Mental resistance, huh? Well that'll show 'em. The King of Norway had the better part, methinks.
In Scandinavia they're very proud of the fact that their monarchs are all down to earth men with the common touch. They have some expression for it that translates to "bicycle kings." I always thought that was a playing card company.
Speaking of kings who live in the real world, I saw on the cover of a supermarket tabloid (Hey, come on, stop laughing, let me finish) that Prince William and What's-Her-Name plan to start cohabitating. It occurred to me that it's far from inconceivable (no pun intended) that they'd have a baby before they finally get around to making it legal. If they conceive, I doubt they'd rush into a shotgun wedding; it would be sleazy and undignified. So would the scandal arising over a child born out of wedlock, but rushed wedding preparations would just give the tabloids even more to talk about. And anyway, I'm sure they want to have a Wedding of the Century to rival his parents' (which wasn't in this century anyway, I suppose).
Anyway, if the child is born out of wedlock he'll be constitutionally disqualified from ascending to the throne even if William and What's-Her-Name marry at a later date. But the sensibilities of the modern British (as well as the Canadians and Aussies and all the rest) would, I expect, have little if any problem being reigned over by The Prince That Came Early. In fact, I expect there'd be a far greater public outcry if the hypothetical illegitimate issue were passed over for a younger sibling or for Harry or Harry's kids. One assumes the press will have fawned over the son of the popular Prince William just as it has always fawned over the sons of the popular Princess Diana, and I think people might be legitimately (again, no pun intended) upset if that happened.
Should be interesting to watch the fur fly, if all these things come to pass as I've suggested. By the time William's children are in position to inherit it will have been well over a century since Edward VIII's abdication, and it will be the first succession crisis in living memory. You might see things like different Parliaments in different Commonwealth realms recognizing different sovereigns, or you might even see republicans take advantage of the chaos to chuck monarchy altogether, as de Valera tried to do when Edward VIII abdicated.
Umm . . . I think it would be safe to call the above an example of topic drift. Turtle Fan 06:12, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Donutting the thread to observe that--they did wait until it was all legal, so succession crisis averted. And the male-preference-primogeniture and no-Catholic rules are seem to be on the way out (the latter probably being less relevant to the child of William and Kate than the former: I imagine s/he will be raised as an Anglican, but an elder girl child may take the throne even if a boy child comes along.) TR (talk) 23:34, February 13, 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed. I think the last time someone in the line of succession was passed over for leading with their left foot was 1720 something, and the closest Catholic to the throne will be about sixtieth in line once he's reinstated. It was an obnoxious rule just the same. I know it was a huge problem for Canada, where the constitution explicitly guarantees that no job can be denied based on religious discrimination.
- Correction: The Earl of St Andrews would be thirty-first in line. He's Church of England; his wife is Catholic. So is his son, Baron Downpatrick, who will one day become the first Catholic Duke of Kent since the Reformation. His third child is right-footed so she holds spot number 31 on the succession list. (That will of course bump down to 32 once William's child is born.) Neither St Andrews nor Downpatrick will ever get back on the list thanks to the lack of retroactivity. Downpatrick's children will, further denigrating their aunt's remote chances.Turtle Fan (talk) 04:58, February 14, 2013 (UTC)
- And incidentally, Catholics once again outnumber Anglicans in England and Wales. 2007 was when the tipping point was reached, if I recall correctly. Immigration from Ireland, Poland, and the Czech Republic has a lot to do with it (which makes rising nativism worrisome), but Anglican conversions have been high, and the social stigma is nearly gone; Blair didn't have any trouble with it, for instance, and he was an extremely high profile convert. It's conceivable that a royal might convert some day.
- It certainly could, though the child would have an awkward time explaining to his or her father, grandfather, and/or great-grandmother that the Church of England just wasn't doing it for him or her anymore. Or not; they say Charles barely gives a shit about the Church one way or the other.
- I do wonder what the constitutional implications would be if a Catholic monarch ascended in the modern era. Most likely it would bring the question of disestablishmentarianism to the forefront. Turtle Fan (talk) 20:51, February 14, 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, and one other thing: Downpatrick's godmother was Diana; at the time she was still next in line to be Queen. The fact that she had no objection to attending a Catholic baptism is . . . interesting, anyway. Turtle Fan (talk) 20:56, February 14, 2013 (UTC)
- But as for the gender thing, yes, that's far more urgent and relevant. One of the big controversies of the bill was whether to make the act retroactive to 2011 or retroactive open-endedly. (They needed retroactivity in there somewhere for fear the baby's born before every Commonwealth Parliament got it through.) Open ended retroactivity might have give the great-great-grandchild of some king's older sister or other the theoretical right to oust Elizabeth right away. (The Catholics-are-now-permitted clause has no retroactivity; the line of Jacobite claimants is still thriving, and currently rests on an eighty-year-old Wittelsbach duke, who would also be King of Bavaria if the German Empire hadn't fallen.)
- It occurs to me I read years ago about a vague sort of pissing match within the Jacobites as to who was the lawful pretender. My subsequent Googling doesn't quite support this--there are arguments for heirs other than Wittelsbach, but I can't find anything about anyone putting forth a claim. TR (talk) 17:57, February 14, 2013 (UTC)
- No one would be putting forth a claim. Franz Wittelsbach doesn't, either. But if there's a pretender-pretender . . . well the scenario I so lovingly developed last night about a Nazi-Jacobite alliance looks a whole lot weaker now. Not that it was all that likely to begin with. :( Turtle Fan (talk) 20:56, February 14, 2013 (UTC)
- Now that a princess can be heir apparent instead of just heir presumptive, I suppose we can see a Princess of Wales holding the title in her own right. We'll have to update Category:Princes of Wales accordingly. Turtle Fan (talk) 02:48, February 14, 2013 (UTC)
In Worldwar[]
The Worldwar section is irrelevant, full stop. Christian isn't mentioned in Worldwar ever. TR (talk) 17:47, April 17, 2014 (UTC)