Main      Site Guide    
Message Forum
Re: A Question of Royalty
Posted By: Bourne, on host
Date: Thursday, October 11, 2001, at 06:04:04
In Reply To: A Question of Royalty posted by Grishny on Thursday, October 11, 2001, at 05:46:16:

> But that's not my question. I've noticed that you
> have a queen, and princes and princesses
> and dukes and duchesses, etc. But no king.
> Where's the king?
> I know that Great Britain used to have a king.
> Even earlier in the twentieth century, didn't you
> have a king? But not anymore. Is it because
> he died, but the queen is still alive that you
> have a queen but no king? When the queen
> does pass on, will you once again have a
> king? (I would assume that Prince Charles
> would ascend the throne.) Would you then
> have a king but no queen? Is the queen not
> allowed to remarry, or does she simply
> choose not to?
Quite right - the Queen is the blood descendant of the previous King. She is married, but Philip is Prince Regent to the Queen rather than King himself. Charles is next in Line to the throne, being her eldest son, followed by his eldest, Prince William (who is currently at St. Andrews Uni, but probably won't need to lift a finger, the parasitic little so and so that he is...).

The top slot in the monarchy doesn't automatically infer that it will be a man that gets it - British rule has often been under a matriarchal system.

Baronies these days seem to be dished out as life peerages of distinction (or breeding) - e.g. former Prime Minister margaret Thatcher, in recognition for her senseless waste of young lives and public money over a few square miles of land off the coast of Argentina is now Baroness Thatcher.

Bo"you can tell I'm Scottish"urne

Replies To This Message

Post a Reply

RinkChat Username:
Email: (optional)
Link URL: (optional)
Link Title: (optional)

Make sure you read our message forum policy before posting.