as a 'remember your roots' sort of thing. But it bears absolutely no significance on life today. They are not God-ordained. They just happened to be born to the right people.

Re: bone.

I also don't see any -good- reason for our country to be paying these representatives either. I'd sooner put the queen on a boat back home than give her a dime of our taxes. Sure, it's where we came from. but we declared independence for a reason.

03-21-2005, 05:41 PM	#2 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	As I understand it, if Philip became King, he would have more power than Elizabeth... As consort he is in his place. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

03-21-2005, 08:11 PM	#4 (permalink)
lindseylatch Addict Location: Seattle, WA	weeeeell, this is a different day and age than that of his great uncle, I would think. And I thought she already agreed to be Consort instead of Queen? That it was part of the marriage contract? But I didn't follow it much, only what little bit I overheard on the news. __________________ "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." -Voltaire

03-21-2005, 08:19 PM	#5 (permalink)
meembo Junkie Location: Connecticut	British royal doings are best watched from afar. You don't need to understand them, just enjoy the circus. __________________ less I say, smarter I am

03-22-2005, 01:53 AM	#9 (permalink)
mazagmot Crazy Location: S. Korea	Why not write some legislation that puts the blood of the windsor line automatically above everyone if they ascend to the throne, and do away with the hierarchy of king over queen? Leave the throne only in the hands of the windsors and maybe avoid some of this fun next time around. __________________ d^_^b Got my headphones on.

03-22-2005, 02:15 AM	#11 (permalink)
mazagmot Crazy Location: S. Korea	If the king is supposed to outrank the queen, then a non-windsor consort to the queen, if given the title king, would ascend to the throne (I think?). I was thinking that if you just say that windsor always outranks if ascending to the throne, then it doesn't matter if they have the title king or queen, they win. Thus, prince-consort Phillip could be king, but it wouldn't matter, since Queen Elizabeth is the one with the blood. I was just trying to think of a way to eliminate the title prince-consort. :-p __________________ d^_^b Got my headphones on.

03-21-2005, 07:54 PM	#3 (permalink)
Cujo Crazy Location: Ontari-ari-ari-O, Canada EH!	I still don't understand why Charles won't be forced to abdicate like his great uncle Edward VIII did. If it wasn't proper for Edward why is it now proper for Charles?

03-22-2005, 01:13 AM	#7 (permalink)
DJ Happy Psycho	I'll have a dab at explaining: The blood monarch (i.e. the individual from the Windsor blood-line) must enjoy an elevated status over everyone else in the House but can still only be awarded a title in matching with their gender. Therefore, if the blood monarch is a woman ((like the current Queen Elizabeth II), then she can only be called a Queen and must be the highest ranking individual in the house. The person she marries cannot be called the King as he would then rank above her. As such, he is awarded the title of Prince Consort, ranking him above other princes but below the Queen. If the blood monarch is a man, however, he will be the King and his wife will be the Queen. In the case of Prince Charles and Horse-Face, the objection to her becoming Queen is not a legal one but more of a moral one. Because of the affection the public has for the late Lady Diana, it was decided that Camilla should not become Queen once Charles succeeds his mummy. In the case of Edward the VIII's abdication, that was necessary as he was marrying a divorcee, unnacceptable for someone who would become head of the Church of England. Although it appears to be perfectly acceptable for the head of the Church of England to be a divorcee himself, thanks in part to Henry VIII.

03-22-2005, 02:10 AM	#10 (permalink)
DJ Happy Psycho	What do you mean? The throne is only in the hands of the Windsors. That's the whole point. Only a Windsor can ascend to the throne.

03-22-2005, 04:20 AM	#12 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	Thanks for the explanation DJ Happy....I wasnt aware that a King over ruled a Queen even if the Queen was the one with the blood line. __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

03-22-2005, 04:54 AM	#13 (permalink)
DJ Happy Psycho	No problem. To be honest, I can't stand the Royal family myself. I find the whole concept antiquated, elitist and irrelevant.

03-22-2005, 10:54 AM	#16 (permalink)
Lockjaw Junkie	And Prince Charles isn't a horse-face? But somebody answer this one for me. Let's say....Henry and William(is that their names? The sons of Philip?) Both die. William falls off another horse or something and snaps his neck, and Henry gets shot in a bad drug deal or something. Queen Elizabeth then kicks off. Charles would be king and Camila would be queen. Now let's say he dies. Who would become the ruler? Would Camilla become queen? Would some other blue blood Brit get the crown? What gives there? So very confusing. I admire the British I really do. But one thing has always confounded my American sensibilities...why put up with the Royals? Seriously is there ANYBODY under 40 that cares about them any more?

03-22-2005, 11:11 AM	#17 (permalink)
thejoker130 Insane Location: slippery rock university AKA: The left ass cheek of the world	If all the direct heirs to the throne suddenly kick off then the blood line would probably switch over to Camila of no other suitable heir could be found. therefore any children of hers could be next in line to the throne. But in the case of the british monarchy there are legitimate heirs in line to the throne all over the freaking place. Poyzun used to date a guy who had a cousin, who's now a plumber, that was some rediculous number in line to the throne. __________________ WHAT MORE CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR IF NOT FOR THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN? ------------------------------------- I like you. When the world is mine your death will be quick and painless.

03-22-2005, 11:42 AM	#18 (permalink)
superiorrain Psycho Location: London	I'm think if all those royals died then i think i'd be next in line, makes sense to me. __________________ "The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible." - Arthur C. Clarke

03-22-2005, 11:45 AM	#19 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	here is the succession line taken from here http://www.etoile.co.uk/Rsucc.html 1. HRH The Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales (1948) 2. HRH Prince William of Wales, eldest son of The Prince Charles (1982) 3. HRH Prince Henry of Wales, younger son of The Prince Charles (1984) 4. HRH The Prince Andrew, The Duke of York, second son of HM Queen Elizabeth II (1960) 5. HRH Princess Beatrice of York, elder daughter of The Prince Andrew (1988) 6. HRH Princess Eugenie of York, younger daughter of The Prince Andrew (1990) 7. HRH The Prince Edward, The Earl of Wessex, youngest son of HM Queen Elizabeth II (1964) 8. Lady Louise Alice Elizabeth Mary Mountbatten Windsor, daughter of HRH The Prince Edward, The Earl of Wessex (2003) 9. HRH The Princess Anne, The Princess Royal, only daughter of HM Queen Elizabeth II (1950) 10. Peter Phillips, son of The Princess Anne (1977) 11. Zara Phillips, daughter of The Princess Anne (1981) 12. David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley, son of The Princess Margaret (1961) 13. The Honorable Charles Patrick Inigo Armstrong Jones (1999), son of David, Viscount Linley 14. Margarita Elizabeth Rose Alleyne Armstrong-Jones (2002), daughter of David, Viscount Linley 15. Lady Sarah Chatto, daughter of The Princess Margaret (1964) 16. Master Samuel Chatto (1996), son of Lady Sarah Chatto 17. Master Arthur Robert Nathaniel Chatto (1999), son of Lady Sarah Chatto 18. HRH Prince Richard, The (2nd) Duke of Gloucester, surviving son of HRH The Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, who was the 3rd son of HM King George V (1944) 19. Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster (1974), son of Richard, Duke of Gloucester 20. Lady Davina Windsor (1977), daughter of Richard, Duke of Gloucester 21. Lady Rose Windsor (1980), daughter of Richard, Duke of Gloucester 22. HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent (1935), son of George, Duke of Kent George Windsor, The Earl of St. Andrews (excluded himself from succession by marrying a Roman Catholic) Edward Windsor, Baron Downpatrick (1988), son of George, Earl of St Andrews - excluded himself by becoming a Roman Catholic 23. Lady Marina Charlotte Windsor (1992), daughter of George, Earl of St Andrews 24. Lady Amelia Windsor (1995), daughter of George, Earl of St Andrews Lord Nicholas Windsor (1970), son of Edward, Duke of Kent (excluded himself by becoming a Roman Catholic) 25. Lady Helen Taylor (1964), daughter of Edward, Duke of Kent 26. Columbus Taylor (1994), son of Lady Helen Taylor 27. Cassius Taylor (1996), son of Lady Helen Taylor 28. Eloise Taylor (2003), daughter of Lady Helen Taylor 29. Estella Taylor (2004), daughter of Lady Helen Taylor Prince Michael of Kent, son of George, Duke of Kent (excluded himself from succession by marrying a Roman Catholic) 30. Lord Frederick Windsor (1979), son of Prince Michael of Kent 31. Lady Gabriella Windsor (1981), daughter of Prince Michael of Kent 32. HRH Princess Alexandra. the Hon. Lady Ogilvy (1936), daughter of George, duke of Kent 33. James Ogilvy (1964), son of Princess Alexandra 34. Alexander Ogilvy (1996), son of James Ogilvy 35. Flora Ogilvy (1994), daughter of James Ogilvy 36. Marina Ogilvy (1966), daughter of Princess Alexandra 37. Christian Mowatt (1993), son of Marina Ogilvy 38. Zenouska Mowatt (1990), daughter of Marina Ogilvy 39. George Lascelles, 7th Earl of Harewood (1923), son of Princess Victoria Alexandra Alice Mary & Sir Henry George Charles Lascelles, 6th earl of Harewood 40. David Lascelles, Viscount Lascelles (1950), son of George Lascelles, 7th Earl of Harewood 41. (Hon.) Alexander Lascelles (1980), son of David Lascelles 42. (Hon.) Edward Lascelles (1982), son of David Lascelles 43. (Hon.) James Lascelles (1953), son of George Lascelles, 7th Earl of Harewood 44. Rowan Lascelles (1977), son of James Lascelles 45. Tewa Lascelles (1985), son of James Lascelles 46. Sophie Lascelles (1973), daughter of James Lascelles 47. (Hon.) Jeremy Lascelles (1955), son of George Lascelles, 7th Earl of Harewood 48. Thomas Lascelles (1982), son of Jeremy Lascelles 49. Ellen Lascelles (1984), daughter of Jeremy Lascelles 50. Amy Lascelles (1986), daughter of Jeremy Lascelles __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

03-22-2005, 03:22 PM	#23 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	My mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's father's father's father's father (I think, I almost certainly miscounted somewhere in there, but it is a maternal then paternal line) was a noble of some kind, and killed by King Charles I for being overly sympathetic to the Cromwellian cause. (His son fled to America. His son fought against the NY-staters who wanted to annex Vermont (green mountain rebellion?). His son fled to Canada as a Loyalist after the Colonial Tax-revolt of 1775.) So, it's quite possible I'm about the 1 billionth (or so) in line to the throne. . . =) Personally, I view the Monarchy as a reminder that government exists solely at the consent of the governed. In the event that the government goes wrong, an ambiguous contest of legitimacy between parliament and the monarchy exists. A check and balance on the grandest scale. And I'd like to thank the English for paying for my Queen's upkeep/rent. Thank you! You are keeping her nice and shiny. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

03-22-2005, 03:34 PM	#24 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	/eddie izzard voice But in Britain we don't win many gold medals at the Olympics… because we've chosen not to! It's a political statement! Because we hate our national anthem. Because it's “God Save the Queen,” you see? “God Save the Queen.” Now the Queen lives in a very big house, she has barbed wire outside, and people with guns in front of that. That's one saved fucking queen, I'll tell you! That's the problem! She's overly saved! She has no idea of the struggle of human existence. We have to work for a living, raise a family… we don't have nannies all running around the place. It's what you've got to do in your life, you know? So it's "God Save the Queen." No! It's too saved. It's "God Attack the Queen," that's what it should be! ( singing ) "God attack the Queen, send big dogs after her that bite her bum. Let them chase after her and rip her knickers off..." That'd be fantastic! Then she'd have to fight the crazy dog with a handbag with a brick inside of it. "Crazy dog! Crazy dog!" "Arrgghh, kill the Queen!" "No - crazy dog!" And maybe she'd kill the crazy dog and everyone in Britain would go, "Hey, fair play to the Queen,- killed the crazy dog." And the Queen would have self-respect for the first time in her life! Yes. It would work. It'd be fantabulous. /end eddie voice I think I just jacked my own thread __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!* Last edited by ShaniFaye; 03-22-2005 at 03:41 PM..

03-22-2005, 09:19 PM	#25 (permalink)
guthmund big damn hero	I was wondering when Izzard would make an appearance! I swear ever since I saw his special on HBO, everytime I see the Queen on television I hear "Crazy Dog! Crazy Dog!" Gold star for ShaniFaye and thank you for flying Church of England. __________________ No signature. None. Seriously.

03-22-2005, 09:40 PM	#26 (permalink)
lindseylatch Addict Location: Seattle, WA	cake or death? __________________ "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." -Voltaire

03-22-2005, 09:48 PM	#27 (permalink)
muttonglutton Crazy Location: K-W. Err... -dot.	Call me ignorant and hateful... But why do people still care about this? __________________ Cellar Door.

03-22-2005, 11:11 PM	#28 (permalink)
mazagmot Crazy Location: S. Korea	Because it has a lot of history behind it. They've been doing it for so long, it's kind of hard to stop now. And, it's their government. Let them do what they want. __________________ d^_^b Got my headphones on.

03-23-2005, 01:56 AM	#31 (permalink)
DJ Happy Psycho	This is really only because she chooses not to. Theoretically, she could fire Tony Blair and replace him with an arthritic chimp. The real question is, would anyone notice?

03-23-2005, 10:14 AM	#33 (permalink)
thejoker130 Insane Location: slippery rock university AKA: The left ass cheek of the world	I think we care because the british monarchy takes us back to a time long ago of grand castles, brave knights, and fantastic legends. The idea of Kings and Queens is just a very romantic-esq thought. As a matter of fact i've always kind of thought in the back of my mind that what america needs is a good king with absolute power (you'll notice the good in front of the king.) Because the way our government is now there is too much power in the hands of too many bad people. we need to scale it back a bit. __________________ WHAT MORE CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR IF NOT FOR THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN? ------------------------------------- I like you. When the world is mine your death will be quick and painless.

03-23-2005, 11:09 AM	#34 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	Modern Constitutional Monarchies are ambiguous institutions. While the US holds up the Constitution as the basis of their government, Constitutional Monarchies hold up comprimise. You do things because that is what works. You don't do things because it doesn't work. Sure, the Queen is increadibly powerful. On paper. If the Queen exercised that power, the government might feel ethically justified in opposing the Queen. In the same way, if the government exercised their power, the Queen might feel ethically justified in opposing the government. In the USA, opposing the President is opposing the State, an act many associate with treason. In Britian and Canada, the Prime Minister is technically just a functionary (with lots of power) -- opposing the PM is just disagreeing with one elected random joe, not the personified embodyment of the nation. Meanwhile, the head of state, the Queen, does very little. You can hold her up as a figurehead -- and while opposing her is technically treason, she doesn't stand for any political policies. Disagreeing with the government is no longer treason. Saying your head of government is an idiot, an asshole, or a fool is acceptable. When the government's power is only restricted by words in a lawbook, the government is unrestrained. Because laws have no power over man. Tradition does. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.