Are the rules of accession to the throne different today?
208422
Edward V11 he fell in love with Wallace Simpson who was a divorcee.so he abdicated,the rules arent a lot diffrent now maybe us British are more tolerant
77565
The queen of England is merely a figurehead in parliament. The Prime Minister does all the work. (Likewise, no disrespect.) It wasn't always like that though. Before the English Revolution, it was the other way around. to find out more on the subject, do a search about "English Revolution."
547771
There's no 'chair', and infact the way that Britain is run is nothing like in the US. The boss of the two houses is the Queen, who has no power. Britain was previously made similar to a republic when Charles I was killed and Cromwell ran the country, but the British brought kings back because they're funny and provide scandal, but the people made all monarch's powers redundant.\n\nMPs in the house of commons are elected by citizens and stay there until the next election is called, normally every 5 years.\n\nThe house of lords is occupied by the lords, consisting of religious lords (bishops), law lords, life peers and hereditary lords. Hereditary lords are the ones that inherit their title and are useless. Life peers are offered a 'peerage' because they've done something good, and the government want them in parliament.
587023
well ----------She will be in the throne as long as there are fools who believe in this system!!!!!!!!--keep in mind that most kings and queens auto nominated themselves for this position ...and they impose themselves upon the people back then you had no choice now you do----but after  all let them believe in their fairy tales 'cause that is what ther are now !!!
469232
As Ireland emerged from the Dark Ages it was organized with a High King, and plain ordinary kings under him, ruling the traditional regional kingdoms of Ireland.  The last High King died without any obvious heirs in 1187.  With the throne vacant, the English king lobbied the Pope, who assigned Ireland to be ruled over by the English king.  This act, from 819 years ago, is the sole origin and basis of the English claim to rule Ireland.  That the Irish had their own, very different language, and culture made no difference.  That's the way power politics has always been played.
209084
My great great grandfather was a count in Poland...and somewhere way, way, way back in the middle ages there was a Sir Lancelot in my family, that lived up near the scottish border...Found that out through my mom the geneology nazi...But I dont know if that makes me anywhere near the throne of england.\n\n\npeace
293569
For specifics, refer to Wikipedia (I can't give you links because its blocked in China).\n\nBefore 1911, China was ruled by Emperors.  The emperor's court was made up of eunuchs--pronounce "you-nick"-- (men with their testicles removed).  It was a great honor to become a Eunuch, if you survived the process, and in those days of crude removal techniques, many men died in the eunuch-ization process...\n\nthe idea was that the Emperor was the only one who could have "desires" and "relations", the eunuch's only desires should be to serve the empirical court.
402023
Never.  It's the principle.  It's tradition and it isn't a bad one.  The only exception is for royalty (legitimate royalty, not princesses).
5084
The only case where that might have been the case is Afghanistan, but that was before.  Just to show you how limited the scope of applying such a rule is, how many presidents/kings of Muslim countries have more than amoustache?
307597
Yes. They would find a lovely title for her and put her in with the addled Queen Mum. Charles would then ascend, unfortunately. I don't think he has the nads for it , frankly. Young William, yes.
621426
The native Australians think the same thing. The monarchy is a tradition, and a very expensive one at that. I would like to know why that tradition is upheld because they have no power. they are basically useless.
633430
To be knighted is not a "political" thing...it is purely an Honor given for deeds performed during thier candidates life to that point. The fact that many have been political figures, one should not automaticly presume it is purely politics.\n\nBut knighting is not restricted to royalty either.\n\nThe Catholic, Anglican & Orthodox Church's all have Knight's in thier ranks as well, and again, nothing is given for purely political reasons.\n\nIn both cases, Singers, Actors, Professors, Educators, even clergy have been knighted by the Kings and Queen's and Crown Princes & Princesses as well as Bishop's ans higher have all knighted those who have displayed great service to "whoever" thus meriting the title "Sir".\n\nBp. David
142107
Sort of.\n\nWell the titles of Nobility still exists in France but only as part of a person's name but they do not have the privledges they use to have unless they marry a Noble in a Country where such privledges can still be held.\n\nAlthough persons holding titles do get a lot of respect though.
120297
It depends on if it was a monarchy or a republic
256939
A lot of rules have changed. Check out the CIS or DOJ or INS website (they change their title a lot) for the real scoop.
319067
Under UK law Charles can renounce his rights (refuse to be King).  If that happened William would be King, although all the indications are that Charles is desperate to take over and will not renounce the throne.  Apart from anything it would be desperately unkind to force his son to be King in his twenties.\n\nOnce Charles does become King (and that could take another decade) he will become a lot less free.  He will be unable to express a personal opinion on anything in public.  That will be hard on Charles.
568635
Here's one with listing of rules.\nGood Luck!