Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Referring to the question in the OP, this link might help. It gives a brief summary of all of the English monarchs and their hereditary claims to the English throne. After the unification of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland, the list of British monarchs picks up here.
Pay extra attention to when the ruling Houses change - those are the ones most likely to have breaks in the line of succession. But, as the links show, all English monarchs since 1066 and all British monarchs can trace their lineage, however haphazardly, back to William the Conqueror. And William, born a bastard, was the last English monarch who wasn't a descendant of another English Monarch.
I'd say it was Edward VI, during his brief reign 5,500 were put to death for being Catholic. Granted, as a minor, he "ruled" through a Council of Regency and a Lord Protector- his uncle- a known zealot.
That mass murder is not mentioned in the Wikipedia page for Edward VI. Was it a specific slaughter or gradual executions across years?
If you look at the rest of Europe, was there the same amount of hate between the two denominations?
Diferent country ....
But in Spain, in 1969, after 30 years of Franco's dictatorship,
Franco appointed Juan Carlos Borbon to be his sucesor and declares him Prince of Spain
Skipping his father who was still alive.
Confirming what I always say,
Monarchy is same as a dictatorship.
In the British monarchy, was there ever a monarch who was not (biologically) related to the previous monarch?
What do you mean by 'related'? I mean, I'm related to the maple tree in my front yard, though as cousins we're rather distant.
Because just by doing simple math, you realize how recently people of one nation - especially when most of that time was far more insular than now - are going to be related. Consider four generations per century. Now consider five hundred years. A person who is 25 today living in, say, London, would have 8 ancestors born approximately 100 years ago, 128 born approximately 200 years ago, 2048 born approximately 300 years ago, 32768 born approximately 400 years ago, 524288 born approximately 500 years ago. Given the tendency of people to marry within their social strata (princes don't marry the tanner's daughter, after all), then the inter-relatedness of English royals becomes clear.
Anyway, if almost all American Presidents are descended from a post-Conquest English king, it's a pretty good bet all subsequent English monarchs are as well, no?
Trivia:
President Van Buren was the only President whose native language was not English. He grew up in a Dutch-speaking community, and only learned English as a second language when he went off to the local school. One can only surmise that this would have truncated whatever Presidential aspirations he might have had in this xenophobic day and age.
Said act did nothing to change facts on ground that Prince Charles would succeed; that was never the issue.
It was more about dealing with the strong anti-papist (Roman Catholic) laws, primogeniture, permission to marry and other issues created from previous acts affecting the succession, most of which came into force in 1700's. Interestingly this push for "equality" came from outside England, via the Commonwealth nations.
Simply put it was just seen as plain discrimination that in these "modern times" a female could be displaced by male heir even if he was many years her junior.
What is interesting is that neither the act of 2013 nor the laws allowing gay marriages affected the crown and Prince of Wales. As things currently stand (unless have missed something) there will not be a SSM British sovereign, nor will there be a male consort to Prince of Wales.
Also the POW is still reserved for the eldest son of monarch, and Princess of Wales still remains the title of his consort (of the opposite sex).
Said act did nothing to change facts on ground that Prince Charles would succeed; that was never the issue.
You're correct.
But I linked the latest law, not laws in effect that established the successors to Henry VIII nor the law that offered the monarchy to William and Mary.
Is it true that when the current queen dies, Prince Charles will automatically be the king?
Didn't want to start a new thread for this.
I heard or read somewhere that Charles really isn't interested and would rather pass being King along to his son William who is next in line of course.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
