British Monarchy order of Sucession?
964446
william and after him, harry.  \nwith sucession, it goes first by gender and then age. first its the oldest male, then assuming he doesnt have any children, it goes to his next oldest brother, and so on.  when or if there are no more sons it would then go to the oldest daughter.
443903
When the King dies, the eldest child becomes sovereign. If the king has a son, then they become King, if he has only daughters then the eldest daughter becomes Queen.\n\nThere is no King at the moment because the Queen inherited the throne in 1952. When her father became King in 1936 he had two daughters, the present Queen and Princess Margaret. As he had no sons, his eldest child inherited. \n\nThis will be the case when the Queen dies, Prince Charles, as her eldest child, will become King. However, should Charles predecease the Queen then Prince William will suceed. Should Prince William have no children, after his death, Prince Harry becomes King. \n\nAt present, male primogeniture exists, therefore should Prince William have a daughter and later a son, the son will take precedence to inherit the throne. \n\nPrince Charles' sister Princess Anne (the Princess Royal) was second in line to the throne until the birth of Prince Andrew (the Duke of York) and Prince Edward (the Earl of Wessex). Despite Princess Anne being older than Andrew and Edward, because they are male, they take precedence in the line of succession.
193499
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."
668108
I respect the QUEEN the most...Prince Charles the least...Good question,Princess!...Prince David/Royal House of David
404268
The Queen actually has no ruling power & her position exists merely due to our (UK) Constitutional Law. The Government could remove her power simply by stopping her income (but she & her family would still have a vast private income). The power she seems to hold is an illusion and only in existence because of historical precedence!\nIf she actually has no 'real' power we might ask why she even exists - this is an individual thing.\n\nThe simple fact is that the Queen & the Royal Family are excellent envoys & create more revenue than it costs the UK tax payer to maintain them!
529970
Got to be in Royal Family.
1049275
If you go by legality it is Mount Baton because that is Prince Phillip's last name.\n\nHowever because of carrying on the House of Windsor, the Queen goes by the last name of Windsor.\n\nConfusing I know but that is the way with British Royalty.
1140092
This sentence is standard english.  \n\nSo is the Queen.
957316
The official residence of Queen Elizabeth II and her consort, Prince Philip, is Buckingham Palace in London, U.K.  In addition to Buckingham, the British Monarch also maintains official residence at Windsor Castle in Windsor and Holyrood Palace in Edinburgh; Hillsborough Castle in County Down, Northern Ireland, is also an official residence though it is primarily used by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.\n\nIn addition to the residences that are attached to the Monarchy, Elizabeth also owns Sandringham House in Norfolk and Balmoral Castle in Scotland.  Unlike the official residences, these are personal possessions and ownership is not a consequence of being Queen.
329676
king charles the second\n\nthis link may help you
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.
1162451
The power of the royal family in England has been declining steadily ever since the Magna Carta.  Nowadays, the royal family has almost no say in anything whatsoever.  They can, however, make speeches to appeal to the masses, although this tactic for control has almost never been used.  The queen can suggest things to the prime minister, and in certain cases it would be impolite for him to refuse (like asking him over for tea), but the monarch cannot order the prime minister to do anything.
370120
Basically they fulfil the same duties of a head of state, with ceremonial and the role as head of the military and the Church of England being important elements in the UK. The Queen also has to give her assent (nowadays a mere formality) to formally bring a law into force. As you may have seen on the recent BBC programmes, she also acts as a sort of confidential 'sounding board' to political leaders.\n\nI agree, I would like to see a Monarch with more power, although our constitution doesn't alas allow this (politicians are increasingly more interested in what's best for them and their popularity than in the country!) . I seriously think we should have an Executive Monarch, like the US has an executive President... and who knows, useless heads might really roll then! :-)
652927
yes.  Depending on the country you are interesred in, the royals have studiously compiled geneological tables, pedigrees, if you will.  In England, Debreet's; Germany, Almanac de Gotha; Spain, something medieval sounding;  also,  Italy, Russia, and what was once Catholic Hambsburg Austria do not correspond to the title prepecedence of contemporary England.  For example, a Russian Arch-Duke will out-rank an Italian Prince, it's more semantical/translative in nature than hierachical.   But then Queen Victoria did allow herself to become Empress of India before her daughter was crowned Empress of Prussia.  One could surmise she wanted to ride in the first coach,first.   But, yes the royality of Europe, irrespective of position is well documented and easily located on the web.
689952
Cavalia is correct, and I add: Oman (Sultanate), United Arab Emirates(Prince),Saudi Arabia (Kingdom),Bahrain (Kingdom), Luxembourg(Duke) , Monaco,Denmark(Queen),Kuwait,\nSwaziland,Nepal,Japan(Emperor),\nMalysia (Fedral King),Vatican City(Church prince),Andora (Co-Prince). If you want more:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy
1132102
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.
829806
I understand that it goes into temporary recess out of respect, but only for a very few days, until the Proclamation of Accession takes place. \nThe Accession Council is a ceremonial body which assembles on the death of a monarch to proclaim his or her successor king or queen and to receive a religious oath from the new monarch.\nIt is made up of Privy Councillors, Members of the House of Lords, the Lord Mayor of London, the Aldermen of the City of London and the High Commissioners of some Commonwealth countries. The Council meets in St. James's Palace and makes a formal proclamation of the accession of a new monarch, and receives an oath from him or her to uphold the Church of Scotland. This proclamation, though traditional, has no legal force as the succession will have passed automatically to the new monarch under the terms of the Act of Settlement 1701.\nThe Council's Proclamation of Accession, which confirms the name of the heir, is signed by all the attendant Privy Counsellors. The Proclamation is traditionally read out at several traditional locations in London, Edinburgh, Windsor, and York. It is also read at a central location in each town or village. The proclamation is usually worded:\n\nWhereas it hath pleased Almighty God to call to His Mercy our late Sovereign Lord King/Lady Queen N (the #th) of Blessed and Glorious Memory by whose Decease the Crown is solely and rightfully come to the High and Mighty Prince/ss N: We, therefore, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of this Realm, being here assisted with these of His/Her late Majesty's Privy Council, with representatives of other members of the Commonwealth, with other Principal Gentlemen of Quality, with the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of London, do now hereby with one voice and Consent of Tongue and Heart publish and proclaim that the High and Mighty Prince/ss N is now, by the Death of our late Sovereign of Happy Memory, become King/Queen N (the #th), by the Grace of God King/Queen of this Realm and of all His/Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to whom His/Her lieges do acknowledge all Faith and constant Obedience, with hearty and humble Affection; beseeching God, by whom Kings and Queens do reign, to bless the Royal Prince/ss N (the #th) with long and happy Years to reign over us. \n\nThe proclamation is not always worded consistently; for instance, on the accession of George VI, the proclamation had to be reworded because Edward VIII had abdicated, rather than died, and "Emperor of India" was added at the end of the list of titles until that title was relinquished by George VI.\n\nThe new Sovereign, who is traditionally present, takes an oath to preserve and defend the Church of Scotland. (Queen Elizabeth II was in Kenya when she acceeded to the throne, and the Accession Council therefore met twice, first for the proclamation and again so that the new Queen could take the oath.) The new Sovereign must also take an oath relating to the Church of England, but that is done in the presence of Parliament. This oath, known as the Accession Declaration, runs as follows:\n\nI, N, do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God, profess, testify and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments to secure the Protestant Succession to the Throne of my realm, uphold and maintain such enactments to the best of my power. \nThis oath, first taken by George V in 1910, is a moderated version of the oath which was taken by every monarch since William and Mary II in 1689 until Edward VII in 1901, and which, by the early 20th century, was deemed too overtly anti-Catholic:\n\nI, N, profess, testify, and declare, that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever: and that t