The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Elizabeth is Queen Why is not Phillp King?

Okay, I read through all the posts.

And I still don't understand why Philip is not the king. :confused:
 
Zoopee said:
If Scotland became independent, the Queen would stay as Head of State, at least to begin with. The SNP (the pro-indepence party and current government in Scotland) are essentially neutral on the monarchy. Scotland overall is a bit more republican than England though, so there's possibly more chance of them being ditched at some point, though the Queen and Prince Charles are personally pretty popular, and the monarchy is traditionally very fond of Scotland (the Queen and some of her family are currently holidaying on a ship round Scotland's Western islands, in fact). Doubt it's likely to happen soon, especially given as support for independence is hovering around 30% at the moment.

It's worth remembering that the Scottish monarchy took over England (James the Sixth taking over the throne of England), not the other way around, so the link to Scotland is actually stronger than to England (though somewhat weakened in both cases ;))

Elizabeth becoming Queen Elizabeth II was fairly controversial at the time. The technical rule has now been clarified, so that the monarch will follow on from the highest numeral in either realm. So if Charles came to the throne as King James, for instance, he'd become King James the VIII, despite England only having I and II before.
Click to expand...

My thanks to you, and to Mr. Hot White Trash for your replies. I think I understand you correctly, but to be sure, let me propose this: say Prince William assumes the throne at some distant date and has a son whose preferred name is Alexander, and this son chooses to keep that as his official name once he becomes the King. Would that mean that this monarch would be "Alexander IV" in both England and Scotland, although while Scotland has had three Alexanders, England has had none? I just think that "Alexander IV" would look odd in the lists in history books of "Kings of England" without any preceding Alexanders. But I can understand why the Scottish would be annoyed with having "Elizabeth II" without having a prior one. I guess that there's really no elegant solution.

I have one other technical question about royal protocol. If the Queen is Duke of Normandy in the Channel Islands, as I've read elsewhere, and as people here seem to agree, is she required to pay homage for her lands to the King of France, who in this case would actually be his legal successor, the President of France? I'm sure that the Queen wouldn't have to kneel in person in a solemn ceremony or anything like that, but is she still required to send an annual token gift, such as a golden statue of a falcon encrusted with jewels, to take an example from Hollywood? Or did the vassalage, if there is such a word, of the successors of William the Conqueror end when France became a republic, or by some unilateral action by England or Great Britain or the United Kingdom?
 
bw92116 said:
But why doesn't some other family overthrow them?

And why does the English public go along with this nonsense of a family that is somehow above, better and separate from all other families? Especially when it comes to turning over public tax money to them? Just because they were born into one family? Why does the public agree to this?
Click to expand...

The same reason American's choose to be run by one man, who lies and contradicts.
 
T-Rexx said:
Okay, I read through all the posts.

And I still don't understand why Philip is not the king. :confused:
Click to expand...

The husband of a Queen actually gets no title by default. A man is not entitled to receive a title that is deemed to be higher than that of his wife - and, in a male dominated world, "king" is above "queen" - and, more importantly, a man does not normally receive any title just by marriage. Generally, but informally, they are known as a Prince Consort but that is not an official title UNLESS the Queen issues a Letters Patent making such a proclamation. Similarly, the children of princesses do not receive titles (not even HRH) as they take their titles from their father who, unless he has been granted a title by the monarch (like Princess Margaret's husband was created Earl of Snowdon), is just plain Mister (like Princess Anne's husbands).

In Philip's case, he was born a prince (Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark), but renounced this before he married. On his marriage, he was created Duke of Edinburgh by the Queen's father (George VI). It was not until 1957 (ie, 5 years after the Queen came to the throne) that he was created a Prince of the UK. Even now, as I understand it, he is not an official Prince Consort (only Victoria's husband was given that title).
 
in recent years i've wondered if charles will really ever be king, especially with the scandal of his divorce and remarriage.

before she dies, can the queen abdicate in favor of prince william?
 
lucem-ferre said:
in recent years i've wondered if charles will really ever be king, especially with the scandal of his divorce and remarriage.

before she dies, can the queen abdicate in favor of prince william?
Click to expand...

The Queen is free to abdicate if she wishes, although I doubt she ever would, but she isn't free to determine her successor. Prince Charles is the heir apparent and he would have to agree to abdicate too before William could become King in his father's lifetime.

Was Prince Charles's divorce really any more scandalous than many millions of others? I don't think it was. Nor do I believe that in this day and age what happened in that respect matters.
 
There was some talk that when Charles married Camilla, as they were both divorcees, he could lost his right to the throne, but I believe that was all smoothed over.

As such, he remains Prince of Wales and heir apparent.

When the Queen dies (I don't believe she will ever abdicate) he will take the throne as King, possibly however as George VII, as the name Charles is a bit cursed for UK royals (the first was executed and the second ruled over plague, fire and religious problems).

The Queen cannot jump people unless she conspires against her son Charles and has him removed from the line of succession and I have no idea if, under the constitution, she would even have the power to do that anymore.
 
Never ever in a million billion years would he do that.

He's a very religious man suppossedly and has the old divine right beliefs.

No way he'd just give up after waiting so long.

If she can last out until 2017, he'll become the oldest Prince of Wales ever.
 
i agree, prince charles has put up with quite alot,in waiting his turn, and he's tried to do it with some apparant dignity and honor..............edward VII, had a very long wait, for his mother queen victoria to pass on, which he filled up with dissapation,gluttony, and alot of lusty affairs......

charles, must not step down, as that is still a thorn in the side of the windsors, after edward VIII.................seems duty to the state, is big with the family............even if it seems, most of them are dullards, randy fuckers, closeted homos, and, like poor margaret, a bitter drunk...........
 
Camilla wont be queen, I think she has even said as much and that it was even part of the wedding deal that she wouldn't ever take the title.

She will likely be given the title Princess, in a similar way to how Phillip is Prince, but for completely different reasons.
 
He ought to follow his grand uncle into exile. And certainly camilla has no business wearing any title other than "Courtesan." Though by all evidence, that's the title she was after in the first place.
 
Legion said:
Camilla wont be queen, I think she has even said as much and that it was even part of the wedding deal that she wouldn't ever take the title.

She will likely be given the title Princess, in a similar way to how Phillip is Prince, but for completely different reasons.
Click to expand...

It was actually stated, when they married, that Camilla would be refered to as "Princess Consort". However, legally, she will be Queen Camilla unless there is an Act of Parliament specifically saying otherwise. Similarly, Prince Edward's children are not known, at their parent's request, as "Prince James" or "Princess Louise" but they have those titles by law and can use them if they wish.
 
She actually IS a princess, but the Earl and Countess agreed that their children would not use the title of Prince and Princess (as they are normally entitled to).

Earl Edward (prince really) will be made a duke when the Duke of Edinbrugh (philip, obviously) passes away. Whether that would change Edward's children's titles...I do not know.
 
Glenn2507 said:
Earl Edward (prince really) will be made a duke when the Duke of Edinbrugh (philip, obviously) passes away. Whether that would change Edward's children's titles...I do not know.
Click to expand...

That depends on whether he has any more children.

The eldest sons of Dukes and Earls take their father's second title as a courtesy title, eg Earl Grosvenor, the eldest son of the Duke of Westminster. The daughters of Dukes and Earls both have the title Lady, eg Lady Diana Spencer. The main difference is that the younger sons of Dukes are titled Lord (eg Lord John Smith) whereas the younger sons of Earls are merely Honourable (eg the Hon John Smith).
 
I think that depends on the sort of title of their father or grandfathre. Whether it be Duke or Earl, it's stated in the document they get when they receive the title what title their children will get. Whether is a heriditery title or not etc etc
 
Isn't Earl the "good" title to have? That is, the holder tends to be of an older family, "duke" being somewhat arriviste. That's been my impression, however, incorrect.
 
EasyRory said:
Isn't Earl the "good" title to have? That is, the holder tends to be of an older family, "duke" being somewhat arriviste. That's been my impression, however, incorrect.
Click to expand...

It is incorrect. Duke is a superior title to Earl, the highest non-royal ranking. As said above the elder sons of Dukes will often take one of the father's junior Earldom titles until he succeeds. For example, the Duke of Norfolk's eldest son is the Earl of Arundel.
 
Legion said:
There was some talk that when Charles married Camilla, as they were both divorcees, he could lost his right to the throne, but I believe that was all smoothed over.
Click to expand...

Charles was not a divorcee at the time of marrying Camilla. In the eyes of the Church he was a widower. I'm not sure they would ever have married had Diana still been alive.

The controversy over his adultery and divorce is less about him becoming King than becoming Head of the Church of England which currently goes with it. That is still a major stumbling block for many Anglicans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top