Who is the British king during World War I?
113012
King George V.\n\nHe was part of the house of "Saxe-Coburg" (Queen Victoria married a German Prince) until they changed the name of the "house" to House of Windsor. This was actually due to the fact we were at war with Germany at the time and the name was changed in 1917.
958597
Kings and Queens of which country??\n\nIn the olden days in some countries even brothers or cousins would seek to wrest the throne from each other.\n\nMany years ago the passage of the Monarchy became more civilised, following normal Line of Succession. Since 1700/1701 the Line of Succession follows that set down in the Act of Settlement as recently revised.\n\n>Can Royalty be evicted into the streets and some one else rule?\n\nWell, not necessarily into the streets. Just check what actually happened in Russia about 1918.\n\nAnd it might be said that "William the Conqueror" (also known by less flattering names) did take the Throne of England by conquest and crowned himself as King.\n\nUsually, though, there is an orderly succession. This is good. It provides stability for the country. Unlike countries who have a new head of state every four or eight years.\n\nThe UK's Royal Family has been in the "business" for over 1,000 years.
667350
Edward I (June 17, 1239–July 7, 1307), popularly known as "Longshanks" because of his 6 foot 2 inch (1.88 m) frame and the "Hammer of the Scots" (his tombstone, in Latin, read, Hic est Edwardvs Primus Scottorum Malleus, "Here lies Edward I, Hammer of the Scots"), achieved fame as the monarch who conquered Wales and who kept Scotland under English domination during his lifetime. He reigned from 1272 to 1307, ascending the throne of England on November 21, 1272 after the death of his father, King Henry III of England. His mother was Queen consort Eleanor of Provence
638352
The event that triggered the start of World War I (called at the time "The Great War") was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, when he visited Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia on June 28, 1914 by  19-year old Gavrilo Princip. Princip appeared to be a member of a Serbian nationalist group. Austria-Hungary blamed Serbia and declared war. Russians supported the Serbians, and drew in their French allies. Germany was a close ally of Austria and declared war on France and Russia. To get past French defenses, Germany invaded Belgium and Luxeumbourg. This action caused the British to declare war on Germany.\n\nWhile the assassination was seen as the pretext that turned the struggle into all-out war, conflict at this level was seeded through the ongoing arms races between the European countries, and development of diplomatic alliances, and rise of European nationalism.
416205
The royal guy was Archduke Franz Ferdinard of Austria and that started World War ONE.\n\nWW2 started in September 1939 when Britain's ultimatum to Hitler to guarantee that he would not invade Poland was ignored by Hitler and Britain therefore declared war on Germany. \n\nHitler had been trying to extend German influence in Europe for 6 years at that point. His slogan was One People, One State, One Leader. (Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer). His ostensible reason was to unite all German-speaking people in Europe.\n\nHe annexed Austria in 1938, and marched into the Sudetenland area of  Czechoslovakia, which caused Chamberlain to protest feebly but do nothing much about it (he came back from Munich waving a piece of paper and saying "Peace In our Time")\n\nBut Britain finally realised you cannot appease fascists and make concessions to them, or they just demand more and more concessions, and stood up to Hitler over Poland being invaded.\n\nAmerica entered the war in 1941 after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour. But the war started in 1939 and it is a very self-centered view of history that some Americans have if they describe the war as only starting when they decided to join in.
1126194
the UK and France fought for many years.
979081
Its true...on the eve of Dec 24 , 1914 a truce was haggled out between British and German soldiers, and in many places along the western front, it lasted until the end of the day on the 26th. Many witness accounts were written, but perhaps the most telling of all of it was how it happened.\nIts lost to history just what was said to whom beyond the battlefield, but this was primarily lower ranked soldiers and the highest ranking officer was a German. Christmas morning 3 shots were fired into the air by a British sergeant and a white flag went up with "Merry Christmas" written on it, well, the enemy replied with a flag( all of about 50 yards apart), saying "thank you". Then a few Germans stepped out unarmed, as did a few British. What took place for the next 24 or so hours is really quite bazaar, but kinda romantic( if you will..).\nThere was impromptu soccer matches, gift exchanges, and even jokes...one of them was about a Brit' who asked a German if he wanted a cigarette...the German replied "Virginian?", to which the British soldier replied "aye", the German soldier said "No thx, I prefer Turkish!"...apparently this caused a huge laugh from all there.\nAlso, the Germans sang Carole's, and when asking the British to sing, one Brit said..."We'd rather die than sing German!"..., and the German yelled back..."Well, we'll surely be dead over here if you do!"  Again laughter erupted across that field...\nIts really awesome to hear of these events and the remarkable impact such a small thing could have on men who'd wanna kill one-another, but for the greater good of the moment, it proved to be the most significant thing to happen to some of the men who were there.
891087
Queen Victoria\n\nShe was Queen of England, and grandmother to both Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsarina Alexandra.
609113
Wow, that's an indepth question to ask.\n\nFor starters, World War I completely reshaped the map of Europe and parts of the Near and Middle East.  The Austrio-Hungarian Empire was divided into Czechoslovakia, Hngary, Yugoslavia, and Austria; parts were also given over to Romania and to Italy.  The Ottoman Empire was divided into British and French Mandates, forming Iraq, Palestine, and Jordan for the British and Syria and Lebanon for the French, as well as the independant state of Turkey.  The Russian Empire was separated into Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.  The German (Prussian) Empire was divided as well, with part of their territories going to create the Polish Corridor, giving Poland access to the North Sea, an allotment was also made to Czechoslovakia, Blegium, and, of course, the German independant state.\n\nSome of the statistical information concerning World War I is as follows:\n\n-10 million soldiers dead\n-6.6 million civilians dead\n-21 million wounded\n-8 million MIA (Missing In Action) or POW (Prisoners of War)\n-Cost of War appx. $180 billion\n-Other Costs in Relation ~ $150 billion\n\nThere was also a mass movement of displaced people as their homes were utterly destroyed in the wake of the war.\n\nIn terms of politics, the ultimate loss of Russian troops allowed for the successful usurpation of the government by the Communist party.  Since Europe's economy was trashed, the United States became the dominant power in the world financially and wound up being the largest lending agent for the restoration of Europe.  France, bitter at their ultimate defeat, wanted Germany to be punished for its role in the war, which successfully undermined Woodrow Wilson's attempts to settle the Versailles treaty without instilling a sense of anger in the Germans unsuccessful.  Germany was forbidden to have a standing military, and felt betrayed by its high command (Jews, Liberals, Socialists), and combined with the effects of high unemployment created a perfect breeding ground for Hitler and the Nazi party to emerge later.  Italy did not get all that it asked for -- a mutilated victory -- which opened the door for Facism and Musilini.  Britain, with the creation of the Mandates in the Middle East, made a grab for the oil industry.  The Bourgeoisie class was elevated, which mostly eliminated the power of the Aristocracy, which, combined with a deteriorated economy, weakened the strength of Imperial Colonialism and set the stage for the dismantling colonial states held by European states all over the world.\n\nThe full repercussions of World War I would not be felt until World War II with the rise of Nazi Germany and Facist Italy.  The end of the war left countless dead and/or missing and/or displaced, German divided between western powers and those of Russia, who had taken over most of the countries that would later become the USSR.  This set the stage for the Cold War, which would last until the early ninties after the fall of the Berlin Wall.  The Holocaust left over six million Jews dead and the remainder displaced.  As a result, many Jews migrated to Palestine, which soon after became Isreal, a nation backed by the west and resented by Muslims everywhere, thus creating tensions between the Middle East and the Western nations.  The advent of the first atomic bomb would also set off a long series of discussions on the US's use of nuclear technology against Japan.  The United Nations also formed as a result of World War II; their first conferences were held in San Francisco (mostly so the NSA could tap the other delegates' phone lines and listen in on other conversations being held).  The Cold War resulted in the Arms Race, and the decision of the US government to simply out-spend the Russians and drive their economy into the ground, slowly deteriorating the basis for their system of government.  Really, we have not seen all the final effects of World War II, though some of the major politica
998856
Britain has been an ally of ours since the first World War.\nAnd they're as fierce as ever to support the same matters we stand for.\nGod Save the Queen and God Bless the USA!
630669
I personally doubt he'll ever be king.  I think the current Queen intends to stay there as long as she can! Personally good on her too, rather have her as Queen than Charles!
316940
When Prince Charles becomes King he can choose to be known by any name that he wishes. Should he choose to keep the name Charles he would be King Charles III.\n\nSo his official title would be: Charles the Third, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith\n\nHowever, Prince Charles has discussed rejecting the title King Charles III because of its associations with Britain's bloody past. His decision would not be a first, as four of the past six British Monarchs chose to be known by a different name. For example, George VI was known as Prince Albert. At the moment, the most discussed alternative has been George VII, in honour of Charles's grandfather.
141776
Got this answer off the web, puts some perspective on the whole situation.\n\n"Don't gush, lad, it doesn't leave room for the cartoon. Cecil does not dispute the general proposition that war between democracies is relatively rare. Common sense alone suggests that embarking upon a military adventure is simpler for a king or dictator than it is for a head of government answerable to a parliament. But proponents of this idea argue that a war between democracies has never occurred. One arrives at this comforting conclusion chiefly by setting up the rules to exclude all the non-conforming cases. The most egregious omission is civil wars, which account for a high percentage of the world's violent conflicts--159 of 575 wars between 1816 and 1980, by one count. The spectacle of the American Civil War, in which two popularly elected governments engaged in four years of the most brutal slaughter, refutes the bald notion that citizens will not vote for politicians who send them off to be killed. Clearly they will if they think the stakes are high enough.\n\nOK, you say, but at least democracies won't get into wars with one another for purposes of foreign aggrandizement. Here we get into the issue of what constitutes a democracy. The U.S. and Britain fought in the War of 1812; Britain at the time had a parliament and a prime minister. So did imperial Germany prior to World War I. Advocates of the peaceful-democracy school account for these cases by saying that neither Britain in 1812 nor Germany in 1914 were liberal democracies. The definition of liberal varies with the teller, but the simplest formulation, proposed by Dean Babst, who first advanced the peaceful-democracies idea in 1972, is that "if a hereditary ruler, such as a king, can choose the prime minister of president, then the country is not considered to have an elective government." This takes both Britain and Germany out of the picture for the period in question. That's fair enough in the case of Germany, where responsibility for the war can be laid pretty clearly at the feet of Kaiser Bill and the Junkers. But the War of 1812 was largely the work of the War Hawks in the democratically elected U.S. Congress.\n\nThe more basic objection to excluding all but liberal democracies is that throughout most of history the number of such democracies has been small. According to political scientist Michael Doyle, there were only 13 liberal democracies prior to 1900, and just 29 between 1900 and 1945--and many of those did not endure. Doyle counts 49 liberal democracies as of 1983; setting aside the confusing instance of Israel vs. Lebanon, none has fought another since 1945. But it may be argued that this merely reflected the postwar Pax Americana.\n\nOne would like to believe democracy = peace, but if we look at the big picture we find little to persuade us that it's a sure thing. Nazi Germany was not a democracy after 1933, but Hitler had been freely elected and the Nazis dominated the democratically chosen Reichstag. The United States and France conducted wars of great savagery in Vietnam and Algeria. The U.S. helped topple the elected Allende regime in Chile, with murderous consequences for the Chilean people.\n\nOne can easily make the case that what prevents war between democracies is not their liberal scruples but their wealth, coupled with the recognition that war would mean economic ruin. If we look down the list of wars over the last 50 years we see that in almost all cases one or both of the belligerents was poor. We now have a proliferation of poor democracies in the wake of communism's collapse. Will they refrain from attacking one another, as their authoritarian or totalitarian predecessors did not? One considers India vs. Pakistan, Russia vs. Ukraine. Clearly the notion that democracies will not make war on one another now faces its great test."\n\n--CECIL ADAMS
218685
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war_I
1160611
After the fall of France, Hitler thought the British would be an easy mark.  What makes the Battle of Britain unique, is that it was fought solely in the air and at sea.  Hitler thought he could bomb the British into submission and that his submarine "Wolf Packs" could effectively cut off supplies from the "Arsenal of Democracy" which was the United States.  He was horribly wrong.  He underestimated the British resolve as well as new technologies such as radar which gave the British plenty of time to intercept the German bombers over the British channel.  He also underestimated Britain's "home field advantage" with fighting in the air on their turf; The British pilots were still fresh when they went into combat while their German counterparts were flying for hours before encountering combat.
160723
You need to check the definition of 'responsible'.\n\nYou also need to check your history. Churchill did not 'drag Britain into war', he became Prime Minister after war was declared\n\nWhy not blame Hitler; it was Hitlers actions that caused Britain to declare war.\n\nOr indeed, why not blame the Treaty of Versailles, whos onerous toll on Germany provided the conditions for Hitler to thrive.\n\nBut then why not blame WW1..?\n\nAnd are you suggestion that it was Churchill's airforce that bombed Pearl Harbor? Because it was that incident that brought the US into the war.\n\nYour question is so insulting and nonsensical I can only assume you are totally ignorant.
1047813
The UK National Anthem is 'God Save the Queen'\n\nEngland doesn't really have  specific one - Land of Hope and Glory refers to Britain too (and the British Empire that used to be).