Welcome to the Historical Fiction Online forums: a friendly place to discuss, review and discover historical fiction.
If this is your first visit, please be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You will have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing posts, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

United Kingdom Changes It's Rules of Succession

User avatar
fljustice
Bibliophile
Posts: 1995
Joined: March 2010
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Contact:

Post by fljustice » Fri December 7th, 2012, 4:51 pm

[quote=""Mythica""]Regarding the succession, I've always wondered what would happen if William and Kate couldn't have children but adopted? Traditionally, I would assume that not being of the royal bloodline, they would not be able to succeed - but today, that would be so hugely politically incorrect because it suggests that an adopted child is not their "real" child. Ethically, should an adopted child be able to inherit the throne?[/quote]

Why not? The Romans tended to deify their emperors after death, giving their heirs "divine" authority as children of gods. That said, the most stable string of emperors from Roman times were all "adopted" as adults as each emperor chose a successor based on ability rather than blood. This led to nearly a century of (relative) peace. The "Four Good Emperors" were Trajan (AD 98-117), Hadrian (117-138), Antoninus Pius (138-161) and Marcus Aurelius (161-180.) Marcus Aurelius made the mistake of elevating his son Commodus as his heir and it was back to depravity and civil war. (Subject of Gladiator and The Fall of the Roman Empire movies.)

Adoptive emperors clearly did better than blood. Maybe the royals could take a page from the Romans and promote the best person to job of figurehead. I personally have a soft spot in my heart for ancient practices, when people had the right to sacrifice their sacred ruler when the crops failed, plague struck, or some other disaster hit. Clearly a sign of the gods' disfavor and time to get a new ruler. ;)
Faith L. Justice, Author Website
Image

User avatar
SonjaMarie
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 5688
Joined: August 2008
Location: Vashon, WA
Contact:

Post by SonjaMarie » Fri December 7th, 2012, 7:08 pm

[quote=""LoveHistory""]Charles' full name is Charles Philip Arthur George.

Andrew's is Andrew Albert Christian Edward

And Henry's is Henry Charles Albert David.[/quote]

True, but no one gave either as the first name.

Of course Andrew didn't have a chance with girls.

SM
The Lady Jane Grey Internet Museum
My Booksfree Queue

Original Join Date: Mar 2006
Previous Amount of Posts: 2,517
Books Read In 2014: 109 - June: 17 (May: 17)
Full List Here: http://www.historicalfictiononline.com/ ... p?p=114965

User avatar
Mythica
Bibliophile
Posts: 1095
Joined: November 2010
Preferred HF: European and American (mostly pre-20th century)
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Post by Mythica » Fri December 7th, 2012, 7:15 pm

[quote=""fljustice""]Why not? The Romans tended to deify their emperors after death, giving their heirs "divine" authority as children of gods. That said, the most stable string of emperors from Roman times were all "adopted" as adults as each emperor chose a successor based on ability rather than blood. This led to nearly a century of (relative) peace. The "Four Good Emperors" were Trajan (AD 98-117), Hadrian (117-138), Antoninus Pius (138-161) and Marcus Aurelius (161-180.) Marcus Aurelius made the mistake of elevating his son Commodus as his heir and it was back to depravity and civil war. (Subject of Gladiator and The Fall of the Roman Empire movies.)

Adoptive emperors clearly did better than blood. Maybe the royals could take a page from the Romans and promote the best person to job of figurehead. I personally have a soft spot in my heart for ancient practices, when people had the right to sacrifice their sacred ruler when the crops failed, plague struck, or some other disaster hit. Clearly a sign of the gods' disfavor and time to get a new ruler. ;) [/quote]

That may all be true but I can't think of any cases of it in British history. In British history, it's always been imperative that the heir be of the royal bloodline. There are many cases in history of slander against the queen consort to suggest that the heir was not truly the king's son - but if it the royal bloodline didn't matter, this wouldn't matter... all that would matter is that the king raised the boy as his own, blood or not. But that has not been the case. I am just wondering how far the monarchy will adapt in these modern times and whether they are yet at the point where blood matters less than upbringing. The fact that William married a "commoner" without royal or nobility pedigree suggests they are headed in that direction... but has it reached a point where an adopted heir would be accepted into the succession? Somehow, I think not. But should it be?

User avatar
Lisa
Bibliophile
Posts: 1153
Joined: August 2012
Favourite HF book: Here Be Dragons by Sharon Kay Penman
Preferred HF: Any time period/location. Timeslip, usually prefer female POV. Also love Gothic melodrama.
Location: Northeast Scotland

Post by Lisa » Fri December 7th, 2012, 7:38 pm

I think an adopted child certainly should be able to rule. After all, s/he will have had the same upbringing as a biological child (assuming it was an early adoption of course) and should therefore have the same chance of having a good ability to rule as whichever lucky biological child was born first. Logic presents no problem here.

However, I believe the monarchy would go to whatever means they could to avoid this issue arising. Rather than face the dilemma, I think they would advise (force) William and Catherine not to adopt and instead use whatever means possible to have a biological child (perhaps even surrogacy - then it would still be their own genes, after all). I don't believe this is right, as it does suggest that adopted children not of the parents' own genes are lesser in some way, but I can imagine this is how it would go. Otherwise they would have to address the problem, and if they did, I believe that if consulted, most British people would agree that an adopted child is fit to rule. And that would mean a huge break from tradition, throwing up questions of whether the monarchy is even still relevant...

User avatar
Susan
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 3746
Joined: August 2008
Location: New Jersey, USA

Post by Susan » Fri December 7th, 2012, 11:07 pm

[quote=""Mythica""]Regarding the succession, I've always wondered what would happen if William and Kate couldn't have children but adopted? Traditionally, I would assume that not being of the royal bloodline, they would not be able to succeed - but today, that would be so hugely politically incorrect because it suggests that an adopted child is not their "real" child. Ethically, should an adopted child be able to inherit the throne?[/quote]

According the the Act of Settlement of 1701, the monarch must be the Protestant heir of Electress Sophia of Hanover, granddaughter of King James I. This act was prompted by the failure of William III/Mary II and Queen Anne to have heirs and is still in effect. If William did not have children, the throne would go to Harry and his heirs, and so on. While there is a limit to the number of those in the line of succession (the Protestant descendants of Electress Sophia who have not married Catholics), there is no shortage. There are thousands of Protestant descendants of Electress Sophia. The following is just the descendants of King George V, the present Queen's grandfather who died in 1936.

1. HRH The Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales (1948), eldest son of HM Queen Elizabeth II
2. HRH Prince William, The Duke of Cambridge (1982), elder son of HRH The Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales
3. HRH Prince Henry of Wales (1984), younger son of HRH The Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales
4. HRH The Prince Andrew, The Duke of York (1960), second son of HM Queen Elizabeth II
5. HRH Princess Beatrice of York (1988), elder daughter of HRH The Prince Andrew, The Duke of York
6. HRH Princess Eugenie of York (1990), younger daughter of HRH The Prince Andrew, The Duke of York
7. HRH The Prince Edward, The Earl of Wessex (1964), youngest son of HM Queen Elizabeth II
8. James Windsor, Viscount Severn (2007), son of HRH The Prince Edward, The Earl of Wessex
9. Lady Louise Windsor (2003), daughter of HRH The Prince Edward, The Earl of Wessex
10. HRH The Princess Anne, The Princess Royal (1950), only daughter of HM Queen Elizabeth II
11. Peter Phillips (1977), son of HRH The Princess Anne, The Princess Royal
12. Savannah Phillips (2010), daughter of Peter Phillips
13. Isla Phillips (2012), daughter of Peter Phillips
14. Zara Phillips (1981), daughter of HRH The Princess Anne, The Princess Royal
15. David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley (1961), son of HRH The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon
16. The Honorable Charles Armstrong-Jones (1999), son of David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley
17. The Honorable Margarita Armstrong-Jones (2002), daughter of David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley
18. Lady Sarah Chatto (1964), daughter of HRH The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon
19. Samuel Chatto (1996), son of Lady Sarah Chatto
20. Arthur Chatto (1999), son of Lady Sarah Chatto
21. HRH Prince Richard, The Duke of Gloucester (1944), son of HRH The Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, 3rd son of HM King George V
22. Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster (1974), son of HRH Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester
23. Xan Windsor, Lord Culloden (2007), son of Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster
24. Lady Cosima Windsor (2010), daughter of Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster
25. Lady Davina Lewis (1977), daughter of HRH Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester
26. Tāne Mahuta Lewis (2012), son of Lady Davina Lewis
27. Senna Lewis (2010), daughter of Lady Davina Lewis
28. Lady Rose Gilman(1980), daughter of HRH Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester
29. Lyla Gilman (2010), daughter of Lady Rose Gilman
30. HRH Prince Edward, The Duke of Kent (1935), son of HRH The Prince George, Duke of Kent, fourth son of HM King George V


--- George Windsor, Earl of St. Andrews (1962), son of HRH Prince Edward, The Duke of Kent - excluded himself from the succession by marrying a Roman Catholic
--- Edward Windsor, Baron Downpatrick (1988), son of George Windsor, Earl of St. Andrews - excluded himself from the succession by becoming a Roman Catholic
--- Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor (1992), daughter of George Windsor, Earl of St. Andrews - excluded herself from the succession by becoming a Roman Catholic


31. Lady Amelia Windsor (1995), daughter of George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews


--- Lord Nicholas Windsor (1970), son of HRH Prince Edward, The Duke of Kent - excluded himself from the succession by becoming a Roman Catholic


32. Albert Windsor (2007), son of Lord Nicholas Windsor
33. Leopold Windsor (2009), son of Lord Nicholas Windsor
34. Lady Helen Taylor (1964), daughter of HRH Prince Edward, The Duke of Kent
35. Columbus Taylor (1994), son of Lady Helen Taylor
36. Cassius Taylor (1996), son of Lady Helen Taylor
37. Eloise Taylor (2003), daughter of Lady Helen Taylor
38. Estella Taylor (2004), daughter of Lady Helen Taylor

--- HRH Prince Michael of Kent (1942), son of HRH The Prince George, The Duke of Kent - excluded himself from the succession by marrying a Roman Catholic


39. Lord Frederick Windsor (1979), son of HRH Prince Michael of Kent
40. Lady Gabriella Windsor (1981), daughter of HRH of Prince Michael of Kent
41. HRH Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy (1936), daughter of HRH The Prince George, Duke of Kent
42. James Ogilvy (1964), son of HRH Princess Alexandra
43. Alexander Ogilvy (1996), son of James Ogilvy
44. Flora Ogilvy (1994), daughter of James Ogilvy
45. Marina Ogilvy (1966), daughter of HRH Princess Alexandra
46. Christian Mowatt (1993), son of Marina Ogilvy
47. Zenouska Mowatt (1990), daughter of Marina Ogilvy
48. David Lascelles, 8th Earl of Harewood (1950), son of George Lascelles, 7th Earl of Harewood
49. Alexander Lascelles, Viscount Lascelles (1980), son of David Lascelles, 8th Earl of Harewood
50. The Honorable Edward Lascelles (1982), son of David Lascelles, 8th Earl of Harewood
51. The Honorable James Lascelles (1953), son of George Lascelles, 7th Earl of Harewood
52. Rowan Lascelles (1977), son of James Lascelles
53. Tewa Lascelles (1985), son of James Lascelles
54. Sophie Lascelles (1973), daughter of James Lascelles
55. The Honorable Jeremy Lascelles (1955), son of George Lascelles, 7th Earl of Harewood
56. Thomas Lascelles (1982), son of Jeremy Lascelles
57. Ellen Lascelles (1984), daughter of Jeremy Lascelles
58. Amy Lascelles (1986), daughter of Jeremy Lascelles
59. Tallulah Lascelles (2005), daughter of Jeremy Lascelles
60. Henry Lascelles (1953), son of The Honorable Gerald Lascelles (younger son of HRH The Princess Mary, The Princess Royal)
61. Maximilian Lascelles (1991), son of Henry Lascelles
Last edited by Susan on Fri December 7th, 2012, 11:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
~Susan~
~Unofficial Royalty~
Royal news updated daily, information and discussion about royalty past and present
http://www.unofficialroyalty.com/

User avatar
SonjaMarie
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 5688
Joined: August 2008
Location: Vashon, WA
Contact:

Post by SonjaMarie » Sat December 8th, 2012, 3:38 am

A stupid prank involving a Australian radio DJ calling the hospital where Princess Catherine was at pretending to be the Queen checking up on her granddaughter-in-law and got a nurse to give personal details out, has apparently led that nurse to commit suicide (or so it seems as far). Tragic!

SM
The Lady Jane Grey Internet Museum
My Booksfree Queue

Original Join Date: Mar 2006
Previous Amount of Posts: 2,517
Books Read In 2014: 109 - June: 17 (May: 17)
Full List Here: http://www.historicalfictiononline.com/ ... p?p=114965

User avatar
Vanessa
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 4237
Joined: August 2008
Currently reading: The Farm at the Edge of the World by Sarah Vaughan
Interest in HF: The first historical novel I read was Katherine by Anya Seton and this sparked off my interest in this genre.
Favourite HF book: Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell!
Preferred HF: Any
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Post by Vanessa » Sat December 8th, 2012, 11:31 am

It's awful news. It seems a drastic thing to commit suicide over. I suppose she will have received a lot of stick about it but nothing worth taking her life over - it would've blown over in a short while and been forgotten about. She should've just ridden the storm. Poor lady. She wasn't blamed in any way and even Prince Charles made a bit of a joke about the prank. It was the two idiot DJs who were at fault and I bet they're feeling absolutely dreadful now.
currently reading: My Books on Goodreads

Books are mirrors, you only see in them what you already have inside you ~ The Shadow of the Wind

User avatar
Susan
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 3746
Joined: August 2008
Location: New Jersey, USA

Post by Susan » Sat December 8th, 2012, 12:59 pm

[quote=""SonjaMarie""]A stupid prank involving a Australian radio DJ calling the hospital where Princess Catherine was at pretending to be the Queen checking up on her granddaughter-in-law and got a nurse to give personal details out, has apparently led that nurse to commit suicide (or so it seems as far). Tragic![/quote]

It wasn't the nurse who gave out the details, but the nurse who first answered the phone and transferred the call. The call came in at 5AM and there wasn't yet a receptionist on duty.

Also just a titles note...in the UK only those females born royal can use "Princess" followed by their first name. William was created Duke of Cambridge when he married, so his wife's title is HRH The Duchess of Cambridge. If William had not been created Duke of Cambridge, his wife would be HRH Princess William. William's mother was incorrectly called Princess Diana; her correct title was HRH The Princess of Wales. I think this is all a bit crazy. The other European monarchies allow non-royal females who marry into the royal family to use "Princess" and their first names.
Last edited by Susan on Sat December 8th, 2012, 1:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
~Susan~
~Unofficial Royalty~
Royal news updated daily, information and discussion about royalty past and present
http://www.unofficialroyalty.com/

User avatar
Mythica
Bibliophile
Posts: 1095
Joined: November 2010
Preferred HF: European and American (mostly pre-20th century)
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Post by Mythica » Sat December 8th, 2012, 4:45 pm

[quote=""Susan""]According the the Act of Settlement of 1701, the monarch must be the Protestant heir of Electress Sophia of Hanover, granddaughter of King James I. This act was prompted by the failure of William III/Mary II and Queen Anne to have heirs and is still in effect. If William did not have children, the throne would go to Harry and his heirs, and so on. While there is a limit to the number of those in the line of succession (the Protestant descendants of Electress Sophia who have not married Catholics), there is no shortage. There are thousands of Protestant descendants of Electress Sophia. The following is just the descendants of King George V, the present Queen's grandfather who died in 1936.
[/quote]

I figured that legally, that was the case. That's why I asked if ethically, should it be the case? I was wondering what everyone else's opinion on it is :)

User avatar
Susan
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 3746
Joined: August 2008
Location: New Jersey, USA

Post by Susan » Sat December 8th, 2012, 6:40 pm

[quote=""Mythica""]I figured that legally, that was the case. That's why I asked if ethically, should it be the case? I was wondering what everyone else's opinion on it is :) [/quote]

Considering that the British monarchy is hereditary and the line of descent goes way, way back to Cerdic, first king of the West Saxons who died in 534, I feel if there is going to be a monarchy, it should remain hereditary.
Line of Descent of Elizabeth II
~Susan~
~Unofficial Royalty~
Royal news updated daily, information and discussion about royalty past and present
http://www.unofficialroyalty.com/

Post Reply

Return to “Chat”