Reply
Honored Contributor
Posts: 8,783
Registered: ‎03-11-2010

Re: A question about British monarchy

As you can see by the line of succession the male thing has been changed.

And things that go bump in the night!!
Honored Contributor
Posts: 31,868
Registered: ‎08-19-2010

Re: A question about British monarchy

Princess Royal, Anne, would had been next in line if that new rule had been available back then. In the event Charles would be deceased she would be next up, not automatically going to one of Charles's brothers.

Honored Contributor
Posts: 8,834
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

Re: A question about British monarchy


@SharkE wrote:

Princess Royal, Anne, would had been next in line if that new rule had been available back then. In the event Charles would be deceased she would be next up, not automatically going to one of Charles's brothers.


But by Charles having a child prior to being deceased then it would have never been a sibling.

"Live frugally, but love extravagantly."
Respected Contributor
Posts: 2,374
Registered: ‎02-04-2014

Re: A question about British monarchy

I personally would like to see the whole monarchy abolished, as well as many Brits who believe the Parliament is sufficient to rule.  I understand the Queen is necessary in order to measure the distance between the dinner plate vs. the utensils prior to an official dinner. 

 

Do the Brits care if any of our President's daughters are having a baby, flying to Africa, or is donning the latest fashion?   No.   

Honored Contributor
Posts: 8,834
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

Re: A question about British monarchy


@seaBreeze wrote:

I personally would like to see the whole monarchy abolished, as well as many Brits who believe the Parliament is sufficient to rule.  I understand the Queen is necessary in order to measure the distance between the dinner plate vs. the utensils prior to an official dinner. 

 

Do the Brits care if any of our President's daughters are having a baby, flying to Africa, or is donning the latest fashion?   No.   


The tourism $$ for that country has a lot to with Royalty still in existence @seaBreeze.  Lot of jobs and ect...... for their economy.

"Live frugally, but love extravagantly."
Highlighted
Honored Contributor
Posts: 31,868
Registered: ‎08-19-2010

Re: A question about British monarchy


@beckyb1012 wrote:

@SharkE wrote:

Princess Royal, Anne, would had been next in line if that new rule had been available back then. In the event Charles would be deceased she would be next up, not automatically going to one of Charles's brothers.


But by Charles having a child prior to being deceased then it would have never been a sibling.


True, I was just thinking of a young Charles. He was middle aged by the time he did marry. In historic times Royal kids sometimes became King really, really young. Disease, accidents, assasinations, etc.

Honored Contributor
Posts: 31,868
Registered: ‎08-19-2010

Re: A question about British monarchy


@seaBreeze wrote:

I personally would like to see the whole monarchy abolished, as well as many Brits who believe the Parliament is sufficient to rule.  I understand the Queen is necessary in order to measure the distance between the dinner plate vs. the utensils prior to an official dinner. 

 

Do the Brits care if any of our President's daughters are having a baby, flying to Africa, or is donning the latest fashion?   No.   


 

I' ve read where the British are captivated by the Kennedys. Especially, Jackie. Now, that's what I can't figure.

 

I don't torture myself , I have a husband for that, so, if I don't like stories on the Kennedys, etc. I don't discuss them , skip over threads, etc.

 

Works for me.

Respected Contributor
Posts: 2,399
Registered: ‎07-16-2017

Re: A question about British monarchy


@RainCityWoman wrote:

I am always amused at this thing the Brits have with preference and titles automatically given to male heirs. One of the world's greatest monarchs in history and certainly in British history was Queen Elizabeth I, daughter of Henry VIII. She left no heirs, but ruled with determination and strength. Her navy defeated the invincible Spanish Armada, and her reign was to explore the world and increase British territory. The Age of Elizabeth was the Age of Shaespeare, and he wrote to please his Qyeen. When her cousin in Scotland began an uprising against her, she took the bold step to have her beheaded for treason. She was a gutsy lady. At her death, the British throne reverted to James the 6th of Scotland who became James I of England. He carried on with the strengths Elizabeth had in her reign. She didn't pass on the crown to any progeny, but her legacy has dominated in history.


King James was Queen Mary [cousin of Queen Elizabeth] of Scotlands son. So she was beheaded but then her son became king of England.King James version of the bible is widely used today.I find all of this very interesting as many people do which is why some people follow the monarchy.Times sure do change.

Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 6,460
Registered: ‎06-16-2015

Re: A question about British monarchy


@beckyb1012 wrote:

@seaBreeze wrote:

I personally would like to see the whole monarchy abolished, as well as many Brits who believe the Parliament is sufficient to rule.  I understand the Queen is necessary in order to measure the distance between the dinner plate vs. the utensils prior to an official dinner. 

 

Do the Brits care if any of our President's daughters are having a baby, flying to Africa, or is donning the latest fashion?   No.   


The tourism $$ for that country has a lot to with Royalty still in existence @seaBreeze.  Lot of jobs and ect...... for their economy.


Thank you. I was just going to say the same thing, and when asked about it, most of the Brits are staunchly behind tradition. They want their royalty. I think more of the resistance comes from Scotland, but that's not surprising.

Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 6,460
Registered: ‎06-16-2015

Re: A question about British monarchy

[ Edited ]

@hellie jo wrote:

@RainCityWoman wrote:

I am always amused at this thing the Brits have with preference and titles automatically given to male heirs. One of the world's greatest monarchs in history and certainly in British history was Queen Elizabeth I, daughter of Henry VIII. She left no heirs, but ruled with determination and strength. Her navy defeated the invincible Spanish Armada, and her reign was to explore the world and increase British territory. The Age of Elizabeth was the Age of Shaespeare, and he wrote to please his Qyeen. When her cousin in Scotland began an uprising against her, she took the bold step to have her beheaded for treason. She was a gutsy lady. At her death, the British throne reverted to James the 6th of Scotland who became James I of England. He carried on with the strengths Elizabeth had in her reign. She didn't pass on the crown to any progeny, but her legacy has dominated in history.


King James was Queen Mary [cousin of Queen Elizabeth] of Scotlands son. So she was beheaded but then her son became king of England.King James version of the bible is widely used today.I find all of this very interesting as many people do which is why some people follow the monarchy.Times sure do change.


The basis of the bad blood between Mary Queen of Scots and Elizabeth I had to do with Catholicism versus Protestantism. Elizabeth's father renounced the Catholic faith when Catherine of Aragon did not give him a male heir, so he divorced her, which was not allowed in the Catholic Church.  Hence, the Church of England emerged dominant in England. However, Elizabeth's death with no heirs at least served to unify Scotland and England under one rule.