[okigen]

Hi guys,

I'm an international student coming to the UK for a postgrad course this September. To improve my English before the trip, recently I watched the BBC Horrible Histories show And I absolutely love it

Just out of curiosity, I notice that there have been many queens in European history. My question is: if the queen marries and has children, which bloodline will the children belong to - their mother's or father's? For example, I googled about Queen Victoria and found that she belonged to House of Hanover while her successor was of House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha So does it mean that House of Hanover lost power?

If a Queen leads to her bloodline no longer ruling, why do Houses accept this so easily?

I'm asking this because it's really different to my country In our history, dynasties always tried their best to protect the throne, and a new House can only seize power through either war or coup d'etat against the old one.

[AdvanceAndVanquish]

I think the problem is that you are mistaking a change in the family's name for a change in the family. The children are in the bloodline of both parents--they can't help but be so. If the children of a Queen take her husband's dynastic name, they don't become any less her children or part of her family. When dealing with Victoria and her heirs you are also dealing with a period when the monarchy had already become largely ceremonial, something which would only increase as time went on.

You have to go a bit farther back to find proper dynastic conflict.

What country are you from, btw?

[okigen]

(Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
I think the problem is that you are mistaking a change in the family's name for a change in the family. The children are in the bloodline of both parents--they can't help but be so. If the children of a Queen take her husband's dynastic name, they don't become any less her children or part of her family. When dealing with Victoria and her heirs you are also dealing with a period when the monarchy had already become largely ceremonial, something which would only increase as time went on.

You have to go a bit farther back to find proper dynastic conflict.

What country are you from, btw?

Whoa, thanks for the reply. This is opposite to dynasties in my country. I'm from Vietnam btw

What do you mean by "largely ceremonial"?

[AdvanceAndVanquish]

The monarchy in the UK is largely ceremonial in that the Queen doesn't actually make any decisions. She technically retains almost all of her powers, but it is understood that she uses them 'on the advice on the Prime Minister.' It is also entirely her choice who to ask to become Prime Minister, as long as she always asks the leader of the Parliamentary party with the most seats in the Commons. This was already largely the case when Victoria became Queen, although she still attempted to have a say in Government, but in policy terms she was essentially an advisor to the Prime Minister, although to this day Britain maintains the constitutional fiction that it is then other way around.

[okigen]

(Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
The monarchy in the UK is largely ceremonial in that the Queen doesn't actually make any decisions. She technically retains almost all of her powers, but it is understood that she uses them 'on the advice on the Prime Minister.' It is also entirely her choice who to ask to become Prime Minister, as long as she always asks the leader of the Parliamentary party with the most seats in the Commons. This was already largely the case when Victoria became Queen, although she still attempted to have a say in Government, but in policy terms she was essentially an advisor to the Prime Minister, although to this day Britain maintains the constitutional fiction that it is then other way around.

Erh... So that means she always has to appoint the leader of the dominant party?

Then I have another question: are all the "ceremonial" roles you mentioned above (i.e. she has to do everything "on the advice of the Prime Minister") officially stated in laws, or do people just take it for granted?

[AverageExcellence]

Your moderately interested in british tradition are you? Congratulations you're more patriotic than 80% of brits!

[AdvanceAndVanquish]

(Original post by okigen)
Erh... So that means she always has to appoint the leader of the dominant party?

Yup. That's one of the main things that makes this system of government representative, despite being a monarchy.

(Original post by okigen)
Then I have another question: are all the "ceremonial" roles you mentioned above (i.e. she has to do everything "on the advice of the Prime Minister") officially stated in laws, or do people just take it for granted?

I'm pretty sure it's written down somewhere that she has to get his advice, although I might be wrong about that and it might just be entrenched custom. It is certainly not written down anywhere that she has to do what he says, and she doesn't have to--as long as she always does.

[okigen]

(Original post by AverageExcellence)
Your moderately interested in british tradition are you? Congratulations you're more patriotic than 80% of brits!

Because we don't have monarchies here I'm just trying to imagine how it feels to grow up with a queen

(Sorry I disliked your post by accident *bow*)

[Psyk]

(Original post by okigen)
Hi guys,

I'm an international student coming to the UK for a postgrad course this September. To improve my English before the trip, recently I watched the BBC Horrible Histories show And I absolutely love it

Just out of curiosity, I notice that there have been many queens in European history. My question is: if the queen marries and has children, which bloodline will the children belong to - their mother's or father's? For example, I googled about Queen Victoria and found that she belonged to House of Hanover while her successor was of House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha So does it mean that House of Hanover lost power?

If a Queen leads to her bloodline no longer ruling, why do Houses accept this so easily?

I'm asking this because it's really different to my country In our history, dynasties always tried their best to protect the throne, and a new House can only seize power through either war or coup d'etat against the old one.

Well technically the "Royal house" does change. As you say Edward VII (Victoria's eldest son) was part of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, not the House of Hanover like Victoria was. But to most people it's still seen as the continuation of the same royal line because in the end they're still the child of the previous monarch.

And I think in the past they did try to "carry on the family name". That's why in the past monarchs would try desperately to have a son to take the throne after them. Henry VIII is a good example, it took him 3 children and 3 wives to have a boy. Not that it did much good in the end since his son died so young and both his daughters ended up being Queens anyway.

This is presumably also why the throne always went to the oldest son of the monarch, and would only go to a daughter if there were no sons. However this changed less than a year ago, and from now on the throne will go to the eldest child regardless of gender. This will be relevant if Prince William happens to have a daughter first (which is why the passed the law before he had any children).

edit - Just looked on Wikipedia, and apparently Prince Charles will still be considered to be part of the House of Windsor even though that comes from his mother's side.

[anarchism101]

The monarchical succession has been based on male-first primogeniture for about 500 years, except for the Jacobites being removed from the succession in 1688. Before that succession was a lot more flexible and often changed according to what powerful nobles wanted (e.g. Wars of the Roses). But all English monarchs since 1066 have been of the same family - direct descendants of William the Conqueror.

[Super Cicero]

(Original post by okigen)
Erh... So that means she always has to appoint the leader of the dominant party?

Not necessarily. For example in the 1918 UK general election, the Conservatives got the MPs elected, as well as the highest % of the vote, but David Lloyd George the Liberal leader became Prime Minister as part of a Coalition government.

[Mazzini]

(Original post by Psyk)
edit - Just looked on Wikipedia, and apparently Prince Charles will still be considered to be part of the House of Windsor even though that comes from his mother's side.

Because his mother is the queen regnant rather than the queen consort so he will be part of the House of Windsor. Or so I believe.

[Psyk]

(Original post by Mazzini)
Because his mother is the queen regnant rather than the queen consort so he will be part of the House of Windsor. Or so I believe.

But Edward VII was part of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, inherited from his father, rather than House of Hanover from Queen Victoria.

[Arbolus]

(Original post by Psyk)
But Edward VII was part of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, inherited from his father, rather than House of Hanover from Queen Victoria.

The sole reason Charles is going to be a Windsor is because the Queen decided that's what the royal house should be. Not all women take their husband's surname when they marry, and there's no reason why the Queen should be different. If Charles wants to change it to something else when he becomes king then that's his business.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by Psyk)
But Edward VII was part of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, inherited from his father, rather than House of Hanover from Queen Victoria.

Prince Phillip renounced his membership of the House of Glucksburg after WW2 due to anti-German sentiment (though ironically the Glucksburgs are not and never have been the ruling family of any German state), and changed his surname to Mountbatten. Effectively he isn't part of any House, but the legal surname of all his and the Queen's descendants is Mountbatten-Windsor.

[Mazzini]

(Original post by Psyk)
But Edward VII was part of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, inherited from his father, rather than House of Hanover from Queen Victoria.

I think it was overruled by Churchill (the then-PM) in Prince Charles' case because Lord Mountbatten went around boasting that he would be in the royal house but Queen Mary (George V's wife) intervened, not wanting her royal dynasty to be gotten rid of after she'd worked hard to build it up in the first place.