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

Speaking of Russia, evidently at one time, there was consideration of Grand Duchess Olga, Nicholas II's eldest daughter, as a bride for Edward, Prince of Wales. It's interesting to think how that might have changed history.

Remembering the death of George VI people mourned, lined up to pay respect and Elizabeth was proclaimed Queen. After that the Coronation was planned. The Duke of Norfolk was in charge of that. Heads of States attended this, notably the Queen of Tonga who was hugely popular. People sat out all night and the conquering of Everest was announced that morning. We were so proud of our lovely, young queen. She toured the Commomwealth and was the best looking head of any state.

The Queen and Prince Philip visited various areas of London in the weeks following the Coronation The day before she came to our area a group of excited schoolchildren had run into the road to get closer, so our head said we had to stay sitting on the pavement when the royal car came by. The Duke looked very surprised to see 500 girls in brown check dresses cheering and waving from a seated position.
I can imagine the comments from outraged parents if that happened today. There would be letters to governors, complaints to Ofsted, sad faces in the Daily Mail and so on.

helen, the bodies in the tower would have a very big impact on the Queen's claim to the throne. Do you remember the show about 'King Michael' about ten years ago claiming that an Australian man was the rightful king of England? The bodies in the tower could confirm or disprove that theory.

Our current royal family's claim goes back to Henry VII and his wife Elizabeth of York via their daughter Margaret. Henry VII was confirmed as King by parliament (so technically any claim via him is valid) but his claim was hugely tenuous and marred both by illegitimacy, acts of parliament disqualifying his line and the fact stronger claimants (including, incidentally, the family of Katherine of Aragon) were passed over to get to him.

The upshot of that is that a lot of people see the legitimacy of the current royal family's claim as coming via his wife Elizabeth of York who was the sister of the Princes in the Tower. But there are questions over their father Edward IV's parentage and rumours that his father was an archer called Blaybourne and not the Duke of York from who his claim came. The date he was conceived is dodgy as his father may have been away at war and he was exceptionally tall and blonde in a small dark family. Richard III was his brother and the princes in the tower his sons. If the DNA of both was examined and it was discovered that the male line was broken and Richard III and Edward IV didn't share the same father it would hugely weaken the current royal family's claim and give a massive boost to republicans.

It's never going to happen much as I wish it would. There are so many mysteries it could solve. There are rumours about Elizabeth I's parentage. We're not sure which bodies in St Peter ad Vincula belong to who, so Anne Boleyn, Katherine Howard, Jane Boleyn and Jane Grey have possibly been mixed up as they were only identified by poor Victorian techniques. And rumours of poisoning of people such as King John could be investigated.

You never know, maybe Charles will change it, but I'm not holding my breath.

happy, eddie, really fascinating to hear your memories.

BillSykesDog thanks for your fascinating knowledge about our Royal family. Is it a professional interest or a hobby? You seem very informed. I've really enjoyed reading this thread. Thank you.

See, I really don't think it would, whatever the DNA showed.

However weak (biologically) Henry VII's claim was, he was king by right of conquest, accepted by parliament if not by popularity, and polished off most of the threats in his reign, with Henry Viii finishing the job.

James I/VI was deemed as the heir of Elizabeth I and was already king of Scotland through his grandfather and great grandfather (married to Margaret Tudor). So whatever the legitimacy of Edward IV, he would remain king of Scotland.

"It would hugely weaken the current royal family's claim and give a massive boost to republicans. "

Again, disagree - republicans surely dispute the concept of monarchy, not which side of the bedsheets someone was conceived 600 years ago!

It would probably not come as a great surprise to find the line broken somewhere along the way.

But the possibilities of having historical mysteries solved by DNA technology is fascinating. Evidently the mystery of whether the Duke of Monmouth was actually the son of Charles II has been likely solved positively through DNA testing of various Stewarts and the present Duke of Buccleuch, a direct descendant.

All of which brings to mind another interesting fact: Charles II, who had no legitimate children, will have a direct descendant of his on the throne when and if William succeeds. He is a descendant of Charles II through Diana.

Helen, but the entire principle of monarchy is that it's heriditary. Even though Henry VII won it by conquest he claimed it and parliament accepted it because of his bloodline. And republicans would say, 'Well if the central principle has been compromised like this it just shows how worthless and meaningless the institution is'. When an entire institution depends on bloodlines and passing from (usually) father to child and legitimacy being from the wrong side of the bedsheets is a big deal! And that it shows that the identity of our entire head of state depends on the willingness (or otherwise) of an individual woman to be a chaste wife.

Ditto still being monarch of Scotland, in these times of demands for independence having a monarch whose claim to one country was shaky would be destabilising. The whole thing would be a very risky game for them, they have the say on if it's done and I'd be amazed if they chance it.

Butter, I'm a very big reader of history and have a good memory. But I'm studying for a qualification which I hope will mean it's my profession soon. Thank you.

I didn't know there were rumours about Elizabeth I's parentage. She looks so like Henry and Anne in the paintings.

There are a lot of people who have a better claim if you only looked at legitimate blood lines. All those Catholics, for example.

But the Bill of Rights (1688) and the Act of Succession (1701) pretty much established that Parliament could overrule the hereditary principle if necessary and create an arbitrary rule as to who qualifies. The present Queen's right to the throne depends much more on the Act of Succession than it does on her descent from the Plantagenet line.

Sorry, Act of Settlement, not Succession!

Henry VII's claim was "de bello et de jure" though - by conquest and by blood. The illegitimacy in his descent was well known at the time and he was proclaimed king before he married Elizabeth of York. Elizabeth herself had been proclaimed a bastard by Richard III with titulus regius, repealed by Henry VII.

Sorry, I simply think in today's world, if you are a republican then it's about your view of today's monarchy and/or the principle of monarchy.

As an aside, Elizabeth I was born 7 months after Henry viii married Anne Boleyn, implying she was conceived when they were betrothed. I personally doubt her adultery at all, I certainly doubt she was adulterous before their full marriage!

Actually, 7 might not be quite right but dates were certainly indicative of a pre-marital conception!

Yy Rusty also.

balloon, they're probably not true. Mary I said several times that she looked like Mark Smeaton, the musician who was executed and that she thought he was her father. However as she named her as her successor so she probably didn't really believe it.

Her paintings aren't really very reliable because they showed the image she wanted to give rather than who she really was, she was very, very conscious of manipulating her image. If she'd wanted to play up a resemblance to Henry, she would have.

Even if it didn't exist.

It was in Mary's interest to discredit Elizabeth as a figurehead for protestants though. Plus she believed she was at best an illegitimate daughter of Henry as k of A was still alive at her birth.

And, of course, if you believed Henry VIII's line that his marriage to K of A was invalid, Mary herself was potentially illegitimate and sometimes treated as such (though of course Henry named them both as heirs after Edward)

Regardless of the act of succession or the legitimacy of Henry VII claim it is still a heriditary monarchy. Yes it does rule some people out on the basis of religion, but the people it rules in are still ruled in on the basis of the hereditary principle. And a discovery that actually there was a break would be a huge great deal and undermine the whole principle. It would open the floodgates for more testing and could potentially lead to legal challenges to the monarchy. This isn't that far fetched, an Earl (I think) was recently stripped of his title and it was given to a relative because a family DNA project turned up that he was not actually part of the family and an ancestor had been passed off as the son of someone he wasn't. I'll have a look for the details after I've put DS to bed. But it would open too many floodgates and raise awkward questions. They won't do it.

They may not do it, but I utterly disagree with republicans being fired up by any such findings.

Separately, you can't say regardless of the legitimacy of Henry VII claim. If his claim of rule by conquest is legitimate, the legitimacy of his wife is irrelevant. Whether she was a bastard daughter of Edward IV (which Ricardians believe, of course) or he was a bastard son of a Neville daughter (who herself descended from Edward III), if his claim was legitimate, so was that of his heirs.

though of course Henry named them both as heirs after Edward

And he never bothered to re-legitimize them.

And Henry VII made a point of marrying Elizabeth after becoming king because he didn't want his claim to be based on hers.

Sorry, I simply think in today's world, if you are a republican then it's about your view of today's monarchy and/or the principle of monarchy.

Absolutely agree.

Nice to hear there's some long running threads in History Club. It was quiet last time I posted there, just after it was created.