Forum

UK folks...Help Me understand the whole King/Queen thing.
 

I wish I knew more about this and am somewhat embarrased to ask these questions but hear goes:

Why is there a queen instead of a king? (not necessarily the UK only but anywhere)

Why did Prince Charles relinquish his ability to be the King?.

What changes a queen to a king of a country or vise versa?

Is William going to be a King? why him(first born?)

What if they had a sister? would they be queen and why?

why has there been a queen for so long is it just that they had female 1st borns that many times?


Sorry to ask so many questions but I have always wanted answers to these questions and there are a bunch of UK guys on here so I though this would be a great place to ask. Thank you

Because when the last king died he had no sons. Only 2 daughters. Elizabeth was the eldest.

Prince Charles has not given up his right to the throne.

Nothing (apart from gender reassignment) changes a queen to a king.

Prince William is second in line to the throne (After his father Prince Charles) He is Prince Charles's eldest son.

No they wouldn't - the male line always takes priority

We have had a queen for so long because she has lived for so long. She stops being Queen when she dies or abdicates to \Prince Charles. It's usually a job for life.

Hope that helps.

For what it's worth not everyone in the UK is a raging monarchist and going googly eyed over the upcoming nuptials. A large number of people in the UK would rather be citizens than subjects but, right now, there are more people who like being subjects.

(It's great being able to answer a question on here!):yar:

Attachment 384

I swore that the jelly bean was next in line as Queen.

God save our gracious Queen
Long live our noble Queen
God save the Queen!
:hail:

Haha, Jesus on toast is still my favourite!

I like the bit in the national anthem where ir says 'send her Victorias' - she must be sick of all those plums.:shocked:

Interesting thread. Made ME think of a question...

I was under the impression that the British Royal Family was still around for mostly ceremonial and sentimental reasons and that they had little power - with the real power being in Parliament.

Am I incorrect?

Here in America, there is great interest in the upcoming wedding. Our newspapers are filled with all sorts of stories about William and Kate and I remember the same thing happened when Charles married Diana.

I remember my mom telling me that it wasnt so much that they were respected for being royalty as much as for their involvement in various charities. And what little girl doesn't dream about being a princess and living in a castle?

Much depends on the definition of 'Power'. The monarchy has a lot of power by way of prestige, the Old Boys net work that exists in the UK,created eons ago.

Although it is called the United Kingdom these days, way back the country was in fact many different kingdoms. England was the more powerful of them. Through conquest, through marriage and bad luck, eventually all came under the same monarch. To achieve that, armies were needed. Those armies had men whose descendents today are in many cases involved with the support still given to the monarch. However from the Industrial Revolution a split developed in the overall loyalty towards the monarchy.

Certainly men fought for King and Country during more than one war, with horrendous loss of what can only be described as the cream of generations of men. This created more of a schism amongst the population. Behaviour of politicians caused the great need to revalue the regal role. Not unreasonable to say that the decay set in from the reign of King Charles: the unsuccessful colonization of the United States and Canada, the Irish famine all saw change. Simply an absolute monarch was redundant to the needs of a growing empire.

As for a young gal living in a castle, and being a princess, that's a fantasy. 99% of the castles are ancient, draughty, poorly lit, terrible plumbing. But worse, if the Royal Corgis has lived in a castle, dog doo-doo old AND fresh is everywhere :eek:

woah GB im impressed.

You a history lecturer? :eek:

Was my major for my degrees. :pop2:

Cor Blimey Lady - aint you clever?:clap:

the Queen is head of the church of england, she has no real power other than in theory if there is a hung parliament.

most of Britains castles and stately homes are run as businesses now or taken over by the national trust, its darn expensive to run without downtrodden servants and the taxes are crippling. However that means they are open to the public, I was at one yesterday, had a nice walk in the manicured gardens and went in to the house to look around at the painting of ancestors dating back to the tudors with ruffle collars

GB you did a history degree? wonderful.

grannytranny explained the OPs questions perfectly..but please do not get me started on Charles and how he treated diana and that awful Camilla.....

A law will go through parliament soon to allow Williams future daughter, if first born, to be in be first in line to the throne.

You know the Queen was not in line to the throne, heard of King Edward and Mrs Simpson? the Queens uncle Edward abdicated to marry a divorcee, and so then the Queens father George became king.

votes on how long this marriage of Will and Kate will last!!!

Oompa,

Just an FYI... In America, Princess Diana is almost universally respected and loved. Even before she died, the papers here never had much to say about her that was negative. Of course, over here she never got the same level of publicity she had in the UK.

One of the things she is most respected for is making sure that her children knew how other people lived - that not everybody lived in a huge house with servants, or even had enough food to eat. They often cited her as an example when they did news stories here about wealthy parents throwing lavish $50,000 parties for their kids' birthdays.

As for me, I really DO wish William and Kate all the happiness in the world. But it is not something I think about very much - I don't know either of them, and I'm never likely to meet them. But there is a certain level of sympathy. It is hard enough to maintain a marriage as a private person. I cannot imagine what that is like for people who have to live their lives with the newspapers reporting on every little detail. I mean, if *I* were to cheat on my wife, it is a matter between the two of us. If William or Kate ever cheat, it is worldwide news. That has to suck.

Even Harry.... He smoked pot, and the newspaper in Chicago had called him "Harry Pothead". I can only imagine how bad the headlines in the UK must have been. As if he were the first teenager ever to try marijuana.

Oh well, back to business....