The Mechanics of Abdication and of Succession to the Throne - Page 3

Iluvbertie · #41 07-24-2006, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royal Fan

Was that his own Idea , What happens when a Monarch Passes Away Like if (God Forbid) E II R Passed on lets say August 10th what would happen who would be notified first and things like that ect and when would Charles most likely come to the throne?? sorry im just so curious about all this especially since I Think itll be in my lifetime.

Charles would instantly be king on the 10th August - 'the Queen is dead - Long Live the King'.

Depending on how the Queen died it is possible that Charles would be with her at the instant he became king - this was the case in 1936 when George V died and Edward VIII succeeded. If, like Elizabeth, he wasn't there when the Queen died, he would be notified ASAP.

The PM would have to be notified but after Charles.

At some time after the death of the previous monarch an Accension (sp) Council would be called (the same day or the next - depending on the time of death - usually). At this Council Charles would announce his regnal name and accept the oaths of the various people who need to make such an oath - e.g. William possibly and the PM.

After the Accension (sp) Council there will be a ceremony at St James' Palace declaring Charles (using his regnal name) as the rightful monarch. A similar declaration would be made in Scotland.

Royal Fan · #42 07-24-2006, 01:06 PM

So Charles will be informed first :) would Harry be at the Accession Council. what role would Camilla play in all this and the rest of the family and who out of the current British Establishment would Attend the Coronation

Oppie · #43 07-24-2006, 01:28 PM

wiki has a copy if his Instrument of Abdication along with other information on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_...ication_crisis

RoyalFan here is more info about what happens for an accession http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4945.asp

branchg · #44 07-24-2006, 02:05 PM

The ascension of the new Sovereign is automatic upon the death of the current Sovereign and there are no formalities necessary. Under the Act of Settlement, Charles is automatically King when his mother dies as the next eligible descendant of the Electress Sophia.

As his wife, Camilla automatically becomes Queen Consort as the wife of the Sovereign. Whether Parliament will later pass an Act allowing her to assume the style and title of Princess Consort (which is required to make it legal) remains to be seen.

The ceremonies that follow, including the Coronation, are not necessary for a new Sovereign's reign, but are very important parts of the tradition of the monarchy.

Royal Fan · #45 07-24-2006, 04:54 PM

I See , this is all very interesting to me :) its Amazing how much happens if the Monarch Dies or Abdicates.

Lord_Yucel · #46 08-21-2006, 09:20 AM

I wish Prince Ann would be Queen Or Prince Charles as king But Absolutely not Prince Harry or Prince William.Those boys do not deserve THE CROWN.I was just shocked when ı saw them on the paper drinking and having fun with common pub girls.Disgusting...

wymanda · #47 08-21-2006, 10:34 AM

Thankfully some of us more enlightened souls take the view that "Boys will be Boys" and that Wills & Harry will grow out of their wild ways. Perhaps if Harry were to distance himself from the, IMO, dreadful Ms Davy then he might grow up a little quicker.

Empress · #48 08-21-2006, 11:07 AM

And what pray tell do you mean by "common" pub girls. I imagine you are then of Royal or Noble blood and would consider yourself not "common"?

Furthermore, I think that it is fantastic that they are out and about with those that will one day be their subjects.

hayz64 · #49 08-21-2006, 11:44 AM

I agree with Empress...they should indeed mix with all sorts of backgrounds to give them a much closer relationship with all people of the british public!

HRH Mims · #50 08-21-2006, 11:55 AM

I think that time when royals played role of desirabled by God is definitely past and royals have right now other role: help to poor people, represent their monarchies and make famous people. And I agree with Empress and Hayz too.

BeatrixFan · #51 08-21-2006, 12:14 PM

I disagree. Harry and William should stick to their own kind. If they go cavorting with their future subjects then the whole point of Monarchy is lost. When Royals begin acting like commoners, the lines are blurred when they try to assert their superiority in the future, they'll be painted in a bad light and as people who somehow changed their views. The idea of Monarchy is to be a constant. They can't dance with the paupers today and expect to be treated like Princes tomorrow.

hayz64 · #52 08-21-2006, 12:27 PM

I think that this would just result in people labelling the Royal Family as snobs who don't want to know their own people because of the places they are from.

BeatrixFan · #53 08-21-2006, 12:31 PM

Well, a snob is someone who is regarded as arrogant and annoying and puts an emphasis on class and I don't think that the Royal Family have been snobs for the past 200 years when the rest of society was very snobbish. They have no reason to be snobs because they're at the top. There is a difference between being friendly and personable and wrapping your arms around a girl from Balham. The Royal Family are supposed to be higher than the rest of us, that is their role. If they act like common people then surely they become common people and they lose their role?

Jo of Palatine · #54 08-21-2006, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

The Royal Family are supposed to be higher than the rest of us, that is their role. If they act like common people then surely they become common people and they lose their role?

Hm, I agree with you that the Royal Family should be something special. But alas, neither my idea about human equality and the information you could get about their behaviour of the last years clues me into what this "special" actually is.

IMHO it's important to have someone who is constantly there "on the top", one who has access to all necessary means and information in order to give advice to politicians whose position change according to the system of democracy. I really believe that the queen is a much more important person than I am. She works harder, she has much more duties, has done more for others than I ever will do. The same for the current Royal head of states. But does that necessarily mean that the grandson of such a Royal personage is "better" than my own grandson? Mind, I don't have one yet!

The point for me is that it's not heritage alone that counts but heritage and what you do to deserve the place in society you inherit. There is an old German saying about fortunes, wealth and influence: "Grandfather wins it, son keeps it, grandson looses it". We've seen plenty of that!

And I'm convinved that the future of all monarchys will in the future be a person-to-person struggle. A struggle with slight advantages for the next generation as people tend to view the children of beloved personages with friendly eyes but still it will be a struggle to stay there at the top.

Britain may be a bit behind the "trend" when it comes to that but I believ the signals from Scandinavia have reached the people of Britain, too. With "signals" I mean the fact that only the heir/heiress of the heir is a "Royal Highness" while the siblings are only "Highnesses" (Norway), that the grandchildren (and future nephews/nieces) of the monarch are not longer Royal Highnesses, but only "Highnesses" like in Denmark or Counts/Countesses like in the Netherlands etc.

The idea behind this is that the Royal "House" consist only of the members immediately involved with the Crown and the service for the Crown while the others are still considered part of the Royal family but with no Royal privileges. The idea of the "Royal family" of the Uk is still much broader but the reorganization of the civil list has shown that the idea started to take root in GB as well as in the other monarchies.

To come back to the topic of Princess Anne: if you see in which way HRH The Princess Royal has helped the monarchy in the Uk while at the same time
refusing to accept a title for her children and you compare that to HRH The Princess Pushy (aka Princess Michael of Kent) and the way the public reacts to both ladies, then you might be able to see what I mean.

BeatrixFan · #55 08-21-2006, 01:27 PM

I think that it just shows how other Royal Families are seen by their people. In Britain, whatever they've done or haven't done, we see the Royal Family as being a higher entity and that should be the case. If we don't, then they're just like us and they cease to be Royal and that's when the system ends. I adore Princess Anne but when she refused those titles for her children, I think she made a grave mistake. Princess Michael has her moments but she's what a Royal should be. She's above us, she has the breeding, the style, the glamour, the elegance and the wit. Princess Anne has those things too but she sometimes seems to forget her place and she forgets hers, how can we possible remember ours?

Australian · #56 08-22-2006, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

But does that necessarily mean that the grandson of such a Royal personage is "better" than my own grandson? Mind, I don't have one yet!

The point for me is that it's not heritage alone that counts but heritage and what you do to deserve the place in society you inherit.

I very much agree with this Jo. It has to be earned, in my opinion. I mean, the grandson of a royal person could have all the titles and blood etc, but could be the biggest jerk you have ever known and does nothing with his royal status. So does that make him 'better' than a grandson who is a true gentleman so to speak and a grandson of a commoner who does good work for the community? No way.

Iain · #57 08-22-2006, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

I think that it just shows how other Royal Families are seen by their people. In Britain, whatever they've done or haven't done, we see the Royal Family as being a higher entity and that should be the case. If we don't, then they're just like us and they cease to be Royal and that's when the system ends. I adore Princess Anne but when she refused those titles for her children, I think she made a grave mistake. Princess Michael has her moments but she's what a Royal should be. She's above us, she has the breeding, the style, the glamour, the elegance and the wit. Princess Anne has those things too but she sometimes seems to forget her place and she forgets hers, how can we possible remember ours?

It's very easy to fall in to the situation of forgetting that Britain is not a country but a state made up of different countries and that each those countries have different ways of looking at things. Scotland and England have always had different concepts of monarchy. The Scots never believed in the idea of "the divine right of kings." The monarch was the father of the nation and held to be the first among equals. If it was felt that he wasn't doing his job properly then the people could remove him and put another member of the royal family in his place. Scots kings and Queens walked among their people and were accessible to them. They were not some remote figure who's every whim was to be obeyed. In fact one article I read said that the Scandinavian style of monarchy started in Scotland. Most Scots prefer royality to be down to earth. Princess Anne is very popular in Scotland because she is down to earth and, like the Scots, she speaks her mind. Queen Elizabeth is seen as being too aloof and out of touch but on the other hand, Queen beatrix is very popular in Scotland.

BeatrixFan · #58 08-22-2006, 11:24 AM

I don't see what the Scots have to do with it. It's Westminster that makes the decisions, not Edinburgh. If the Scots don't like our Queen then they can always dispense with her services but I'd like to see the Scots carry on without us.

Skydragon · #59 08-22-2006, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iain

It's very easy to fall in to the situation of forgetting that Britain is not a country but a state made up of different countries and that each those countries have different ways of looking at things. Scotland and England have always had different concepts of monarchy. The Scots never believed in the idea of "the divine right of kings."

This is the official description of a country "an area of land that has its own government, army, etc:", which as you can see means that Britain is a country whilst Scotland is not. Scotland is a region of the UK.

I think you should also bear in mind that not every Scot hates the English, so no they don't all have different concepts of monarchy.

Iain · #60 08-23-2006, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

I don't see what the Scots have to do with it. It's Westminster that makes the decisions, not Edinburgh. If the Scots don't like our Queen then they can always dispense with her services but I'd like to see the Scots carry on without us.

It was you who mentioned Britain and as Scotland is part of Britain it does have something to do with the Scots. I was only pointing out that there are differences in the way the two nations view things. As for Scotland not being able carrying on without England, what makes you think we couldn't?