What happens when the queen dies?

[Bibs2014]

I know that. Harley's becomes king etc but what happens to the others? Will they be left money/homes/? Do they inherit anything? Is the queen allowed to leave them royal 'stuff'?

Might be a bit random but I just thought of it

I think by the time Harry was born they were just glad there wasn't another really difficult name choice that Diana wanted - John was banned despite being her father's name because they are superstitious and William was a controversial choice (King Billy is not a popular thought/choice in parts of Northern Ireland or Scotland!).

We haven't had a Henry since Henry VIII. But we've also had Henry V who had Agincourt etc. And aside from all the murder n shit it is possible to find positives in Henry's reign such as developments in the constitution and defence. Arguably you can even say that most of the wife business was done selflessly to avoid plunging England back into civil war by creating a secure succession.

Yeah, John was a right fuck up. Stephen is another one they wouldn't touch. Also RIchard is a bit dicey.

Also, he's a direct descendant of Henry VII (via his eldest daughter, Margaret Tudor), IIRC

He (and the whole bunch) are also direct descendants of James I and VI as well. Too bad the name fell out of favor; there were a few decent Jameses who were kings of Scots.

Plus, Henry II is a great king to be named for - he did some pretty epic things in forging the country together, the formation of some basic tenets of common law, keeping the warrior bishops under control, etc. Was also great diplomatically and had the commonsense to marry Eleanor of Aquitaine, who was fabulous.

Of course there was that tiny snafu with Thomas Becket and that while thing where his sons were in active revolt against him, aided by their mother, when he died.

Yy Seneca.

I kinda like that despite all Henry VIII's planning to avoid a female line, there was Elizabeth I... then his sister's line is still on the throne today.

I do like Henry VIII's lifetime of marital shenanigans summed up neatly as the "wife business".

It was a toss up between 'blood thirsty serial killing' and 'wife business' cakes. Decided to go for understated.

That said I think there are few sadder stories in history than poor little teenage Catherine Howard. Orphaned and ignored and probably sexually abused and exploited before she was married then wedded off to a horrific murderous old ogre for the sake of her power hungry family. The executed partly because she was abused and partly because she looked for love elsewhere. So tragic, always gets me that one. I really hope ghosts don't exist because I can't bear the idea of her spending eternity running down the haunted gallery terrified and begging for her life.

The wife business! Whipping off their heads whenever he tired of them..
I would have been very wary of naming anyone after him.
He divided the country because of his girding loins. Pissed off with the pope because he wanted to get divorced every 6 months.
Without Reformation, we may have avoided centuries of conflict between Catholics and protestants. I can't watch any dramas or documentaries on the twat 👹

pickled the reformation was well underway before Henry, and he wasn't actually a Protestant, he was Catholic in all his beliefs and practices except believing that Kings should not be subject to the Pope because they were divinely ordained by God as his instruments. He actually wrote very critical books on Protestantism and his sixth wife Katherine Parr came very, very close to being executed by him because she supported Protestantism and assisted in the dissemination of its ideas. Edward VI was actually the first Protestant King. But the reformation would have happened in Northern Europe without him splitting from Rome, it would just have delayed it in England.

There were actually very good reasons for everything which happened with his wives. England had been in a state of intermittent civil war for 200 years because of an unstable succession and he had a golden opportunity to end that if he had a son.

Katherine of Aragon wasn't going to have any more children and wanted her daughter to be Queen and marry Charles V so England became a satellite of Spain & the Holy Roman Empire which wasn't going to happen.

Anne Boleyn had 4 pregnancies and only one live child plus the validity of their marriage was in question (and so the legitimacy of any children in the succession) because it happened while K of A was alive so she had to be got rid of for a marriage which was unquestionably legitimate to someone who could bear children to secure the succession.

Jane Seymour died without being mistreated.

Anne of Cleves was delighted to be divorced and treated very well afterwards.

Katherine Howard had to be executed because she actually did what she was accused of.

Katherine Parr survived him and he actually tolerated a lot of dubious religious activity on her part which was technically treason.

He was an old ogre, but he was also trying to secure peace, stability and continuity in England after a long period of destructive and destabilising wars.

I think after 500 years or so, it's ok for there to be another royal Henry!

I dunno, 800 years and still no John!

Jane Seymour died without being mistreated - lucky her.

None of Henrys wives had to be murdered (in the eyes of many - they were murdered).
Reformation happened under Henry because the Pope wouldn't let him divorce. It happened under his rule, and it is well documented that the popes interventions in him not being able to divorce was his motivation for it.

Reformation would have been rumbling years before he instructed it, but it didn't happen until Henry denounced his catholisism and fast tracked reformation because the pope would not grant him a divorce.

And all these wives guilty of adultery
Adultery being his justification for beheading them for treason. .

I like your arguments but disagree with a lot of what you say

There were actually very good reasons for everything which happened with his wives. England had been in a state of intermittent civil war for 200 years because of an unstable succession and he had a golden opportunity to end that if he had a son.

Well the unstable succession thing was partly due to the tudors having a very very dubious claim to the throne. Henry VII was the usurper and he ended the uncertainty when he had Arthur and then Henry. Henry VIII didn't have nearly the same succession problems - although he did get rid of many of the remaining heirs to the throne.

Katherine of Aragon wasn't going to have any more children and wanted her daughter to be Queen and marry Charles V so England became a satellite of Spain & the Holy Roman Empire which wasn't going to happen.

Well for years and years - I think 20 - Henry was happy in his marriage (if not faithful) and was happy with Mary as his successor especially considering he and not his wife would be choosing her groom. He only changed his mind when he met Anne Boleyn.

Anne Boleyn had 4 pregnancies and only one live child plus the validity of their marriage was in question (and so the legitimacy of any children in the succession) because it happened while K of A was alive so she had to be got rid of for a marriage which was unquestionably legitimate to someone who could bear children to secure the succession.

Anne Boleyn was doomed as soon as Katherine of Aragon died and she hadn't borne a son. Once she died, his second illegitimate marriage could be set aside and he was now a widower. the idea that he could legitimately kill a wife because he was worried about the legitimacy of their marriage is odd. And failure to bear a male child wasn't grounds for execution even in medieval europe.

I actually think Anne Boleyn is the one murder that could be attributed to Henry - he wanted her gone and I think it was rage because he had loved her and nothing good had come of it.

Jane Seymour died without being mistreated. Lucky for her

Anne of Cleves was delighted to be divorced and treated very well afterwards. Again, lucky for her

Katherine Howard had to be executed because she actually did what she was accused of.

Katherine Parr was a very young girl who hadn't passed off anyone else's child as the king child. There are loads of instances during that time period and earlier of wives being unfaithful and not being executed. The idea that she needed to be executed as a matter of law is weird. I suspect the story about hearing her cries might relate to the guilt he must have felt at imposing this fate on this young girl who had just caught his fancy.

Katherine Parr survived him and he actually tolerated a lot of dubious religious activity on her part which was technically treason.

Not tolerated. she just managed him and outlived him. It must have been a relief, especially since like all the wives from Jane Seymour on, they really had no choice but to say yes to that marriage proposal.

He was an old ogre, but he was also trying to secure peace, stability and continuity in England after a long period of destructive and destabilising wars.

No, he started off like that (or rather his father did) and for at least 20 years he ruled a stable England with his wife by his side and an heir, a daughter, to pass it all on to.

He ended up as a narcissist whose whims ruled England and ruined his wives' lives. Worst mid life crisis in the history of the world really.

He may have started off okay, but I still think he was a twat.
Narcissistic and self centred to the extreme. Weight gain and ulcerated legs are often blamed for his erratic behaviour and foul moods - but I suspect in this day and age he may have a different diagnosis for his behaviour.
I wouldn't name my son after him if I was a royal...

pickled, the reformation began in earnest when Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to a door in Germany in 1517 - 15 years before England split with Rome. Henry VIII did NOT make England a Protestant country. He still believed in transubstatiation, he still believed that everybody else needed the intercession of the church to go to heaven rather than faith alone. He wasn't Protestant, he was a Catholic who believed in all aspects of Catholicism except that Kings should have to submit to the pope. Henry VIII was never a Protestant and it was his son Edward VI who implemented Protestantism in England. Henry VIII actually persecuted Protestants even after the split with Rome. You're confusing the split from Rome and the Protestant reformation which are not the same things.

Two of his wives were executed for adultery and one of them was definitely guilty. Some historians argue that both were but it's difficult to know as most of the records of Anne Boleyn's trial were destroyed. Regardless, it was politically expedient to get rid of Anne Boleyn. H8 probably thought that her death was a price worth paying not to plunge the country into another civil war which would have killed thousands and created untold turmoil.

And Katherine Howard was guilty. By the standards of the day he had absolutely no choice but to execute her.

Both were very sad, but there were logical reasons behind both and he may well not have been an out and out monster and was simply concerned with the greater good of his country and preventing a repeat of the decades of chaos the country had been through prior to his father's reign.

His split from the Catholic Church was because he did not believe that he should answer to the pope. It was fine for other Catholics to not be able to divorce - but he wanted to divorce and marry as he wanted. This then led to the Catholic Church and the Royal family going their separate ways leading to reformation.
It was called for many years before, but the divide didn't begin until his request to divorce was refused by the pope.

Well, this is what we were taught at school, and what the history books say anywat. Unless I went to a crap school and read the wrong books!

He was also known to cook up stories of adultery to justify killing his wives. He also implicated others and had them killed too - using his consorts to falsify statements that they witnessed adultery.
He was a twat who couldn't keep it in his pants really. He could have been more discreet about it but chose not to be, and laid the blame of adultery on others instead.

Well for years and years - I think 20 - Henry was happy in his marriage (if not faithful) and was happy with Mary as his successor especially considering he and not his wife would be choosing her groom

He was never happy with Mary as his successor. England had never had a female monarch and it was seen as an absolute impossibility and one which would lead to war and chaos. It's no coincidence he started making moves to annul his marriage to K of A when she was in her very late 30s/early 40s and the possibility of a son from her was gone. It wasn't simply lust for Anne Boleyn but dynastic concerns. There are documents written by Anne Boleyn to Henry during their courtship that show she dangled the prospect of legitimate sons to talk him into marriage just as much as he was tempted by her herself.

Mary had limited options of marriage and whoever her husband was it was assumed that he, rather than Mary would be the real ruler. Henry was in a dangerous position regarding foreign powers boxing him into a corner to get her hand, or (as did happen) convincing her to marry into their dynasties after his death. He couldn't marry her to an English man without creating a dangerous opposition faction and losing control of her as a possible bride for foreign powers which kept those powers somewhat in check. His only real option was keeping her unmarried and he knew if he died and she ascended the throne she would marry into the Habsburg dynasty and if she reproduced England would just become their satellite (which very nearly happened).

Anne Boleyn was officially executed for treason, adultery, witchcraft and incest.

Katherine Howard was executed because a) she was a commoner and b) it was pretty much absolutely certain she had done what she was accused of. Actually, no, it was not at all common for Queen's to be unfaithful and if they were the question of whether it happened or not was much more ambiguous. Or they were of royal birth which meant execution was not an option. But as Catherine was a commoner, had slept with multiple men before she married and concealed it and also committed adultery quite blatantly, he didn't have much option but to execute her. And King's didn't tend to wait until a Queen had passed off a child as theirs before acting. There was no DNA then and no way of telling who was the father of a child. A child with doubtful parentage would always be there trying to snatch the throne and would be yet another destabilising influence.

Katherine Parr didn't just manage him, he chose to turn a blind eye to a lot of her activities.

You're making the mistake of judging what happened then by today's standards. And I think possibly you've read a few too many Philippa Gregorys/Jean Plaidys. You've got a very basic overview of a simplified narrative but there are an awful lot more layers and it's a lot more complicated than you think.

He wasn't just driven by his own personal desires but also a desire to create a safe stable peaceful country.

Although you may be partly right as some historians argue that a head injury while he was married to Anne Boleyn may have changed his personality. But that's very much disputed and not at all certain.

He was a twat who couldn't keep it in his pants really. He could have been more discreet about it but chose not to be, and laid the blame of adultery on others instead.

He was actually very poorly sexed as medieval kings go and is thought to have suffered from sexual problems including impotency. He had a couple of known affairs early in his reign but was not a highly sexed individual by any means.

And one of his wives DID commit adultery. Anne Boleyn may not have done, but that by no means means that Henry didn't believe she had. She was just as much a victim of anti Protestant and anti Boleyn factions at court who plotted against her as she was of Henry himself.

I dunno, 800 years and still no John!

George V and Mary's John probably put the name out of use for a long time to come as well!

Yep. Bad Juju!

Wasn't there a poor little prince john with a disability born to George Vth? and they just kept him in a cottage with a carer for years?
It is interesting here in Australia - all discussion of a republic is basically shelved until after the Queen dies. However I think when that happens there will be a huge wave of nostalgia and 'let Charles have a go, he's waited long enough' so I think we will miss the moment.
I feel as if every year there is a new -slightly contradictory-- announcement about William's future role. Didn't he just have a "gap year" ? And why was so much spent doing up the place in Norfolk if they were always going to come to London for George's school?