9nikolai imagine you’re an orphan, life is bad cause no parents, and suddenly a guy appears in the building and says some stuff about you being a king, and now you’re laughing at this guy, but then the whole parliament fucking shows up and drops a crown on you
@@megaagentj2248 Yup. You'd either be so happy in a innocent way or very power hungry or something. Or you could just be reluctant and say to "go down from the throne" immediately after coronation, and the finding of the new monarch continues. But wait, what if they all refuse? Does the Prime Minister get to become King/Queen?
Fun fact: the 1701 rules say that any legitimate descendent of Sophia of Hanover is in line of the throne and that's currently over a thousand living people. Years ago, they tracked down the last in line for the throne and she turned out to be a 40-year-old German postal worker.
Why’d I think of the hunting incident where the fictional character, Cleetus, accidentally kills his son in a hunting accident then is scared for life?
Imagine being Henry I, just casually killing your brother for the crown, but then hundreds of years later it's a well-known fact that people make jokes about.
Imagine the stress on the gynecologist performing a c-section on a set of twins of the queen mother to be. He literately gets to pick the next king or queen.
From what I understand, Canada hasn't updated our primogenitor rules, because we don't care super much about the monarchy. But the queen is still *technically* the head of state, so there could be a situation where England recognizes one heir, but Canada can't legally recognize them, and we end up with separate monarchs
Í mean, it would make more sense that canada's rule would be more like "King of the UK = King of canada", but this is only a supposition, since i don't really know.
Surprised there wasn't more discussion about Commonwealth realms here. When it was time to update the rules of inheritance, all the Commonwealth Realms gathered together to agree on it jointly, known as the Perth Agreement in 2011. All Commonwealth realms (note: not Commonwealth *countries*, but the realms, i.e. those that have Elizabeth II as Queen) then passed legislation within their own countries to implement the agreement.
Well, not even europe. Basically the entire western world. Americans, Canadians, Australians, Kiwis are probably on average way closer to the crown than some slavic dude in eastern europe.
I’d like to see a TV show, a bit like Designated Survivor, when a tragedy strikes the royal family and some average European dude has to take on the crown. That’d be cool.
Ever heard of Blackadder? It has something to do with that, although I don’t know much about it. Regardless, if you like British comedy, black comedy, and upper-class twits, it’s a classic.
laws are written by men and can be also unwritten by men, kill lots of people, catholic or not, if you dominate you can proclaim yourself king or queen and then your say is final, change all the laws you want
Spain isn't just your only option. You can also choose between: Belgium, Monaco, Andorra, Liechtenstein, or Luxembourg. These are the currently existing monarchies in Europe that allows a Catholic to become a monarch.
Loving how the RU-vid algorithm decides to make this a recommended video in 2022 after Queen Elizabeth’s passing. Gotta love them engagement algorithms…
Well the current Russian tsar may very well be richer than the British royals. He had no problem making his son-in-law the youngest billionaire, for example. So not too shabby, Mr. President.
Important side note: the change from male primogeniture to absolute primogeniture is not applied retroactively. So Elizabeth II's daughter, even though she is not the youngest of the four, would have to wait for the crown to pass through the lineages of her three brothers first before she could become Queen
@@karatewithelian9014 Prince Philip is no longer available to receive the crown due to a lack of being alive. However, the crown will still pass through his offspring, meaning William is currently next in line.
I imagine the crown is a living entity and it searches for suitable hosts through this process. Everytime the rules are to be updated they must first consult the crown
I can imagine a set of twins and the one that's just about four minutes older than the other twin gloating about how they'd get the crown because they're just barely older.
SlytherinSnake6886 I imagine that it doesn't really matter what order they come out in, when the time comes the parents could lie and say one was born before the other to ensure they got the crown, nobody could dispute it and the children certainly couldn't know any better.
It's a bit late now but Prince Philip WAS in line to the throne. He was number ~300 as the great-grandson of one of Queen Victoria's daughters. But he would have had to outlive all his own descendants and all the descendants of Victoria's sons until it's time to look at Victoria's daughters. It's a bit moot now but that could have been a movie plot in the 90s, someone's been killing off distant relatives to the Queen and it turns out to be Philip working on becoming King by killing hundreds and hundreds of people with better claims than his own.
He left out one important bit: the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 is not retroactive. Those born BEFORE 28 October 2011 follow the old format (male primogeniture). Those born after will fill cognatic (gender-neutral) order. Thus, any further children born to the Cambridges will come after Charlotte. Any children born to Harry will follow the new formula.
This is a good point. Though you really have to dig down in the line of succession before you find someone that would have benefited from a retroactive application, namely, Princess Anne and her family. The Princess is currently 13th in line but if the fourth rule for male preference had been repealed, she would be 7th after Prince Harry.
@@eliegbert8121 It's all but guaranteed. Even if we presume Prince Charles dies before Queen Elizabeth II (which is unlikely) the next in throne is Prince William, who will (unless something very unforeseen happens) will become King. And even if Prince William cannot become King (because he somehow dies) his son, Prince George, is next in line to the throne. The next person who could conceivably become queen is George's sister, Charlotte. Its possible, but obviously highly, highly unlikely.
Eliminating the male part of the primogeniture rule had actually been agreed to in 2011. It took some negotiation because it had to be agreed upon by all the realms for whom the British Monarch is the head of state. When the law was actually passed in 2013, it was more or less a formality. And in the event, there are now a line of three males for the throne after Elizabeth, so it'll be the better part of a century before the change has any real effect, assuming nothing serious happens to George.
Lytrigian They didn't *have* to change it in each realm: they *could* have allowed the different realms to have different rules, in which case the thrones would (eventually) separate. Would have been (a) interesting and (b) very very messy, so I can see why they didn't want to, but it's a theoretical possibility. And, actually, they didn't have to get *all* the countries to agree, because many Commonwealth Realms don't set out rules for inheritance: they simply specify that the Monarch of the UK is also their Monarch. TRiG.
TRiG (Ireland) It would be a very strange circumstance given that, for instance, the Queen of Australia is legally distinct from the Queen of England, but that office happens to be held by the same person. But if Charlotte was born first and Australia hadn't amended the laws of primogeniture, it would be strange for her to be the Queen of England and George to be the King of Australia but with no actual power to rule Australia.
So Quebec couldn't thwart it? The Constitution of Canada has to be amended to put this new rule into effect in Canada, and because of Quebec, even thinking about amending Canada's constitution will stir up a huge hornet's nest.
denelson83 The Constitution has to be amended? Where in the Constitution of Canada (by which I mean the consolidation of the various Constitution Acts and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) does it lay down the law for succession of the throne? It took an act of Parliament, nothing more, and it was passed in 2013. (Called, unsurprisingly, the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013.)
Fun fact, in Poland, back when we had monarchy, "królowa" ("queen") was the title of the royal consort. When we had an actual female monarch, she was referred to as "król" ("king").
@@rachelcookie321 there was no such case in Polish history. We only had two female kings and when they got married, their husbands took over the throne.
@@rachelcookie321 Poland is a bit special, because they have an Elective Monarchy. Which is how you get seemingly strange things like, the King of Sweden also being the King of Poland-Lithuania, or the Elector of Saxony being the King of Poland-Lithuania at the same time.
3:06 you say the Crown will always go up one level if the family tree dies out, but the Act of Settlement 1701 specifies it has to be a descendant of Sophia of Hanover which is still thousands of people today but not every European alive.
well - you can take your time until they have children. You have to hide it better that you ate your twin when you to it postnatal instead of prenatal, but - well - that is rather a technicallity.
Annielyn Saga he actually was mostly just king 700 years before these rules were written and also had a larger army then anyone else so it wouldn’t have mattered no matter what kind of bastard or catholic he was
Step 1 : send you chancellor to build a claim on an english county Step 2 : repeat until you have more than half of a duchy Step 3 : claim all counties and win the war Step 4 : usurp the duchy title Step 5 : press de jure claims on the rest of the duchy Step 6 : repeat steps 1-5 until you have more than half of the counties or England Step 7 : usurp the English throne Step 8 : now make the same for Wales, Scotland and England until you have more than 80% of the british islands Step 9 : emperor of Britannia, finally !
+scarfacemperor You can eliminate Step 8 since England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland all share the British Monarch. As an added plus, you'd also be the monarch over every country in the Commonwealth of Nations (countries which have seperate prime ministers and paliaments but the same king/queen)
+Ten-Eight He was making a joke about a video game in which the primary goal is to get to power of a country then take other countries over and to make sure that you have a good heir with skills.You should play it there is nothing better than sending your children to prison to be executed because they are all hunchbacks.
+Baeagon Catholic Church? Full of lefties? I'd understand if you complained about the pedophiles, but liberals? In the Catholic Church? Either you don't understand what a liberal is and you're just using it as a derisive for everyone you don't agree with, or they don't understand what being a liberal is, because being a liberal in the Catholic Church is like being a black man in the Nazi party.
Maybe not. When the, then, Princess Elizabeth was told she would likely be queen one day her younger sister expressed sympathy for her. No one is really jumping for the job.
@@xxTamisxx Or... *grabs knife* "Should I just kill it, or cut out his testicles, do surgery, and feed him hormones?" Such a dark minded feminist doctor would probably be fired before she'd be able to say then do that so, thank God!
Though it's pointless choice, more like doing a coin flip to decide some someone other people's dispute: you don't know about the outcome's outcome, you don't know what kind of people those are, you know nothing and are just doing the motions.
Thank you noble CGP Grey for helping me secure the position. You will be knighted for your strategic efforts. I hope everyone can follow the tutorial and become queen/king as well!
Just a couple notes: First, while Grey mentions the line of succession going all the way back over 1,000 years, the current rules state that the monarch must descend from Sophia of Hanover (1630-1714). This was done primarily to exclude James "The Old Pretender" from the throne as he was next in line after William and Mary but was Catholic. As a result, the current number of potential heirs stands at around 5,000. Second, while the rules have been amended from male primogeniture to strict primogeniture, this change is not retroactive and did not alter the line of succession established previously. For example, under the current rules, Anne, Princess Royal would be 8th in line for the throne, ahead of her younger brothers Prince Andrew, Duke of York (15th) and Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex (18th). However, because the new rule is not retroactive, Andrew is 8th, Edward is 11th, and Anne is 14th.
"#2 Don't be a bastard." _Well, I'm always told that I'm a fairly decent nice guy and..._ "Sometimes it's good to be the king, but it's never good to be the illegitimate children of the king" _oh_
here in denmark we were more strict about the whole women on the throne thingy. here if you had only daughters, then you would be naturally dead as you say. this got changed in 72 because the only choice other than magrethe 2. was a guy that everyone hated, thus we changed it.
actually now a days you'd live in a castle /palace specifically the last monarchs palace amd you'd pretty privileged and forever praised for restating human rights
3:36 Also, when the primogeniture is male preference, the dynasty remains patrilineal. In other words, if one day, a queen is crowned and marries her not king, but prince consort, the royal house changes to the prince consort's royal house. In absolute primogeniture, the total patrilineal dynastical system becomes cumbersome as the royal house will theoretically change every 2 generations instead of many, so they made it so the dynasty will become matrilineal whenever a queen is crowned. In other words, the royal house will remain the same forever (assuming every king/queen dies with an heir) as changing royal houses increases the chance of the monarchy being abolished. Also, this absolute primogeniture gives birth to the term "King Consort" in royalty, as the dynasty became matrilineal. That is why King Charles III belongs to the house of Windsor, and not Mountbatten. If Queen Elizabeth died before 2013, the UK will get to have a chance to open its last royal house, the House of Mountbatten (because no more royal houses will open in the future due to absolute primogeniture, assuming no kings/queens will die without any heir).
+Spearka I sat through this whole video, just thinking, "I wonder how far I'll have to scroll down to find a Crusader Kings comment." Not far, I see. Good work, internet! *Also, elective monarchy is the best.*
Only if this 'annexation' is just a civil war and if once you defeat Parliament and the current monarch (or if you really want to be a king) you would sign into order the former constitution as your own and you can then declare yourself king.
Yes if you could defeat the British army, kill/I space the heirs of the current crown, and get enough people to love/fear you to not challenge your usurping. Then you’d be able to make your own rules and call yourself/have your subjects call you whatever you wanted. You could call yourself “The Grand Emperor of Celestial Potatoes” and nobody would object (out loud).
‘Have an accent’ english is the language. England is in Britain. umm basically every other accent is different but then there’s a bunch of different British accents so like umm
Like you're just sitting in the shop, drinking coffee, and then you get jumped by the police and they say, "Here's the crown. Go get em, your highness."
@@saulcontrerasOfficial Well, the Anglican Church would have to reunite with Catholic Church. That said, the video forgot to mention, you have to be a direct descendant of Princess Sophia to be in the line of succession.
@@taoliu3949 The Rule actually says Roman Catholic (RC), since Anglicans regard themselves as the true Catholics. Did you realise that this rule is also a factor in USA? No American President (except the ill-fated JFK) has been a RC or a former RC. For US Presidency, RCs are invisible (Naturally Dead). It does not matter that the RCs are the largest religious block in the USA.
Thing about Rule 3 is, if you're a consort and your spouse dies before his or her heir comes of age, chances are you'll be declared Regent, which is to say you'll do all the stuff a Monarch usually would do, except you're not officially the Monarch (you won't be coronated, won't show up in Lists of Monarchs, won't (probably?) get to wear the crown, but sometimes sit the Throne during official things such as the State Opening of Parliament etc.)
1:39 syntax errors: File "find-the-next-monarch.py", line 4, in MalePrimogeniture else ^ SyntaxError: invalid syntax --- File "find-the-next-monarch.py", line 7, in MalePrimogeniture else if ^ SyntaxError: invalid syntax --- File "find-the-next-monarch.py", line 9, in MalePrimogeniture else ^ SyntaxError: invalid syntax --- File "find-the-next-monarch.py", line 10, in MalePrimogeniture NameError: name 'none' is not defined yes this is what you would actually get if you ran it through python
Last success, King William III in 1689/90 when he took over from his father-in-law the Catholic King James II. Parliament gave the throne jointly to William of Orange and his wife Queen Mary II (an exception to the consort rule, as Mary was the next non-Catholic heir and William had the bigger army).
CGP Grey should do a video on the house of Lords and how that has historically worked in Parliament, since it seems quite odd to an American like myself.
+KaiGonGinn It is a bit odd. Basically the peers were historically the Lords appointed by the Crown and hereditary titles, along with the Bihops of the Church of England. Now, however, the title of Lord is non-heriditary, but you still hold the possition for life and can attend the House of Lords for life as a peer (they do have to declare if inactive though and only get paid if they turn up a lot). The unfortunate thing is that bishops can still sit (even new ones) and the old hereditary titles are still in effect. As of 1999 most of these lines are no longer hereditary peerages and their heirs will not attend parliament, but will still keep the name. However 92 of them still are hereditary peerages and upon the deth of the peer, their heir becomes a peer (some of these even still use male primogenetur). This whole system is rediculus as it is the Queen, on the recomendation of the prime minister, who apoints the peers. The most ause of this power in the history of the United Kingdom has come form David Cameron, who for political gain is trying to flood the Lords with his party donars and old friends. THE LORDS NEEDS REFORM!!!!
Historically it was the equal to the commons and represented the other side of the people. MP's were merchants and other aristocrats, Lords were nobles. Now however since the 1919 and 1949 parliament acts it functions as a mere review chamber with a delaying power of a year. Although members may still propose legislation. Most lords are appointed for the excellency in their fields, making it a highly professional body. It also has a sufficient portion of non-party affiliated members to create a balance. Party politics is rarely argued in the lords and debate is much more mannered. The lords itself is regarded as one of the most highly respected bodies in the world, and its committee papers are some of the best produced. :P
Except in this day and age of career politicians the House of Lords looks less like a hereditary position than the commons, with people from other walks of life actually having a say in government such as successful businessmen, scientists, religious figures, actors, judges, police officers, members of the armed forces and charity workers. Leftists of your caliber seem to forget that the only time you will see people from normal walks of life play a role in law making is in the House of Lords, is the name the problem? Should we rename it to the "House without career politicians"?.
You're incorrect on what happens when a sitting hereditary peer dies. Essentially, whenever there is a "vacancy" for a hereditary peer any hereditary lord can put their name forward to be elected by the others (unsure if all hereditary lords vote or just the peers), so even if you're a hereditary lord and your father was elected into the house by the other hereditary lords, you won't necessarily become a peer yourself.
So basically, since I'm about half-English...So long as millions of people die, I could become King? Interesting. Though the "Everyone is Distantly Related to the original King" bit seems to ignore most of those relations are illegitimate, and thus not applicable.
don't worry pal, you can always start a revolution and claim your right at the throne, you just need to kill the whole British army and police. It is simple as that ;)
Green Phoenix Nonsense. The common law dictating the succession to the British throne is male-preference cognatic primogeniture. To be included you 'must' be a legitimate decedent.
theonlylampshade I think you might have missed my point. Remeber the key word is enough. When enough people have died laws become irrelevant. And laws can be changed, so you might not have to kill the entire nation...
@SheepBlippy The OP did write that the Queen-Consort is pregnant with a boy. Before X-ray and sonar technology (remember this is a situation that never happened) presumably a Regency Council would have been formed in the event that the infant is male (I'm speculating here). If the princess is an adult, older than 18, Parliament might even appoint her Regent. If her sibling in the womb turns out to be female Parliament would have proclaimed her Queen-Regnant. There would most likely be a Regency Council anyway, since it is highly unlikely that a women with an adult daughter will be pregnant.
It can still happen like that - imagine in the future King George VII dies without an heir then Princess Charlotte would become queen - but if King George's consort was pregnant then their child would become King or Queen on birth and Charlotte would go back to being Princess and Heir-Presumptive. This has never happened in Britain, but did happen in France, John I being King of France for all five days he was alive.
It is simple : if the baby is a boy, has no big brother, and if the male primogeniture law applies, he "had always been" the king even in Her Majesty's womb since His Majesty passed away, because a foetus is a person. King Jean I's nickname is "the posthumous" for this reason. If the law gives no rigts to an unborn child, it means he "did not exist" when the king died, and the princess becomes the queen and remains so until her own death, even after her little brother is born.
@@seamonster936 :Something similar did happen in Spain in 1885-86. "Between the death of Alfonso XII and the birth of Alfonso XIII, there was a period of seven months where the pregnant Queen Maria Christina served as Head of State with the title of Regent for her daughter Maria de las Mercedes, who was declared to be "Queen in Name" until the gender of her baby sibling was known. " No. Portrait Coat of arms Name
Conquering worked before parliament took over and if it was possible England wouldn't be good enough. That would leave Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland unconquered.
7 лет назад
Melody Clark Strength is ultimate law. If you cannot protect your ideals, they're worthless in the end.
+SantaFe19484 In Japan, according to its 1947 rules, only men may succeed to the Throne, so using the same rules as the British Throne, but excluding _any_ female heirs. Prior to 1947, any person (male or female) could succeed to the Japanese throne, provided they were descended directly through the male descendants of the Emperor Jimmu, the first Emperor Of Japan. Although women before 1947 could in theory inherit the Throne, in practice the Throne was inherited wherever possible by the male offspring of the previous male Emperor (e.g., if an Emperor only had daughters, but the previous Emperor had sons (the current Emperor and his brother), the brother of the current Emperor would succeed him); therefore, brothers, uncles, and nephews of the Emperor would succeed before his daughters. If, however, a woman did become Empress, her children would only inherit the Throne if their father was also descended through the male descendants of Emperor Jimmu, and even in that case, sons take precedence over daughters. Japan has had eight reigning Empresses, the last abdicating in 1771. The current Emperor, Akihito, has two sons, and one grandson, one brother (without children), and one uncle, who has no living sons and whose grandchildren are ineligible to inherit the Throne. The Emperor's eldest son (the Crown Prince Naruhito) has a daughter, who was born eight years after the Crown Prince's and Crown Princess's marriage, with the Crown Princess having considerable difficulty conceiving children. The majority of the Emperor's heirs, however, are female, with no male heir being born in 41 years.
Even though the British throne uses absolute primogeniture now, it currently affects absolutely no one up to the 29th in line (who is now Senna Lewis instead of her younger brother Tāne Lewis); _no other female_ up to that point has a younger brother who's affected by the law (yet). So they were able to make this change without shifting things too much. But if Kate's next kid is a boy, then absolute primogeniture will finally have a practical effect on the more immediate line of succession, since Princess Charlotte will get to stay in 4th place instead of moving to 5th.
One thing this video didn't mention is that legally not everyone with European ancestry is in the line of succession. You MUST be a direct descendent of Sophia of Hanover, not just any English king. That being said, I believe the latest estimates give about 5000 legal heirs to the throne.
