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

[ijdgaf]

Why isn't Prince Phillip a king?

I finally figured out how the hell she got away with being Queen while having a mother. Then I promptly forgot that reasoning. Then I discovered she was married.

I am super confused with your ceremonial royalty and their complicated pedegree.

[Tate]

I don't actually know anything about it, but I'm guessing that while "queen" can mean "female monarch" or "wife of a king", "king" only means "male monarch." Philip then, being the husband of the Queen (female monarch), is not a king but holds the title of Prince.

[AKAArzosah]

I think (not sure) that the Queen is the only or eldest child of the actual royal family. Prince Phillip, not actually being a royal, cannot be king, though he's promoted to prince by marrying the queen. The actual royal has to 'out-rank' the non-royal, and King is 'higher' than Queen.

Or is Prince Phillip her second husband? I could look it up, but I'm too lazy.

I don't really pay attention to the Monarchy. It's all just symbolic, they have no real power, they're just a waste of money.

[Nate the Great]

I'm thinking that the correct answer is "try not to think about it."

[Dragon Frost]

oh boy.

its simple Prince Phillip married the Queen. The Queen was born to the british royal famaly and thus Phillip is the "prince" as well as God only really knows how many other titles. But to answer why it is so that we all know that the Queen out ranks her husband.

Spouces of monarchs ARE not of equle rank to the blood line. A Queen is not equle to a king unless there is no king, Queen is in essance the title given to the mother of the next in line to the thown. Queen Mother is the title given to whomever is in charge of the country. (don't get me started on the simantics)

The rank of raining monarch goes to the eldest son through male decendants to the eldest female. If all die, abdicate or whatever it then falls to the uncle OR the direct children (unless the "whatever" has something to do with blood line then it defauts back to the preivous kings Brother.)

hope that clears things up for you.

[PointyHairedJedi]

Elizabeth I didn't marry precisely so that she could remain monarch, I seem to recall. As for the present title of Prince Consort, we have Queen Victoria to thank for that.

[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.

[Nate the Great]

Do we really need watchdogs to stop dictators in democratic countries?

So all of these former British colonies and territories theoretically split off from the United Kingdom a hundred years ago, but they still bow down to the Royal Family? So they're independent nations...how? They sound like they're trying to have it both ways. Downright shady if you ask me.

If they have the same head of state then they can't be separate countries. That's absurd.

Okay, in bygone days InfImp would've been better than the alternative, but Zeke altered the code and everything. It's Nate or NTG now. I suppose it's meant as a term of affection, and it's not THAT bad...

[Sa'ar Chasm]

If they have the same head of state then they can't be separate countries. That's absurd.

There's precedent. Before George I became King of the United Kingdom, he was the Elector of Hanover. When he became King, the UK and Hanover entered into personal union, but remained separate entities, in that laws passed in one didn't affect the other. Similarly, England and Scotland were separate countries in personal union from the time James IV of Scotland became also James I of England up until the Act of Union in 1707.

Canada became a Dominion in 1867 - a collection of British colonies and territories were granted responsible government under the Crown. This meant that we had our own Parliament and were able to pass our own laws while still being part of the Empire. What at the time was a polite fiction became fact in the 30s with the Treaty of Westminster - the Dominions were indeed independant nations capable of conducting their own international affairs. The difference can be seen in WWI and WWII. In 1914, the Canadian PM considered the British declaration of war on Germany to be binding on Canada. In 1939, we made a point of arguing about it for a week before we declared war on our own.

[ijdgaf]

Yeah, sorry. The whole "we're independent, really!" deal with Canada is hard to swallow for most Americans. We've had the word "freedom" crammed down our throats so much as children that we can't imagine that sort of leash being pulled by another country, no matter lightly. Exceptions are certainly made for freedoms limited by our own leader(s).

Yeah. I think the Samantha Bee segments in America: The Book summed it up best.

Read it, heathens.

[Sa'ar Chasm]

The distinction that nobody realises is that Canada isn't part of the UK, Canada shares a monarch with the UK. When she's over here, she's Queen of Canada. Furthermore, she's a reigning monarch but not a ruling monarch, which means she doesn't get to pass laws. Further furthermore, she's delegated her authority to the Governor General, which means all we ever see of the old girl is her face on the money and stamps.

As for "bowing down", nuh-uh. I bend my knee to nobody, even if she does remind me of my grandmother. There's even talk of removing the line in the Oath for new citizens about pleding alliegance to the Queen. She's blood kin, actually. Go back 15 generations and there's a Maguire in the Queen Mum's ancestry. Of course, most of the population of the British Isles is as closely related or closer.

[ijdgaf]

Well, yeah. I get the whole UK/Commonwealth distinction. The thing that gets me though, is that -- as I understand it -- Canada itself was not the driving force in its "independence" from the UK. It sort of gradually over time, at a pace not particularly urgent, was mostly made a quasi-free and semi-independent nation. At least on paper.