If you are in line for the throne of England, how close?  How many others would have to relinquish their right or perish for you to be the king or queen of England?
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
473108
The Queen of England does in fact have more power than those of us here in America commonly believe.  And for those who believe it's Parliament who runs the country, I will remind you of this:  Before Parliament may begin their session, it is the QUEEN who grants them their power to do so, and there is a very great and large debate among scholars as to just what would happen should the Queen chose not to grant Parliament her ''ok.''\n\nAlso, for those narrow minded idiots who actually think the Queen has no power...here are just a few of her abilities:\n\nAmong the powers possessed by the monarch in the United Kingdom under the Royal Prerogative are:\n\n    * The appointment and dismissal of ministers;\n    * The dissolution of parliament and the calling of elections;\n    * Clemency and pardon;\n    * The award of dignities and honours;\n    * The declaration of war;\n    * The declaration of an emergency;\n    * The grant of Charters of Incorporation;\n    * The collection of tolls;\n    * The minting of coinage;\n    * The issue and revocation of passports;\n    * The expulsion of a foreign national from the United Kingdom;\n    * The creation of new common law courts;\n    * The creation of new universities;\n    * The appointment of bishops and archbishops in the Church of England;\n    * The printing of the authorised Church of England version of the Bible;\n    * The publication of all statutes, legislative instruments and Orders-in-Council;\n    * The exercise of jurisdiction over numerous Royal foundations of all kinds;\n    * The appointment of Royal Commissions and Officers for any purposes.\n    * The choice of the numbering of monarchs (See MacCormick v. Lord Advocate)\n\nThe queen is also immune from prosecution in the courts as she is present in all courts and acts as the prosecuting authority in most criminal cases, either directly or indirectly\n\nIt's also worth noting that before British involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Prime Minister Tony Blair, in a major break with precedent, sought parliamentary approval for British participation in the war. However Parliament's decision was in constitutional terms advisory as the actual decision would be taken by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative.\n\nLastly, I'll mention that it is His Majesty's personal prerogatives are:\n\n   1. The refusal to dissolve Parliament when requested by the Prime Minister. This was last reputedly done in 1910 (but George V later changed his mind);\n   2. To dissolve Parliament (and call a new general election) against the wishes of the Prime Minister;\n   3. To appoint a Prime Minister of her own choosing. This was last done in Britain in 1963 when Elizabeth II appointed Sir Alec Douglas-Home as Prime Minister.\n   4. The dismissal of a Prime Minister and his Government. This was last done in Britain in 1834 by King William IV; and\n   5. The refusal of the Royal Assent, last exercised in 1708 by Queen Anne [1].
625036
The answer to your question would be none, unless you consider Great Britain living under the provisions of the Magna Carta (1215) as living under the same government.
455063
are you serious?king Richard was a king , bush only thinks hes one.as far as criticizing king Richard,no i wouldn't because a king can have your head chopped off.this isn't a very well thought out question.
677033
Heheh, you jolly well tell the bounders eh what!!! God save the Queen!!!
480691
You will get your definition here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy\n\nGood Luck!!!
481459
Love all of the music you referenced.  I'd have to follow Queen's lead, but either way the political pendulum swings, we'll keep "fighting for the right to party."
367276
sounds like the american Revolution?  \n\nYou need to find out all the things that are good about England and being part of british empire.   Talk about loyalty to king....talk ahat bout how the "patriots" are traitors that will be hung for their treason.  (you have to embrace and see it from the perspective of the loyalists)
414276
Andrew...the line of succession goes through all the queen's sons and their children (either sex) before her daughter...so even if Charles and his 2 boys were lost then Anne would have to wait for Andrew and his daughters (and any children they might have) and then Edward and his daughter and any other children she might have.\nSo basically, it only pays to be a princess royal if you're an only child!
218093
The guy who takes over the throne is called a regent.  It happens a lot.  In English history, the following princes have had regents during their minority.\n\nHenry III\nHenry VI\nEdward V\nEdward VI\n\nFor French history\n\nPhilip I\nLouis IX\nCharles VI\nCharles VIII\nCharles IX\nLouis XIII\nLouis XIV\nLouis XV
428154
Yes, she is "the rightful" Queen of England.  No one can lay claim to her throne.  No one in her own family can touch the throne because of her direct descent from Queen Victoria to her father King George VI.  During the Coronation, with all the major heads of the European and Asian nobility there, she was declared the Rightful and Just, true Queen of England, the United Kingdom, etc.  No one interjected or tried to usurp her throne which had been in her family since at least the early 1800's.  If they haven't done it in 200 years now, I think her jobs safe.  Not to mention she was related to everyone there.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom
327162
well i am not a very big supporter of monarchy no matter whatever country it is in.\nbut you guys in britain should be glad that your royal family atleast doesnt messes with the government and its running.\n\nthough i agree with you that spending so much money on the royal family serves no purpose but sometimes somethings are just part of your history and you cant do away with them.\n\nmaybe you could try abolishing the monarchy after her death.
177601
I like the fact that Elizabeth will not step down to hand the reigns over to Charles. \n\nI would like to see it go directly from Elizabeth to William. \n\nI thought that was very cool she invited others born on the same day to share her birthday with her.
643609
When the monarch dies or abdicates, the crown passes to the next in line.\nIf the outgoing monarch has one, the first in line is the eldest son (so Prince Charles is currently first in line), or the eldest son of the eldest son (Prince William is second in line).\nWhen the previous King died in 1952, he had no sons. First in line was his eldest daughter, Princess Elizabeth, so she became Queen Elizabeth II.\n\nBecause sons have priority over daughters, there have been more Kings as monarch than Queens.\nHowever, the wife of a King is also called a Queen, whereas the husband of a Queen is not called a King, but a Prince-Consort.\nHence Elizabeth II is Queen, and Phillip is Prince-Consort.
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.
160532
Join. protect the queen and her fortune. Be proud. Join the ranks of history
448349
England is already half-way to throwing our people's laws in the toilet and pulling out the Quran as the new way to live. Thank you so much British Liberals. But they are still in a big minority. I read that by 2100 the Causcasian British will be a minority in their own country if the current tred keeps on.\n\nImmigration doesn't help either. If you let them all in, of course they're gonna take over. Already they are enforcing their customs on us, making us accept them over ours, when they are the "guests" in our countries. They should obey our rules!