It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If Queen Elizabeth died.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   
If Queen Elizabeth died today, who would become king and why?




posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   
I think Prince William would get it because Prince Charles has too much baggage from Diana and his affair with Camilla.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Yeah I was wondering about that who gets the crown, does Elizabeth get to chose her heir? or it goes by seniority in the waiting list.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Yeah I was wondering about that who gets the crown, does Elizabeth get to chose her heir? or it goes by seniority in the waiting list.


It's all based on heredity. Prince Charles should get it, but he may be forced to not take it because of his past. His first son, William would then get it.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   
I think Prince Charles would, i remember there being a discussion here in the UK about this and im sure Charles said that he would rather take the role of king as he wants william to have as normal a life as possible,

But i think the whole ordeal with camilla may play a hand in this, If he were to marry her im not sure what the responce would be,



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Not if but when.

The only basis for William becoming King is surviving his father. Charles is unlikely to abdicate.

What's royalty for anyway? Does it bring in as much money these days through tourism?



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Prince William would get the throne; he is after all a Stewart from his mother side.
The Windsor family name was Hanover of German decent before the war. Maybe some one else could elaborate more on the Hanover / Windsor name, and if it is true the house of Stewart are the true heirs to the British throne



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 07:03 PM
link   
If the Queen dies the the Crown goes to Charles, (chaz the third I think)who will become King. There is a possibility that Queen Elizabeth could abdicate to one of Charles' kids. I do suppose that there would have to be a certain amount of cooperation from him in order for that to go over smoothly.\


if it is true the house of Stewart are the true heirs to the British throne



stuarts
The end of the Stuart line with the death of Queen Anne led to the drawing up of the Act of Settlement in 1701, which provided that only Protestants could hold the throne. The next in line according to the provisions of this act was George of Hanover, yet Stuart princes remained in the wings. The Stuart legacy was to linger on in the form of claimants to the Crown for another century.


I guess that the idea is that the Hanoverians claim is based on their relationship to the stuart line

here Is a pdf file on the Stuart line and its relationship to the tudors.

[edit on 17-1-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Does it matter? They don't have any control the British gov't anyway, nor do they have any say in the world affairs, so who cares. The money is going to stay within the family.

Surf



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Who cares?

Im American. I could care less who the King of England is. The whole monarchy thing is stupid, unless im in line for Prince that is



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron
The Windsor family name was Hanover of German decent before the war. Maybe some one else could elaborate more on the Hanover / Windsor name, and if it is true the house of Stewart are the true heirs to the British throne


- The name Windsor was chosen during WW1 as the families' original name Saxe-Coburg-Gothe was not quite felt to convey the required sense of the families' British-ness too well.

www.qotd.org...

As for the idea that there can be a 'true' heir?

No.

There are several competing ideas about. It's one of the myths of Royalty that it all works in a nice smooth flowing lineage. The truth is rather different.

There have been several 'breaks' in the line through the centuries where new families have taken over the crown of England/UK.

Oh and for what it's worth I can see an almighty reappraisal of whether we want to carry on with Monarchy after ER2 dies.

Charles should 'get it' and become Charles the 3rd, then William after him etc etc provided they live to see it, but I'm not sure the people will go for it all any longer.

I can imagine Britain becoming a republic with an elected president after ER2 goes, probably not like the US example but more cerimonial and representitive of all the people, like the Europeans and Irish do it.

I'd prefer that.

[edit on 17-1-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Ill throw some contraversy in for UK members


news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Thank you for the info sminkeypinkey now I’m wondering where I got the name Hanover from, I’ve never heard of Saxe-Coburg-Gothe sounds like a clothing chain.




Diana’s bloodline was even more pure ROYALTY than Charles’ is. She can trace her ancestry back to the Scottish House of Stewart (at least to King Charles II). The current Prince Charles’ ancestry is a mixture of Russian, German, and French along with the English. The House of Windsor was originally called Saxe-Coburg-Gothe, but the name was changed in 1917 because it sounded too German (8) – especially after the First World War.
www.withoneaccord.org...



[edit on 17/1/2005 by Sauron]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by surfup
Does it matter? They don't have any control the British gov't anyway,

All british laws require the approval of the Sovreign. I beleive the way they have it worked out is that the Monarch give tacit approval to all laws and need merely override any that they disagree with. They have not exercised this power in modern times as far as I am aware of.



nor do they have any say in the world affairs

The Canadian government, along with most members of the commonwealth I suspect, are superseded by their Governor-Generals, appointees and representatives of the Crown who have similar authority.


I’m wondering where I got the name Hanover from

From George of Hanover. After the Stuart line more or less died out the brits had to go to germany to find a near relative, who happened to be some royal german, I guess he was Duke or Prince of the city of Hannover.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   
If charles became king.could he then run for a post in the government,like prime minister?
Just seems like being king is all roar and no bite.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Samhain
If charles became king.could he then run for a post in the government,like prime minister?
Just seems like being king is all roar and no bite.


I'm not British but I think not. I believe only commoners can hold such positions.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Lords can become Prime Minister. I doubt a King can become his own Prime Minister tho.

edit to add
also, some have said, dump the monarchy. Why not start with dumping the House of Lords first?

[edit on 17-1-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   
From the following evidence, there is only one person who has the right to be the next king.



Trying out the crown




posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Pisky for King! Long live Pisky!



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Now that I think about it, it should be that swastika toting one. He would legalize marijuana, then England would be so stoned. THE US COULD INVADE AND CAPTURE THE PRINCESS'S!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join