Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 07-25-2013, 02:37 PM
rearnakedchoke rearnakedchoke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,513
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flo View Post
Harry is 4th in line to the throne after Charles, William and the baby.
so does the kid have to reach a certain age? i mean, if charles and william die, is there going to be a kid king? or does harry step in ... jeez, i think i care about this way too much ... thats being canadian for ya ... i want one of our streets up here named after king harry!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-25-2013, 04:27 PM
VCURamFan's Avatar
VCURamFan VCURamFan is online now
Allons-y
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Basketball Capital of the World
Posts: 14,292
Send a message via AIM to VCURamFan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rearnakedchoke View Post
i can't see what you posted .. but ... LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by flo View Post
He posted a little white "x" in a black square.

No need to thank me.
Daggone it, I made pop-culture-comedy gold!!

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-25-2013, 05:40 PM
flo's Avatar
flo flo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 7,672
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rearnakedchoke View Post
so does the kid have to reach a certain age? i mean, if charles and william die, is there going to be a kid king? or does harry step in ... jeez, i think i care about this way too much ... thats being canadian for ya ... i want one of our streets up here named after king harry!
Yes, if the other 3 abdicated or died (God Forbid!), lil' George would be king.

(Where is Dave? He is our forum Brit, I'm just an Anglophile :-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by VCURamFan View Post
Daggone it, I made pop-culture-comedy gold!!

__________________
http://www.matt-hughes.com/forums/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=339&dateline=13068036  43

Rejoice ever more. 1 Thessalonians 5:16
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-26-2013, 05:33 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,838
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VCURamFan View Post
Yeah, except that it's never the woman's fault if a daughter's born. Stupid kings!

Seriously, though, Dave: Congrats!
Well a Daughter on their own is fine...but wasnt considered as good as a Son....Now it doesnt matter, the changes to the rules regarding the accession are changing...in two ways...Dangerously in one way, and favourably in the other.

Maybe its cooincidence that the House of Hanover (as Dynastically speaking we are still living under, Windsor and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha both being requested changes, NOT a difference of Blood in the family) as the most recent House, has spawned three of the longest living Monarchs...and that two of them, have been Females. The Longest King was George III who buggered things with the American Collonies, then Victoria, and now Elizabeth, all reigned for OVER half a century EACH. I think the feeling within the parliamentarians is that the Monarchy is here to stay, BUT its damn easy to work with a Woman...and not so easy to work with a Man on the Throne...so they have done everything to try and make it that the first born, REGARDLESS OF GENDER, sits on the Throne, from the offspring of William and Catherine...now, it just so happens, its a Male anyway...BUT had it been a Female, and their second born a Male...HE would have to WAIT, rather then shunting the woman out of the way. Thats favourable I suppose.

The Dangerous bit is that they are also reversing the tag in the Glorious Revolution.

Let me explain...Ever since the Reformation of King Henry Tudor, there has been an issue with what Denomination the Throne is under. The real issue was despite the fact that Elizabeth Tudor established the Church of England forever, the Monarchs still swayed dangerously towards Romanism. When Elizabeth died, she took the House of Tudor with her...and the closest relative for a new House was the Scot King...who happened to be a Roman Catholic...enter the gun powder plott. Several Kings later, and the Denominations are warring against each other again in the Civil War...With the Romans shut out its Church of England Vs Presbyterian....followed by Presbyterian Vs Puritan. Thankfully the restoration sorted out the return of The Church of England...but then by the late Stuarts...the Roman Catholics had regrouped under James...and the Parliamentarians got so desperate, they bought in a King from the House of Orange, who married the Queen of the House of Stuart, and they litterally both reigned as Co-Monarchs together. They are known as William and Mary.

They basically consigned the monarchy to powerlessness and the House of Stuart closed all together just one reign after them.

One of the things they signed up to was that No Monarch, nor Consort of anyone eligable for being Monarch could be Roman Catholic. They HAD to be Anglican, specifically Church of England as its Supreme Govenor.

The British Parliament have just undone that law. Whilst I dont now see Catholics and Protestants warring together again...I COULD see a time when we end up with a Secular Monarch, OR, a Roman Catholic Monarch who basically dis-establishes the Church of England. For Anglicanism in this country, that would be tantamount to distruction.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-26-2013, 06:18 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,838
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rearnakedchoke View Post
so harry can never be king? what if beth, chuck and will go tomorrow? harry wouldn't be king?

not that i care, but since you said harry could never be king got me confused ... harry would be a pretty cool king ..
Nope...if Elizabeth, Charles and William all die, the new Royal Baby would be the Monarch. In England, the Realm has known Boy Kings before. However, often a parent or close relative would be Regent until they came of age.

I imagine that if those three died, Catherine would become Princess Regent, until George becomes 18 years old.

Now only if you kill George as well will Harry become King. It generally thought that by the time the Crown passes to the next generation in terms of immediate heirs, the probability of anyone in any generation above not in direct line, stand next to no chance.


When Queen Anne died, she left no offspring for the House of Stuart to Continue, and she had no Siblings either. So the Government went through a list of possible successors, and crossed off any that were Roman Catholic. The first protestant on the list was Sophia of Hanover...but she died before Anne...so when Anne died, Sophias Son became King George.

In order for a new House to be Developed

*Every living relative of Hanover as far back as the change by Royal Proclimation to Windsor must be deceased. That is at present Fourty Nine people.

*The House must pass to a Male within the Living Relative bracket of Windsor, but who was born to a Mother accepting a Dowedger name permitted as part of the Proclimation

These include on the present list of Fourty Nine

Numbers 16-21 (who are offspring of the Queens Deceased Sister, who were not living at the decree of the automatic male name change, and thus born with a different surname)


Numbers 26-31 (who are offspring to the Third and Fourth Generations of the Son of George V who never rulled as Monarch)

Numbers 36-40 (who are offspring to the third and fourth generations of the daughters of the son of George V, who never rulled as Monarch)

Numbers 43-49 (Who are the offspring of the fourth, fifth and Sixth Generations decended down the most recent branch of offspring from George V who never rulled as Monarch)

At Present the Queens Daughter and her Family, who go by the name of Philips, would still be considered Windsors...but only whilst the Monarch resides in the Stem of their Offspring. The Moment Charles becomes King, the offspring of Princess Anne will move to a Generation above the Monarch, rather then below or akin...therefore, to re-involve them in the line, would mean obliteration of everything below a monarch, and therefore, with their names changed matriarchally, were they to ever asscend they would be classed as a different house.

You only ever have family precidence whilst the Kingship is above, or in your generation...the moment the Kingship passes to a younger generation, your generation moves from close relative, to distant...and its the significance of the distance which entails a new house.

At the moment Princess Anne is too close to the Queen to be considered a distant relative of the Monarch...but when George Alexander Louis is on the throne...Princess Annes family in relation to the Monarch wont be Daughter...but Great Aunt....do you follow?
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.