Question for British Folk and/or Smart Dudes and/or Ladies

[Chancellor Valium]

Philip is of royal blood. He's also a Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, but from the Greek end of the family. But he's not close enough to the throne-line to be King. He's consort. In fact, we have rarely had 'king and queen' - the only example I can think of is Williamandmary, but this wasn't actually a king and queen. As any true historian knows, 'they' were in, in point of fact, an orange.

[Sa'ar Chasm]

The rank of reigning monarch goes to the eldest son through male descendants to the eldest female.

Wikipedia tells me there's been some discussion about changing the succession laws to reflect the fact that we no longer live in a paternal chauvinistic society, but there are two complications. One, due to the nature and structure of the Commonwealth, all the various Realms would have to change their laws at the same time to avoid successions of different people to different "crowns", and secondly there aren't any women in the senior line of succession (Chuck, Wills and Harry) so it doesn't actually make a difference at the moment.

Other European monarchies like Denmark* have either made these changes or are in the process of making them so that the Crown descends to the eldest child of the monarch, regardless of gender (it only took the Numenoreans about ten or twelve High Kings to figure this out).

* your mileage may vary. I don't have the Wikipedia article in front of me, so it might be Norway or Luxembourg or Belgium rather than Denmark.

[ijdgaf]

So what about Charles and Camilla? Assuming that they don't skip his generation alltogether, will they be King and Queen once Elizabeth II passes away? Or is she barred as well?

[Nate the Great]

Not to sound insensitive, but why do you guys care? Even if a bunch of you are Canadian, you guys split off almost a hundred years ago, right? And even for official British subjects, the royal family hasn't weilded any real power in hundreds of years, right?

[Dragon Frost]

Originally Posted by Nate the Great

Not to sound insensitive, but why do you guys care? Even if a bunch of you are Canadian, you guys split off almost a hundred years ago, right? And even for official British subjects, the royal family hasn't weilded any real power in hundreds of years, right?

Wrong

A:- the royal famaly still is the biggest land holder in the world. All the land of the common wealth and united kingdom is owned by the royal famaly. We only manage it (alright a little bit simplified but I can't be bothered looking it up)

B:-Every law has to be ratified by her magisty, requiring her signiture before it becomes legal... Though she cannot go against public opinion. The end result is a lot of back room politics and back yard tricks where her "Advisors" talk with the civil servants (who really run the place) and kill most of the REALLY bad tricks. (This, and many preivous, govenments use the media to sway public opinion, forceing her to agree before splitting the govenment and weakening the nation)

C:- End of the day ALL BRITISH AND COLONIAL troups answer to the Royal Family as they are the field marshals/ lords of the admeralty and all the rest. Once again they have to bow before the presure of the elected government as disruption will damage the whole countery.


The Queen is a stop gap in politics. Lets take an example:- Mr A. Hitler got into power by controling both the figure head and the paliment of germany (for you americans lets say the same party was both the President AND three quarters of the congress). From that possition he was able to force laws and maintain his own grip on power. After he was VOTED in to office.
The Queen (or any royal figure head) is what stops someone like Mr Hitler from getting too much power. So its a pritty good idea to have one.

So thats the power of our royal famaly. Now can we find something more interesting like Smallville (... like shooting fish in a barrel) or Doctor Who (rapidly heading the same way) ?

OH yes nate, you mentioned the fact the royals cost us money. 50 pence a year. Did you know that it cost EVERYONE in the United kingdom £10 to build the Millenium dome, good use of money that... How about the BILLIONS spent on the NHS (national health service) that went to consultants that couldn't tell a pre ganglionic fiber from a post ganglionic nerve? The fact that for his priviet holidays Tony Blair used the Royal plane (useing the very money you compain about the royals costing)? Shall I list the rest of the almighty cock ups or just shut up again?

I think I'll shut up

[Dragon Frost]

Originally Posted by ijdgaf

So what about Charles and Camilla? Assuming that they don't skip his generation alltogether, will they be King and Queen once Elizabeth II passes away? Or is she barred as well?

I was so busy ranting I missed this one

No. She will be the princess consort as Diana was the mother of the princes. Thus deserving of the title Queen. Camilla's decendants (unless from Charles... ugh) have no clame to the throne.

[ijdgaf]

Ah, that is actually logical.

So if Diana were alive, she and Charles would qualify to be King and Queen?

[Chancellor Valium]

Originally Posted by ijdgaf

Ah, that is actually logical.

So if Diana were alive, she and Charles would qualify to be King and Queen?

No - she wasn't of royal blood. I think that's the case, anyway...

@InfImp: Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Fiji (I think), Malta (I think), Gibraltar (pretty certain), The Falklands (damned certain), possibly India and Pakistan, technically all Normandy [in reality, the Channel Islands only], and several other areas I don't remember all owe alleigance to the Queen. Her Majesty is still head of the Canadian Parliament, and technically still ruler of Canada (although in practice the Governor General (or Governor-General?) rules on her behalf and pays her some lip-service occasionally.)

To say nothing of historical, cultural and economic ties to Britain which are in some ways a lot stronger than with the USMA.

In political terms, the Queen, like the Lord Chancellor, is a convenient dohick that stops the whole pile of corrupt, greedy, insane, eccentric, money or power-grubbing, ambitious, obsessive/compulsives from collapsing and dragging the UK with it. She restricts the power of the Prime Minister, while Parliament restricts her power, and the Law Lords and the judicial system keep a close watch (in theory) on both of them.

[Sa'ar Chasm]

Officially, the UK and the Commonwealth Realms (such as Canada) are in personal union - this means they are separate countries that just happen to share the same head of state.

In Canada, the Queen is represented by the Governor-General (a Canadian citizen selected by the PM since about 1953, and a female ethnic minority for the past ten years or so, but that's got nothing to do with anything). Officially, the GG summons and dissolves Parliament, gives royal assent to all pieces of legislation passed, and does all the ceremonial useless stuff that the PM doesn't have time to waste on. In practice, the GG is the PM's lapdog and does what s/he's told. After the King-Byng affair, the Supreme Court of Canada decided...uhhh...something. I don't recall the details, but the gist of it was for the GG to sit down, shut up and let the PM get on with the business of governing. The GG is largely a figurehead nowadays, despite being head of state and having a fancier house than the head of government (the PM).

One of the weirdest things for both Americans and Commonwealth citizens to wrap their minds around is that there are many, many, *many* countries with both a President and a PM. We're used to one or the other.