Why does the UK have royalty?

[kai]

If bloodline really mattered, the monarch of Great Britain would be King Franz the First.

Ah those jacobites

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Elizebeth bases he legitimacy from her father who was king, and wasnt King billly the grandson of Charles 1

What does that matter? Charles I's heir was Charles II; the right of succession goes through him, not William.

Ah those jacobites

And?

They're right: there's a break in the royal family tree. At one point in British history, the other nobility decided that their monarch's religion was more important than his bloodline. I suppose that one can make a case for why this should be, but after this happens, it's disingenuous to go back to claiming that bloodline is all-important when choosing kings.

... though I'm sure that if you go back far enough, you'd find some point where the Jacobite claim falls down as well. When it comes right down to it, the legitimacy of hereditary monarchy is really based on might making right for some long-dead ancestor.

 

[kai]

What does that matter? Charles I's heir was Charles II; the right of succession goes through him, not William.

it dosent matter
And?
and what ? whats your point?
They're right: there's a break in the royal family tree. At one point in British history, the other nobility decided that their monarch's religion was more important than his bloodline. I suppose that one can make a case for why this should be, but after this happens, it's disingenuous to go back to claiming that bloodline is all-important when choosing kings.

... though I'm sure that if you go back far enough, you'd find some point where the Jacobite claim falls down as well. When it comes right down to it, the legitimacy of hereditary monarchy is really based on might making right for some long-dead ancestor.

the Queens legitimacy is through her father , i state again that my point is the blood line the predecessors the ancestors all give the throne credibility.

If you want one have Franz

 

[England my lionheart]

What differentiates her from any other random old lady? How do genes earn veneration?

Good point,they don't,its just a job she was bred for

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

the Queens legitimacy is through her father ,

Which makes her legitimacy only as strong as his, which is only as strong as his father's, etc., etc., all the way up the line.

i state again that my point is the blood line the predecessors the ancestors all give the throne credibility.

So why don't these things all give credibility to Duke Franz, then?

If you want one have Franz

I don't want any, thank you very much. I just think the Jacobite/Hanoverian issue emphasizes just how hollow the idea of bloodline as a support for legitimacy of the monarchy really is. At the end of the day, the legitimacy of the monarchy is based on nothing more than the fact that everyone else goes along with it.

 

[kai]

Which makes her legitimacy only as strong as his, which is only as strong as his father's, etc., etc., all the way up the line.

Yep
So why don't these things all give credibility to Duke Franz, then?
Oh they do! otherwise you would never have heard of him But (James 2 Duke Franz's claim is of the this line)was deposed and William of Orange took the throne jointly with James daughter Mary( of the same line)

I don't want any, thank you very much. I just think the Jacobite/Hanoverian issue emphasizes just how hollow the idea of bloodline as a support for legitimacy of the monarchy really is. At the end of the day, the legitimacy of the monarchy is based on nothing more than the fact that everyone else goes along with it.

The Stuart and Hanoverian bloodline have claims to the throne niether of which are hollow and its a little more complicated than going along with it, there were the religious conditions of succession too Mary was the protestant heir.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yep

So ultimately, the Queen's claim to legitimacy is only as strong as the weakest link in her chain of succession.

Oh they do! otherwise you would never have heard of him But (James 2 Duke Franz's claim is of the this line)was deposed and William of Orange took the throne jointly with James daughter Mary( of the same line)

Yeah... that crazy "two half claims equal one whole claim" math.

The Stuart and Hanoverian bloodline have claims to the throne niether of which are hollow

Ultimately, both come down to legitimacy of government being based on the consent of the governed. If the people don't support the monarchy, it doesn't matter a hill of beans who the king's great-great-great grandfather was.

and its a little more complicated than going along with it, there were the religious conditions of succession too Mary was the protestant heir.

Yes... when heredity becomes inconvenient, such as when the sitting monarch or the heir apparent has the right father but the "wrong" religion, it's fine to chuck the bloodline aside just long enough to swap the king for one you like better... and then everyone can go back to pretending like the bloodline matters.

 

[kai]

So ultimately, the Queen's claim to legitimacy is only as strong as the weakest link in her chain of succession.
or the strongest depends which camp your in but a link it is never the less

Yeah... that crazy "two half claims equal one whole claim" math.
Its not crazy, its just families

Ultimately, both come down to legitimacy of government being based on the consent of the governed. If the people don't support the monarchy, it doesn't matter a hill of beans who the king's great-great-great grandfather was.
Yep thats true and up until now the British people support the Monarchy

Yes... when heredity becomes inconvenient, such as when the sitting monarch or the heir apparent has the right father but the "wrong" religion, it's fine to chuck the bloodline aside just long enough to swap the king for one you like better... and then everyone can go back to pretending like the bloodline matters.

no one threw the bloodline away! its the same bloodline! Mary ruled jointly and married William of Orange she was James Stewart daughter. and William was the grandson of Charles Stewart. They were in fact cousins. And i may be wrong but i believe William of Orange was the last male heir of William the 1

 

[Father Heathen]

Good point,they don't,its just a job she was bred for

Just seems kind of silly and pointless to me. Merit means more than blood.

 

[kai]

Just seems kind of silly and pointless to me. Merit means more than blood.

Look the crown is the symbol , the personification if you like of our nation its the ambassador, the representative, the embodiment of an ancient country.

i say this with some tongue in cheek and please take no offence but your country is a child compared to ours ,and i don't expect you to understand how we view our heritage i mean, the Queens home is older than your country.

Thats why we have a Queen its tradition. I hope you take some pride in the history of your country and in a thousand years time i hope Americans still do.

 

[dmgdnooc]

The House of Stuart was not the first ruling house of England to be deposed.
　
It has always been the right of Anglo-Saxons to choose their Monarch, Britain is ruled by consent according to traditions and laws that stretch back to the days before the Norman conquest.
Google Stephen, Richard II, Richard III and others to find that the English have always held one of their rights to be that they are ruled by consent and not by an iron-law of familial inheritance.
　
That they have chosen not to exercise this right in the case of the House of Windsor speaks more to the high integrity with which the Office of Sovereign has been exercised by that House than to anything else.

 

[England my lionheart]

Just seems kind of silly and pointless to me. Merit means more than blood.

I agree,if it was on merit i'd be happy with Nelson Mandela but its not all down to bloodlines and will be interesting to see what happens when the Queen dies whether they bypass Charles and William takes the throne which i hope happens.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

or the strongest depends which camp your in but a link it is never the less

A chain is as strong as its strongest link? :sarcastic:

I have plenty of strong links in my family tree - I can show with a high degree of support my family tree going back many generations. Now... you'll just have to take my word for it that at the top of this tree was the real and proper heir to the British throne. Will you recognize me as your king?

Its not crazy, its just families

No, it is crazy.

Like I said before, a person's claim to the throne is based on the strength of the previous claim. Mary's father was still alive; there was no valid way for her to legitimately argue simultaneously that:

- she should be next in line to be queen, since her father is the legitimate monarch.
- her father should be deposed as king, since he is not the legitimate monarch.


She needed to argue both of these to support her claim that she, and not her still-living father, should be the monarch, but the arguments are inherently contradictory.

Yep thats true and up until now the British people support the Monarchy

Not always. There have been many times in British history when the people didn't support the Monarchy: the English Civil War, the so-called "Glorious" Revolution, etc. Britons have had no problem getting rid of monarchs in the past. Elizabeth's family should be happy with a simple sacking instead of being gotten rid of in the traditional way: beheading.

no one threw the bloodline away! its the same bloodline!

But the bloodline was vested in James II until he died. When he did die, it went to his son James.

I realize that the practice of passing over women is sexist, but if you want to go with equality, then this eliminates Mary as well: after James I, the crown would've gone to Elizabeth and her descendents instead of her younger brother, Charles I.

Mary ruled jointly and married William of Orange she was James Stewart daughter. and William was the grandson of Charles Stewart. They were in fact cousins.

While this is kinda creepy, it's also irrelevant. In the line of succession, two half claims add up to no claim, not a full claim.

And i may be wrong but i believe William of Orange was the last male heir of William the 1

That's the first I've ever heard of anything like that.

The House of Stuart was not the first ruling house of England to be deposed.

Yeah, I know - it's just the most recent example.
　

It has always been the right of Anglo-Saxons to choose their Monarch, Britain is ruled by consent according to traditions and laws that stretch back to the days before the Norman conquest.

Google Stephen, Richard II, Richard III and others to find that the English have always held one of their rights to be that they are ruled by consent and not by an iron-law of familial inheritance.
　
That they have chosen not to exercise this right in the case of the House of Windsor speaks more to the high integrity with which the Office of Sovereign has been exercised by that House than to anything else.

Personally, I think it speaks more to the irrelevancy of the monarchy.

 

[dmgdnooc]

　

Personally, I think it speaks more to the irrelevancy of the monarchy.

Your response implies that you agree that the British consent to having the Office of Sovereign invested in the House of Windsor.
　
The Office of Sovereign is not irrelevant; a Head of State is a requirement for most forms of government and for all forms that would appeal to the British people.
The Crown, its duties and functions, is essential to good government.
And the position would still be required, though called by another name (President, First Citizen, or whatever), no matter what might be devised to replace it.
　
That is, as I see it, the problem with removing the Monarchy. It would not be removed in fact, for another position with exactly the same duties and functions would then be created, it would, in fact, merely be replaced with a substitute.
　
I am not inclined to 'fix' something merely on the whim of a desire for change, especially something that does not require 'fixing'.
And, look at the 20th century, the House of Windsor has certainly demonstrated its ability to change with the times and adapt to new social and political realities. The Crown is quite a different institution today than it was 100 years ago.
The Crown is, ironically, a modern institution, fully adapted to the 21st century, thanks to ERII's constant labours, consistent clear vision and willingness to embrace the changes inherent in our progressive modern world.
　
I'm not a monarchist at heart (I'm an Australian and as such have a natural antagonism towards authority and think a stratified class structure is crap) but I do recognise the need for the position to exist in any scheme of good government and I acknowledge that HM has performed and is performing brilliantly in that capacity.

 

[MSI64]

Why would we sack the Queen?? she works as hard if not harder than some people who I pay for in this country!!
The Royal Family brings in revenue, pays Tax and is a figurehead for the Nation.
Why do we have the Royals??? Because its History and most people want it!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your response implies that you agree that the British consent to having the Office of Sovereign invested in the House of Windsor.

It's more that I don't feel like disputing the point. Until she's put to a popular vote, we wouldn't properly know one way or the other.
　

The Office of Sovereign is not irrelevant; a Head of State is a requirement for most forms of government and for all forms that would appeal to the British people.

The Crown, its duties and functions, is essential to good government.
And the position would still be required, though called by another name (President, First Citizen, or whatever), no matter what might be devised to replace it.
　
That is, as I see it, the problem with removing the Monarchy. It would not be removed in fact, for another position with exactly the same duties and functions would then be created, it would, in fact, merely be replaced with a substitute.

But a substitute where appointment is based on merit, and where appointing a head of state doesn't mean that the entire head of state's family gets to suckle at the public teat.
　

I am not inclined to 'fix' something merely on the whim of a desire for change, especially something that does not require 'fixing'.

I think there are serious problems inherent in the basic idea of monarchy. IMO, it most certainly requires fixing... though at the end of the day, my main issue is with the monarchy of Canada, not that of other countries. It just happens that the position of Monarch of Canada is tied up in the monarchy of Britain.

And, look at the 20th century, the House of Windsor has certainly demonstrated its ability to change with the times and adapt to new social and political realities. The Crown is quite a different institution today than it was 100 years ago.

The Crown is, ironically, a modern institution, fully adapted to the 21st century, thanks to ERII's constant labours, consistent clear vision and willingness to embrace the changes inherent in our progressive modern world.

No monarchy is "fully adapted to the 21st century". It's fundamentally an anti-democratic institution. Perhaps only symbolically, but I have no interest in maintaining official anti-democratic symbolism.
　

I'm not a monarchist at heart (I'm an Australian and as such have a natural antagonism towards authority and think a stratified class structure is crap) but I do recognise the need for the position to exist in any scheme of good government and I acknowledge that HM has performed and is performing brilliantly in that capacity.

So elect her. If she's so wonderful, then she should do just fine if she had to be approved or elected every few years, and without the notion that her son will automatically succeed her.

Why would we sack the Queen?? she works as hard if not harder than some people who I pay for in this country!!

I'm sure the same could be said of many kings of England that have been beheaded over the years.

The Royal Family brings in revenue,

What revenue?

BTW - just a thought: the Tower of London gets huge numbers of tourists. So does the Palace of Versailles. In contrast, Buckingham Palace gets comparatively smaller numbers of tourists, mainly because the Royal family lives there much of the time, so it's only open to tourists on a limited number of days per year. It seems to me that there would be more tourist dollars to be had if there wasn't a royal family occupying prime tourist attractions.

pays Tax

... with money derived from taxes themselves.

and is a figurehead for the Nation.

... which is fine if you like Elizabeth, but how do you know you'll feel the same way about, say, Prince William's future children? They'll probably be in line for the throne at some point, but they haven't even been born yet. Don't you think it would be bettter to find out something about them before agreeing to have them represent your nation to the world?

Why do we have the Royals??? Because its History and most people want it!

I'm not sure about "most people", but I for one don't want them.

 

[dmgdnooc]

OK, Canada and Australia appear to be in very similar positions in regards the British Crown. ERII is Queen of Australia too.
　
I am unfamiliar with the public discourse on the matter in Canada but have followed the debate in Australia with interest. There is a strong Republican movement here that is making much the same arguments as you present and I am not unsympathetic as regards its aims.
　
My arguments have been made with an eye to the OP - Why does the UK have royalty?
Should ERII, or her heirs, be the Sovereign of Canada and Australia? I perceive as being a whole other question.
Discussions of the position of the Crown in Britain do not translate well to the position of the British Crown elsewhere.
　
btw - Kings were, at the first, officials elected for temporary service, mostly in war time. Leaders democratically elected to handle a specific emergency that threatened the entire community.
That the institution became hereditary, exclusive and authoritarian does not negate that at the root, fundamentally, the position is an expression of democratic principles.

 

[kai]

In answer to the OP i think its fair and simple to say that we have a royal family because its tradition we are an old country that has lots of traditions .

Not everyone agrees but that's the way it is until a majority expresses the wish to see the end of the Monarchy for now their staying.

As for the question of members of the commonwealth having the Queen as sovereign well that's entirely up to them.

 

[kai]

A chain is as strong as its strongest link? :sarcastic:
sarcasm is the lowest form of wit
I have plenty of strong links in my family tree - I can show with a high degree of support my family tree going back many generations. Now... you'll just have to take my word for it that at the top of this tree was the real and proper heir to the British throne. Will you recognize me as your king?
No I think you may be delusional

No, it is crazy.

Like I said before, a person's claim to the throne is based on the strength of the previous claim. Mary's father was still alive; there was no valid way for her to legitimately argue simultaneously that:

- she should be next in line to be queen, since her father is the legitimate monarch.
- her father should be deposed as king, since he is not the legitimate monarch.


She needed to argue both of these to support her claim that she, and not her still-living father, should be the monarch, but the arguments are inherently contradictory.
Sure he can be deposed he can abdicate too, then the next in line for succession takes the throne, but the blood line is still a factor used for the succession ,The succession to the throne is regulated not only through descent, but also by statute ,succession was determined in the seventeenth century, in the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement.


Not always. There have been many times in British history when the people didn't support the Monarchy: the English Civil War, the so-called "Glorious" Revolution, etc. Britons have had no problem getting rid of monarchs in the past. Elizabeth's family should be happy with a simple sacking instead of being gotten rid of in the traditional way: beheading.
I am well aware of British History i said right now we are fine with the queen thanks

But the bloodline was vested in James II until he died. When he did die, it went to his son James. the blood line is vested in all the family , but succession is based on lots of things including Protestantism,James 11 was deposed by parliament and the Hanovers still had Stuart blood in the line

I realize that the practice of passing over women is sexist, but if you want to go with equality, then this eliminates Mary as well: after James I, the crown would've gone to Elizabeth and her descendents instead of her younger brother, Charles I.
I dont make up the rules parliament does or did

While this is kinda creepy, it's also irrelevant. In the line of succession, two half claims add up to no claim, not a full claim.
well it was creepy and claim enough for parliament, i am not sure what you want from me i am just giving you the facts

That's the first I've ever heard of anything like that.

its in all the genealogies i have seen you can find a mention here and take it up further if you wish. the Royal houses of Europe are all related

William III of England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[kai]

BTW - just a thought: the Tower of London gets huge numbers of tourists. So does the Palace of Versailles. In contrast, Buckingham Palace gets comparatively smaller numbers of tourists, mainly because the Royal family lives there much of the time, so it's only open to tourists on a limited number of days per year. It seems to me that there would be more tourist dollars to be had if there wasn't a royal family occupying prime tourist attractions.

Buck house isnt all that impressive i think many people only go there to see the changing of the guards etc. and the fact that the Queen lives there.I think if the Queen didn't live there it wouldn't draw any more tourists than any other stately home.Hampton Court Palace is far more interesting ( if you take the Queen out of the equation, in fact it gets far more visitors than buck house even with the queen)
Versailles on the other hand is another kettle of fish and visited for other reasons( one of which is, it is really most beautiful) the same as the most visited palace in europe which i believe is the Alhambra