Royal Succession

[mjr]

While abolishing the monarchy certainly has its attractions, it would have to be replaced with something. I feel having the head of government as the head of state also might not be a good idea. Particularly, some may think, the present head of government, although I'm not saying that. At least he's a cyclist. And he went to a decent university.

Charlie is a cyclist too, but not so much these days. His son reputedly still is, at least when in the countryside, plus he went to a better uni than the PM. I wonder if Bodge is jealous and intends to make a play for President...

No idea but I googled it and a lot of sites said the same thing. King name comes only from given names and unable to change name except on succeeding as king or queen. Too many sites said pretty much exactly the same thing for me to doubt there's some truth there. I bet you'd be able to find the source law for this better than I. My Google fu isn't great!

You will probably have heard of many rules, laws and practises surrounding the king of Queen and heir. Things I've read includes birth of the King's children have to be watched by officials, King's closest advisors, to make sure nothing untoward happens like changling swapped in at birth. No idea how accurate that is but there's lots of similar things surrounding the monarch.

This seems like some of the internet reports about laws in tiny towns in USA. Most of them are either outdated or invented.

If Kings couldn't change their names just before taking power, we would have had at least one Georg, a Willem, a Felipe, some Henris, a Harri and two Williames.

So I very much doubt it. It's believable that they might not be able to change name when young without the monarch's permission, but there probably isn't a monarch when they are to take power, as the previous one will have died or abdicated.

[ANTONISH]

There was no ethnic cleansing but many protestants weren't willing to live in a country where catholics had equal rights and they could be outvoted (unlike "Northern Ireland" where catholics didn't have equal rights).
The remaining Protestant 3% did rather well.
They had substantially more representation in university education and middle class professions than the general catholic population.
Many retained their RP English accents - so much so that South Dublin became very popular amongst European parents as a place to send their offspring to improve their English.
Times have moved on of course and the general level of education in Eire is much higher.

It depends upon what you want to describe as 'ethnic cleansing'. This was written in The Independent in a book review of 'The Story of Lucy Gault' in 2013:

In parts of County Cork, Protestants were subjected to a brutal campaign of sectarian violence. The ethnic cleansing of the Bandon Valley is one of the most odious chapters in our history, though I learned nothing about it at school. It took a Canadian academic, Peter Harte, to reveal the full savagery of the assault in his book The IRA and its Enemies.

There were atrocities committed on both sides in those day's - there was no policy of ethnic cleansing on the part of the Free State government.
The only ethnic cleansing ( IMO religious cleansing as I doubt that the ethnicity of the two sides is that dissimilar ) was in the creation of that enclave in Northern Ireland (now called Northern Ireland) where both Catholics and Protestants were displaced in order to have a Protestant majority in that enclave. Some protestants were discomfited to find themselves left behind in the mainly catholic Free State and some catholics were similarly disappointed to find themselves continuing to live under the Crown.
I believe that the British government at the time considered that the border would be temporary and in some manner eventually cease to exist.

In the Free State due to the events of the civil war the IRA was declared a proscribed organisation i.e membership was illegal.
Ironically it wasn't prescribed in the United Kingdom and even in the seventies the IRA were still free to rattle the collection tin in London pubs - a well known one being "The Lord Palmerston"
IMO this could descend into a contentious issue - perhaps unsuitable for this forum

[Mick F]

Out walking the doggie today, and letting my mind wander ...............

We had the Plantegenet, Tudor, Stuart periods ......... brain can't fill in the gaps ............. the Georgian and the Victorian, then we had Edwardian.

Then what?
George V
Edward VIII
George VI
Elizabeth II

What period are we in since the Edwardian?

[Jdsk]

We had the Plantegenet, Tudor, Stuart periods ......... brain can't fill in the gaps ............. the Georgian and the Victorian, then we had Edwardian.

Then what?
George V
Edward VIII
George VI
Elizabeth II

What period are we in since the Edwardian?

Some of those are Houses/ dynasties and some are periods. "Victorian" and "Edwardian" aren't Royal Houses, although they are useful historical terms for other purposes.

The current House is "Windsor", which is a renaming of "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha".

The current period might be called "Elizabethan" in hindsight, but who knows?

Jonathan

[Bonefishblues]

The interminable period, shirley?

[Mick F]

The interminable period, shirley?

Tudors lasted about going on 200 years perhaps.

Edward VII died in 1910, so it's (only) been half that since then.

[Jdsk]

The interminable period, shirley?

Tudors lasted about going on 200 years perhaps.

Edward VII died in 1910, so it's (only) been half that since then.

1485 to 1603. 118 y.

It's now 111 y since 1910.

Jonathan

[simonineaston]

I learn that Her Majesty has been advised that she has reached the age when she must knock off the sauce. Inspired by her situation, I grabbed my trusty envelope and pencil stub and learnt that I have just under 2 decades more to consume my favourite adult beverages - Brilliant !! Long Live The Queen...

[Mike Sales]

What period are we in since the Edwardian?

There was a lot of hype in the 50s about "A new Elizabethan Age."

Taking strength from the Coronation of a new, youngQueen named Elizabeth, the New Elizabethanism of the 1950s heralded anation that would now see its 'modern', televised monarch preside over animminently glorious and artistic age.This book provides the first in-depth investigation of New Elizabethanismand its legacy. With contributions from leading cultural practitioners andscholars, its essays explore New Elizabethanism as variously manifestin ballet and opera, the Coronation broadcast and festivities, nationalhistoriography and myth, the idea of the 'Young Elizabethan', celebrations ofair travel and new technologies, and the New Shakespeareanism of theatreand television. As these essays expose, New Elizabethanism was muchmore than a brief moment of optimistic hyperbole.

https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/new-eliza ... 784531799/

[thirdcrank]

I'm not sure it was hype in any sense of hyperbole.

I was seven when George VI died and there was then over a year of preparation for the coronation which was a huge event (in terms of those involved and spectating) and IIRC the first big event of this type broadcast live on the telly.

That was an era of anticipation of change. As a small child then, I have a vivid memory of sweets coming off the rations in 1953, but it was more than that. A period of real austerity was coming to an end and - daft as it seems now - the telly and similar wonders were becoming available to the masses. In those days, the queen was young and vivacious and seemed to personify that new age.

I remember the Young Elizabethan magazine.

To anybody who now thinks of the queen as being a fair bit older than their gran, this may seem incredible and/or risible but that's how it was. And to be fair to her, she has stayed the course.

[ANTONISH]

I'm not sure it was hype in any sense of hyperbole.

I was seven when George VI died and there was then over a year of preparation for the coronation which was a huge event (in terms of those involved and spectating) and IIRC the first big event of this type broadcast live on the telly.

That was an era of anticipation of change. As a small child then, I have a vivid memory of sweets coming off the rations in 1953, but it was more than that. A period of real austerity was coming to an end and - daft as it seems now - the telly and similar wonders were becoming available to the masses. In those days, the queen was young and vivacious and seemed to personify that new age.

I remember the Young Elizabethan magazine.

To anybody who now thinks of the queen as being a fair bit older than their gran, this may seem incredible and/or risible but that's how it was. And to be fair to her, she has stayed the course.

For fear of something worse?
I've still got my commemoration five shilling piece - must be worth at least six by now.

[thirdcrank]

All I'm saying is that there was a powerful feeling of optimism about the future.

As a mainly ceremonial head of state, the queen has done a pretty good job in the intervening almost seven decades. Whether we would be better with an elected head of state is really a different question. It may be that if HM had done a rubbish job, it would have been easier to change the constitution. All the Grand Fenwick stuff is hardly her fault but it does tend to act against change.