Elizabeth is Queen Why is not Phillp King?

[dscottsw]

I've always liked the line attributed to Princess Margaret, when someone maladroitly asked her "How is the Queen?"

"Do you mean my sister, my mother, or my husband?"

LOL - had never heard that one - LOVED it!

And thanks, MTLDude, I did mean Edward...not Andrew (but with good old Sarah being on the brain recently...)

And thanks too, Unloadonme, Elizabeth the Queen Mother was also the a Queen Dowager...

 

[Yuki Sohma]

Good morning JUBers!! It is currently 7:00 am PDST here on the US West Coast & shaping up to be a beautiful "Pacific Northwest Type of Summer's Day."

After I posted this thread I almost immediately went shopping on "eBay" & then found myself shopping & dining with a friend so I was away from JUB for the remainder of the evening.

Unfortunately, here in the past year-or-so, I have found myself away from JUB all too often but "I Have Always" & "I Still do Maintain" that there is a load of knowledge amongst us em' JUBers

& as MikeyLove (Mikey my ex- lover lives in Tucson) said so well & if I may quote Mikey--

... Thanks for the History lessons

He (Phillip) is not a prince of England. He (Phillip) is a prince of the United Kingdom.

Also, if I may, I apologize to my United Kingdom friends for I meant no disrespect in my comments relating Phillip as "The Prince of England" & not as a "Prince of the United Kingdom." Although the "Sun might have set" on the British Empire I believe that the "Sun still does & will always shine on the United Kingdom."

I have read each response & I truly thank all you beautiful JUBers who have philled (filled) us in on this topic ............Peace

 

[Glenn2507]

Short rule:

Marry a king and you become queen. Marry a queen and you become prince.

 

[bankside]

I believe the Act of Settlement (1701) is still in effect, which means no Catholics.

Though Phillip was not Catholic, I think that he nonetheless was heavy pressured into converting to Anglicanism.

I don't think it would be a question of "heavy pressure." It wouldn't have even been open for discussion. His fiancée, in addition to becoming Queen, would also become "Supreme Governor of the Church of England." You kind of have to stick with the program when you marry into that family, and any other option simply would not have been considered for Philip.

It is arguable whether it would matter to Canada, where the Queen's religion is her own business - we have no government religion.

However, catholicism in particular might still be a problem because the Pope is not just a pastor to his sheep, he is a head of state. And so far anyone in our federal system has been pressured into giving up any allegiance they might have through dual citizenship. For example, Michaëlle Jean had to give up French citizenship when she became the vicereine. If the Vatican gave up the pretence of being a state, it might make a difference.

Ultimately though all the Commonwealth countries are committed to unity in the selection of the monarch, which means that indirectly, Canada, Australia, NZ, and half the Caribbean are still bound by the Act of Settlement in its own terms.

 

[Legion]

You cannot, via the act of settlement marry a catholic, or anyone who has ever been a Catholic, regardless of if they convert later.

If you do marry a Catholic, you lose all rights to the crown, though you may be allowed to keep your titles these days.

 

[SilverSurfer]

Fascinating thread!

 

[fewbar]

You cannot, via the act of settlement marry a catholic, or anyone who has ever been a Catholic, regardless of if they convert later.

If you do marry a Catholic, you lose all rights to the crown, though you may be allowed to keep your titles these days.

It's not really that you CAN'T. Lots of royals have married Catholics. One of the Gloucester princes have. Or was it Kent.

Anyway ... you CAN marry a Catholic but if you do, you lose your place in the succession.

 

[kevinbeau]

monarchy ,is throughout history, a man's game.
..as stated before, at the death of george VI, his two girls were in line...if both had died without heir, the throne would have gone back to an elder male.........the queen regnant, means that,........ a queen ,who is not a consort(wife), but a reigning queen...
old crazy georgeIII, had many children, after his death, the succession, had to go thru his sons, one at a time, down to queen victoria's father,( who died before she ascended the throne...otherwise, he'd have been king)...england, though heavily saxon/german, did not follow salic law...

in most countries of europe, the idea of salic law, was upheld....briefly, men 1st, no queen regnants(from the salian franks, and their laws of primogeniture...much debated)..
..when the emperor leopold knew he hadn't a male heir, there was a scurring around the empire and all europe, for a signing of ,'the pragmatic sanction', an authorized change in the traditional laws....which would allow his daughter( the amazing) maria theresa, to become the ruler of the then, archduchy of austria....queen regnant of bohemia and hungary.9which didn't follow salic law per. se.)...no amount of pressure would disturb the imperial succession...so her husband francis of lorraine, was elected emperor....and maria theresa became empress/consort........

oddly, by marring francis, and their heirs becoming rulers, the main male line of the old hapsburg family was extinct, it was decided, that the family name would remain as hapsburg-lorraine.....although francis as a male, and duke of lorraine(then tuscany) should have the premier name, thus lorraine-hapsburg....but it wasn't so

mathilda, may have been the ist queen of england, though uncrowned...............edward VIII, the duke of windsor, was never crowned, and yet, he is included in the succession books...........

 

[jbrulé]

On the side note, Prince Charles will succeed Queen Elizabeth II after she steps down

 

[kevinbeau]

i seriously doubt, her majesty, will step down...she has done an amazing job for her people, and she is still going strong............in order for stability in the monarchy, after the deplorable scandals....i think the divine order of her throne might be close to her heart...god chose her....he will decide when she passes............

if charles dies before his mother, then the 2 boys step up....although i'm taken by him, prince harry, is obviously not charles' son................how would the nation react, if his brother william, were to preceed him?

 

[kevinbeau]

So, what exactly qualifies that family as so much "better" or "more important" or "more entitled" that they automatically get to be the Royal Family? Why them and not some other family? Particularly some more interesting, more honorable and certainly much better looking family? How did the Windsors get the job?

you are probablly joking but,

the way it works is that families, dynasties started way back, or at any specific time in history....in europe, for example each country has had many rulers, many dynasties...................often the 1st ruler in his line,came to power through, war, marriage or luck....sweden's royal family the bernadottes, are relatively new...one of napoleon's men, took the throne, and gone were the vasas of centuries past...

england has had a king for a very long time, different families ruled...the plantaganets in the early miggle ages... when they died out, there were civil wars, different rulers (the war of the roses was between the house of york, and the house of lancaster)...the tudors started with henry VII, and reigned until the childless elizabeth I, had to turn her throne over to her ex-enemy/cousin mary of scotland'son, james I...his family was the stuarts.....

they ruled, got their head chopped off, ruled again.,etc, succeeded.... until there were no close,protestant, heirs to the throne ....so the succession went back through the family, then forward in the female line, to the duke/elector of hanover in the german lands...england's georgeI.................his descendents lasted to victoria, she married albert, of the house of saxe-coburg-gotha.......and their children bore that family name...later, when england was fighting germany in wwI...the family changed their name to windsor (after the castle)..it sounded english.....

so we have this very german family, ruling england( elizabeth ,the queen mother was a scot, and diana was english, but all the other wives, queens etc were germans).......thru the idea of 'divine right' elizabeth II is queen, and has been 'anointed' at her coronation,..............that's the way it was/is.

.the windsors do a very good job at 'the business' except for the sex scandals, and last, the duchess of york's shocking attempt of'selling intro' to her ex-husband.............the queen, can be ridiculed, insulted,or ignored, but she has ,at least, held up her end of the bargain............

 

[bankside]

So, what exactly qualifies that family as so much "better" or "more important" or "more entitled" that they automatically get to be the Royal Family? Why them and not some other family? Particularly some more interesting, more honorable and certainly much better looking family? How did the Windsors get the job?

Billionaires with jobs and a sense of duty to country: Gives the Windsors something to do, keeps them out of trouble, promoting charities, greeting ambassadors, cutting ribbons.

Billionaires without jobs or a sense of duty to country: Paris Hilton. Enough said.


The Royals are living historians, and they have the job whether they want it or not. We might as well get the benefits of our side of that deal.

 

[unloadonme]

I believe Belgium still uses Salic law- only males in line of succession.

No. In Belgium, the 1991 Act of Succession changed that and it's now the eldest child who succeeds. The present King's eldest child is male but the eldest grandchild is female.

 

[unloadonme]

if charles dies before his mother, then the 2 boys step up....although i'm taken by him, prince harry, is obviously not charles' son ................ how would the nation react, if his brother william, were to preceed him?

William is the elder brother and therefore the heir. Harry is the spare. The nation expects William to be King in due course, not Harry.

 

[MTLDude]

(...)
Also, if I may, I apologize to my United Kingdom friends for I meant no disrespect in my comments relating Phillip as "The Prince of England" & not as a "Prince of the United Kingdom." Although the "Sun might have set" on the British Empire I believe that the "Sun still does & will always shine on the United Kingdom."

I have read each response & I truly thank all you beautiful JUBers who have philled (filled) us in on this topic ............Peace

Thanks for alluding to that Yuki, it gives me the occasion to retell a joke that one of my university professor made once:

Do you know why, the sun never set on the British Empire? Because doe's not trust the British in the dark!

 

[Yooper]

I've always liked the line attributed to Princess Margaret, when someone maladroitly asked her "How is the Queen?"

"Do you mean my sister, my mother, or my husband?"

This reminds me of a very old, tasteless joke (which I've edited to bring it slightly up to date):

A number of years ago before Diana married Charles, the Queen decided to take Diana out for a drive in the Rolls-Royce for a little 'girl time.'

Happily driving along on a country road, a disheveled man flagged them down. They stopped the car to inquire what was wrong. Turns out he was up to no good and forced the ladies to give up the car, thankfully not harming them.

The two decided to walk back to the Castle as there was no other choice.

Trudging along in silence, Diana remarked to the Queen 'Well, that was quite frightening. At least he didn't rob us!'

To which the Queen replied, 'Well, didn't he though? He took the engagement ring my Son gave to you!'

With some embarrassment, Diana admitted to hiding the ring 'down there.'

A bit later, Diana asked the Queen 'Well, weren't you wearing that lovely Tiara? I thought he took that?'

With much more embarrassment, the Queen admitted to the same hiding place.

Quite some time later, the Queen said to Diana 'It is too bad we didn't have Margaret come along with us. We could have saved the Rolls.'

 

[kevinbeau]

when i said 'preceed' him, i meant in death....if prince william preceeds , dies first, or ,dies before prince charles......and charles died...... prince 'harry' would ascend the throne...........i'm talking alot of ifs here.........but untimely royal deaths are more common than one might think...diana, of course, princess grace(not a royal house in the strict sense), astrid, and prince philip's sister...the spanish hapsburgs barely made it to their end.....if princess caroline's husband were considered royal, he is dead...victoria's son,..... and hemophelia with the romanoffs....the wittlesbachs were romanticaly 'mad', and the family lost ,empress elizabeth, her son,rudolph, her brother-in law maximillian( carlotta's instability was to be expected of the belgian house),and dear old ludwig II of bavaria,

.......to get to the point, would england balk at such an obvious illegitimate prince? or would it be hushed up, as it is now...extremely kind of charles, to be so loving...i think highly of him,and his apparantly good paranting (as opposed to his own).......it's not the boys fault...but he's not of windsor blood...diana did not 'do her job'....

 

[MTLDude]

Thanks for alluding to that Yuki, it gives me the occasion to retell a joke that one of my university professor made once:

Do you know why, the sun never set on the British Empire? Because doe's not trust the British in the dark!

Oups!

The joke was supposed to be Because God does not trust the british in the dark!

 

[longhornsfan212]

The recent posts about the future of the British monarchy reminded me of a question I've had since there's been so much talk in the media lately about the possibility of Scotland breaking away from the United Kingdom (political experts say that it's unlikely but who knows?). If Scotland did regain its independence, would Queen Elizabeth II remain the head of state, or would a Stuart pretender be asked to take the throne, or would Edinburgh declare a republic? I don't know if I've seen this question addressed anywhere so I'd be interested to hear the views of some of the people here who seem quite knowledgeable about the monarchy. I've also always wondered, since Elizabeth I was only Queen of England, and never Queen of Scots, why hasn't Queen Elizabeth II been known in Scotland as "Queen Elizabeth I"?

 

[bankside]

William is the elder brother and therefore the heir. Harry is the spare. The nation expects William to be King in due course, not Harry.

Charles is the Heir Apparent - meaning no one can be born who can displace him in the succession to the throne. Elizabeth was only Heir Presumptive (Heiress Presumptive?), meaning that had her father had a son, he would have replaced Elizabeth in the line of succession at the moment of his birth.

I don't know if it is proper to call William an Heir Apparent, or if we have to wait for the Buffoon to inherit the throne before they'd call William that.

Heir Apparent Once Removed? Heir Apparent Apparent.

Hmm.