Everything was super interesting and very well explained, except for the ridiculous assertion that Harry's wife was victim or racism. We all know that is absolute bullsh. Besides that, what an entertaining and well made video.
I think this is the first time I've ever understood 1) the UK line of succession, 2) why Philip was only just prince, 3) the differences between consort/regnant/regant, and 4) where all the bloody different titles come from. ...and I'm a UK citizen. 😅
Prince Philip's titulature was even more complicated because he originally was "Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark", since he was a male-line grandson of King George I. of Greece. However he gave up this title (as well as his real dynastic name) before marrying Princess Elizabeth. On the day of his marriage, King George VI. bestowed him with the british title "Duke of Edinburgh" (as it is customary in this kind of situation). In 1957, Queen Elizabeth granted him the additional special title of "Prince", this time a british one. (I think it was because he was a prince by birthright and had lost the title when he gave up his greek and danish connection).
@@linggao2602 Also since the reign of May Tudor ( daughter of Henry VIII) Engeland avoided the titel of King Jure Uxoris, King by right of marriage, bestowed on Mary's husband Prince Philips of Spain. The husband of queen Anne Stuart, prince George of Denmark, was never made king, nor Prince Albert, the husband of queen Victoria.
Why can I watch & enjoy a 27 minute video on a group of people I have no interest in? Because this is an incredibly entertaining & informative channel.
I can’t believe I watched this entire video about the line of succession of the English monarchy. As interesting as it is, this is a testament to the excellent narrator. He must be a teacher. Great job.
@@Tony_Baloney_69420 no her title was Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Kingdom of England ceased to exist in 1707
While I understand why Princess Anne cannot inherit the throne, I think I would be a little ticked were I her, knowing my great-nephew who is still playing with Hot Wheels, is at number six, while I sit in the 16th position! I think Anne would have done as well or better on the throne than King Charles, I've always been fascinated by her. Thank You for a perfectly lovely and easy to follow explanation.
She can inherit the throne. However, at the time, younger brothers took presidence of sisters. This no longer happens. However, Charles was still born before her and only had sons.
Fun Fact: Somewhere down the line of succession is Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preußen ("Prince of Prussia"), the great-grandson of Emperor Wilhelm II. and head of the prussian branch of the House of Hohenzollern. This is because the mother of Wilhelm II. was the eldest daughter of Queen Victoria. (Note: "Prince of Prussia" isn't a title but his legal surname, since all feudal titles in Germany were abolished in 1919 and transformed into "normal" surnames.)
The husband of Princess Caroline of Monaco is Prince Ernst Augustus of Hanover, whose ancestor King Ernest Augustus was the uncle of Queen Victoria. The original Ernst Augustus took the throne of Hanover because Hanoverian law forbid women from ruling. Since Ernst Augustus is in the British line of succession, he had to get permission from Queen Elizabeth to marry Caroline. He also had to get permission from Caroline's father, Prince Rainier. He also technically had to get permission from the government of France, due to technicalities in the French and Monaco rules over Monaco being an independent country. Since Ernst Augustus is the head of the House of Hanover, he didn't have to give himself permission. :D
Very good video! One minor quibble - technically, the only prohibited religion is Catholicism. You can be anything else and still be in line, but you have to be an Anglican to actually inherit the throne. Also, if someone were to renounce Catholicism, they can get their place back or take up the place they would have had based on ancestry. Converting to Catholicism doesn’t bar your descendants unless they too are Catholic. Converting to anything else doesn’t actually raise any legal issues (just maybe public opinion ones). Granted, there isn’t really a precedent for this, as no one high up in the line of succession has married a non-Christian. For people lower down, it doesn’t really matter so genealogists leave anyone who isn’t Catholic in.
Well, the monarch is still the head of the Church of England, so although Catholicism is the only explicitly prohibited religion, any potential monarch would be expected to convert away from whatever religion they possess if it’s not Anglicanism, or join the Church if they do not possess one
@@anameglass1607 Im pretty sure Mormonism is most common in America , given that it is an American based branch of Christianity although some people don’t believe Mormons are Christians because they have a third testament.
Only after watching the full video did I realize it was almost 30 minutes long. Well done, sir ! Very entertaining and informative on an academic level!
To everyone whining in the comments, if the naming conventions used in most royalty were respected, the royal house after the death of the Queen would actually be the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, the house to which Philip belonged in the male-line. Mountbatten is the anglicized name of the house his mother belonged to, the House of Battenberg, a Hessian… sort of noble, sort of royal house whose name was changed after WWI
Queen regnants have always been the last monarchs carrying their house names. For eg, Queen Elizabeth I was the last Tudor, Queen Anne was the last Stuart monarch and Queen Victoria was the last monarch from the House of Hanover. Traditionally, Queen Elizabeth would be the last monarch of the House of Saxe Coburg Gotha, if not for World War 1 and anti German sentiments in Britain, causing them to "become" Windsors for eternity.
Nicely explained. As for Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, he was originally a prince of Greece and Denmark, but renounced his titles before his marriage to Elizabeth of York (now Queen Elizabeth II), so he was a "commoner", Philip Mountbatten. He was later created a Prince of the United Kingdom by his wife, although he had been previously allowed, by King George VI, to use the style "HRH". And he was his wife's cousin, both being descendants of Queen Victoria & Prince Albert.
Elizabeth stopped being Elizabeth of York when her father became King she was simply The Princess Elizabeth when she married. Philip and Elizabeth were 3rd cousins in the British Royal Family and second cousins once removed in the Danish.
So back up a bit to an alternate timeline - had Elizabeth II died before him - Prince Philip wouldn't get any titles other than being a commoner and live out in Greece. Thus making Charles as King? which is what we see now? so there'd be no difference which parent died
@@lavans06 😅. Somebody Has their thinking cap on 😅😅😅. Prince Phillip was only a commoner ... So what was the problem with Diana's - ( Spencer's ) Bloodline ? How does that bloodline really tie into Royalty if any ...😮
@@countofdownable what this means to me: is that Prince Philip could only have ownership of certain assets otherwise the Mattbattons and Greece would be running uk ....OMG 😮
Honestly I wasn't expecting to make a comeback to this video so soon, unfortunately current events have drawn me back here. Rest in Peace, You Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II. 👑👑👑
It's remarkable that the line (and other royal lines) ever have succession crises with how easy it seems to "fill out" the line of succession. It's not like anyone on this list has a huge batch of children, and you can still get to 100 with ease.
I think the crises are usually because someone a bit lower down the list tries to push a claim over someone else. But also part of the reason it IS so nailed down now is to prevent the crises of the past from arising yet again. One of the few places we as a species seem to have learned a lesson, just in time for monarchies to be largely figureheads.
The problem is very rarely that there aren't enough successors. It's mostly conflicts over which claim is the most senior. And figuring that out can often be incredibly tricky with all the laws and customs in place!
It was very common throughout for family disputes to end up narrowing the family tree down significantly, add that to the fact that mortality rates were so much higher lifespans so much lower, it explains why potential heirs weren't always as clear cut as in modern times.
One aspect of the reason why there's no danger of a succession crisis now, but there has been in the past, is because healthcare - even for royals - is much better than it used to be. Back in the day royal couples would have fertility issues that are easily cured now, miscarriages and stillbirths that would be born live now, and infant and child mortality is much better now. This means that most royals have no problem having a couple of children, and they can be reasonably assured that's all they need to do to secure the line. Back in the middle ages a queen could spend her entire life attempting to have as many children as possible and still not be sure that any of them would make it onto the throne.
Minor correction, the King of Spain a Catholic and therefore he is not eligible to be included in the UK line of succession. Otherwise. Very entertaining video!
Actually the King of Spain could become king of the UK if he converts to the church of England, because catholicism is transitional in the law, but it doesn't work the way around, you can on go from being Catholic to being Anglican, you can't go from being Anglican to being Catholic to being Anglican again, so it would be the kings of Norway and Sweden that couldn't become the kings of the UK because they're neither Catholic nor Anglican.
@03:48 The Church of England did permit divorcees to remarry ONLY on the grounds that the ex-spouse of the remarrying person was already deceased. Wallis had living ex-spouses, two, as a matter of fact, in contrast with Edward who was never married before marrying Wallis. So yeah. Even if Edward was never married, never divorced, no living ex-spouse, the fact that one of the marrying parties (Wallis Simpson) had living ex-husbands made it more unacceptable and frowned upon.
@@nromk No, Catholics are barred from the succession, but all other religions are permitted to be in line, so long as someone converts to Anglicanism to become monarch since they have to be head of the Church of England.
I feel terrible that all 29 of my dear family members that were ahead of me in line for the throne passed away so suddenly. I am truly heart broken and I grieve with all of you.
i don't know 29 sounds like alot and with the internet half of them are gonna see it comming it's basically open war at that point too hard you might as well take the throne by force at that point
@@kellynolen498 you might as well take the throne by force at that point............... How do you think most thrones were taken ? :)) It is only in recent times , that we settled down and became civilised :)
I came here because of the recent news that happened to Queen Elizabeth II. She died at the age of 96. May her soul rest in peace. We express our condolences to the bereaved family
@@PastorIhaza have you forgotten history? What the uk and france did in the last 200 years? Uk alone invaded more than 50 countries. Millions are dead.
The reason Queen Elizabeth was never made the Princess of Wales is that until 2013 no woman could ever be the heir apparent, as any younger brother born later would become the heir apparent. From her father's accession to her own, Elizabeth was only the heir presumptive.
That and her father, George VI, felt the title was reserved only for the wife of the Prince of Wales. Although the Queen did actually receive a sort of equivalent, I think she was given a leading role in… some kind of Welsh-wide scout troupe? I’m not sure
@@Wosiewose Yes, that would have been her pre-marriage title. After marriage, she was also known as The Duchess of Edinburgh. Also, Elizabeth was not heiress-apparent. She was the heiress-presumptive. The difference between the two: had their been a son born, he would have come before Elizabeth in the succession.
Some years ago after doing some genealogical research I discovered that I am a distant, very distant, cousin of Elizabeth II. After a few weeks of intense calculation I concluded that I am somewhere between one and a half millionth and two millionth in the line of succession. In other words, a massive cataclysmic event of biblical proportions would be needed for me to ascend the British throne. I decided that would be more trouble than it is worth and have chosen to be happy with just being fifth cousin once removed of a baronet by marriage instead. Though I have heard that one can obtain a Knighthood for services to philanthropy if one donates sufficient amounts of money to appropriate UK based charities. So in theory I could in this way buy a knighthood though again, that's a lot of trouble. I hear north of twenty five million pounds is the going rate though someone recently acquired the honor on a much smaller donation which has caused some amount of controversy. Unfortunately for me, the likelihood of ever having that much money is quite low and plus I'm probably far to selfish to give away such a large sum just to have "sir" added to the front of it. Seems simpler to just found my own cult and declare myself grand poobah.
To be in the line of succession you must be a descendant of George I's mother and I don't think there are 2 million people with that descent only a few thousand
@@pedanticradiator1491 Yes, royal geneologists have determined there are around 6,000 living people who are descended from Sophia of Hannover, with Karin Vogel being the last person in line. Quite a few of those 6,000 are Catholics and thus ineligible, so the actual number in line is smaller, but you're definitely right, it would not be anywhere near 2 million!
@@pedanticradiator1491 That's good to know. I'm 15th cousin to Princes William and Harry but off the hook because I am only 9th cousin ten generations removed from George I's mother. Plus I'm Catholic. Whew!
@@benedictewrstad8379 you become a Laird or lady laird or sometimes a feudal Baron. Up until recently lairds did have a little bit of power left but today it is pretty meaningless much like the title of Lord of the Manor is in England and Wales.
I just LOVE LOVE these charts, I have purchased three. It is wonderful to really understand a complicated subject but the charts mays things so clear. keep up the good work and i look forward to more.
Matt: "What better time to talk about some of the more famous members of the British royal family, as well as some of the more-" Me: Infamous? Matt: "- lesser known ones."
Sooooo basically what I’m hearing is that the throne goes to William and his children and everybody else basically won’t have a chance at all unless God forbid something takes half the family out. The blue and green section of people looking real civilian like to me. I’m a US resident so what do I know. I’ve always been intrigued on the line of succession. Great video. Rest in Power to Queen Elizabeth II.
Not me sitting here nerding out and getting so excited on a Friday afternoon to learn about this. As a US citizen, I had no clue what some of the recent changes meant for the actual line of succession (or rather, what they DIDN'T mean). Thank you so much!
@@jamesknapp64 I’m not sure but it was at that time that the term British subject was dropped for all of the empire, and citizens of each country of the commonwealth became commonwealth citizens. To avoid large scale migration, Wikipedia’s words, not mine.
The law had been forgotten about until 1947 when Prince Frederick of Prussia pursued a claim to British citizenship had anyone remembered this law then Prince Philip would not necessarily have had to change his name etc. The law was repealed but anyone born before 1949 could still try to claim as Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover did in 1955
@@AlixZouzou nope, if you lived in a British colony you were British subject before 1983, and citizen afterwards, until your colony gained independence. The exception came a few years later when Britain took British citizenship from Hongkongers to keep China happy.
@@DS9TREK : Nope, sorry, the British Nationality Act 1948 created the status of Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies [CUKC], effective 1 January 1949, so those resident in a British colony were citizens until their colony gained independence. From 1949 until the effective date of the British Nationality Act 1981, "British subject" held the same meaning as "Commonwealth citizen," meaning any citizen of the UK, the remaining colonies, or any other member of the Commonwealth. The 1981 act divided CUKC into three categories: British citizens, British Dependent Territories citizens [i.e., those resident in what remained of the colonies, such as the Turks and Caicos and St Helena], and British Overseas citizens [which was a weird class of people, mostly those who had ties to a colony but did not acquire citizenship in that colony when it became independent, such as Indians settled in parts of east Africa]. Most residents of Hong Kong were CUKC between 1949 and 1983, and then British Dependent Territories citizens post 1983 until Hong Kong ceased to be a British Dependent Territory in 1997. Many now qualify as British National (Overseas), which means they are not British citizens or subjects but are considered British nationals (and since last year generally have the right to remain in the UK and eventually acquire British citizenship). Meanwhile, "British subject" status now refers mainly to people born in the Irish Free State before 1949 who do not possess British citizenship but who have opted to retain a link to Britain by registering with the Home Secretary.
No way the queen would skip Charles . His whole life was defined by being the heir and he’s suffered to some degree due to the restrictions and stresses such a title bears compared to his other siblings . He’s also waited longer than anyone else. Doing that would be incredibly cruel and rather unnecessary.
I think it does look like the Queen does not want Charles on the throne because of her age she could/would have stepped down a long time ago. It really would have not change a thing for her if she had done so. Edit: abdicated was changed to "step down". I realize from the comments the word "abdicated" is extreme and in all the cases this is a job for life. On the other hand so did the catholic pope until recently.
@@pedanticradiator1491 Yes exactly, the British royal family is a puppet to the whims of parliament. Parliament can make up any silly rule change it wants without having to worry if it makes sense or if it makes sense within the context of royal history and the queen can't do anything about it. Even sillier they can even will that the name of the royal house doesn't change even when it should change, bruh. What a joke.
@@PR-fk5yb Abdication, however, is not something British monarchs do willingly, no matter what their feelings about their successors. 1936 casts a long shadow; it is her uncle, not her son, that prevents her abdication.
@@darken2417 Actually the name didn’t change specifically because the Queen acted to ensure. She made a declaration that the royal house would retain the name Windsor. In effect, she did what George V did in 1917, although for different reasons, it was the same, legally recognized process
Very interesting video! I'm from Taiwan and this is the first time I know the whole picture of the royal family. Thanks for clarifying their relations in such an informative way!
15:31 Minor correction: it is not the rule that when the Sovereign is a woman her husband is a Prince, this is simply often what happens. The rule seems to be that there is no rule. In the two most recent cases, Prince Phillip (who was already a Prince as a child) was created “Prince of the UK” (not prince consort) and Prince Albert, Queen Victoria’s husband, (who Queen Victoria wanted to be made King) was made ‘Prince Consort’ some 17 years into her reign. Mary I’s husband Phillip was declared King and given equal powers to his wife and Queen Anne’s husband Prince George was never given a British title of prince; he was a Prince of Denmark from birth. Lastly Mary Queen of Scots three husbands held varying titles. Her first husband Francis was King of France and sought to be recognised as King of Scotland too. Her second husband Lord Darnley was unofficially declared King of Scots but this was never officially enacted. Her third husband, Lord Bothwell, was never created a Prince a or King. In short, when a woman has sat on the throne in Britain, her husband has had a different title every single time, and in the future, the title (pr lack thereof) of a husband, will be decided case by case.
It was weird, because Philip had to give up the title of "Prince of Greece and Denmark" to marry Elizabeth, but she later made him a Prince again. So Philip was a Prince two different times.
@@peteg475 Phillip's titles throughout his life: 10 June 1921 - 28 February 1947: His Royal Highness Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark 28 February 1947 - 19 November 1947: Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten 19 November 1947 - 20 November 1947: Lieutenant His Royal Highness Sir Philip Mountbatten 20 November 1947 - 22 February 1957: His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh 22 February 1957 - 9 April 2021: His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
Although there’s no official rule now, it’s perfectly possible one will be created in the future. Which will probably be that a husband of a reigning Queen is automatically a Prince Consort as that seems the easiest way of doing it.
You cannot be made consort. That Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh has been made Prince of the UK is one thing, he was still Prince consort to Queen Elisabeth I. Prince consort means husband of a queen, when he does not reign himself. Etymologically, consort is an old legal term coming from the Latin consortium, designating the community of property or fate that exists between two people, by extension of the spouses (from the Latin consors, consortia which are common in property).
I think it’s important to point out that George would’ve been a prince anyway had no change been made. According to letters patent issued by George V in 1917 the title of Prince or Princess and the style of Royal Highness was limited to the children of the monarch (Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward), the monarch’s male-line grandchildren (William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise and James [Louise and James voluntary don’t use those titles]) and the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (so George). Louis and Charlotte were simply granted that right since it would be odd for George to be a prince while Charlotte and Louis would not be
Plus, it would have been really awkward if Charlotte had been born first. Under the 1917 Letters Patent, she would have been only Lady Charlotte, but since the changes to the succession in 2013 she would have been the heir, while George as second-born would have been Prince George but not the heir.
Actually, it was Edward and Sophie (in consultation with HM) who decided on their children's titles. James and Louise are (as the the 1917 LP) entitled to be styled as HRH Prince and Princess". Whether either will take on royal duties as adults remains to be seen.
The whole "prince" mess in english is always confusing to me, because the word describes two different "functions", which both have their unique word in german. Prince means both "Fürst" (i.e. the ruler of a principality, as in "The Prince of Monaco", "The Prince of Darkness" or ... _Prince_ ;D) and "Prinz" (i.e. the son of any ruler, as in "Haakon, Crown Prince of Norway"). Also: Shouldn't the Queen be the _Duchess_ of Lanchester and Normandy, not the _Duke_ ...? Please excuse me if this is a dumb or rude question, I'm not a native speaker.
Technically yes, but in these cases the title Duke is used, regardless if the monarch is male or female. She is also 'Lord of Mann' as in the title of the head of state of the Isle of Man. And yes, for some reason the island has only one 'n' but the title has two. So, yeah :)
It comes down to the fact there is no form in English of Duchess-Regnant in the same way as Queen-Regnant is used, so Duke is used regardless of gender.
@@Wolfsgeist A few years ago we had a man from Maine who came over claiming to be the rightful King of Mann because someone told him he was descended from one of the Stanleys (who used to be the Lords of Mann). He was met with great hilarity and disdain.
The Queen is dead! God bless His Majesty King Charles III. 😔😔😔 a grateful nation says Farewell to our war time princess. Best of wives and best of women, and of Kings’ and Queens’.
@@redkop510 even if you only spoke about when she enlisted after her 18th birthday during WW2 and was a mechanic and truck driver that wold be enough to qualify the use of the word ‘service’. She also changed laws to provide women equal opportunity within the UK, she oversaw the imperialistic pull back of the Britain Empire from 3 nations and supported the development of their own governments. No one is perfect the royal family definitely isn’t but when you are handed the rule of an empire at 27, an empire who’s history is responsible for arguably more death then any other in history, 3 years after your capital city was literally flattened by bombers burning the Second World War, you don’t have a functioning sewer system, 70% of your counties men are dead, everyone expects you to do something, yes there’s a parliament but they can only do so much. Then she helped turn Britain into the UK you know today. She’s not perfect neither is her family but she served her country as it’s longest and considered the Best British Monarch in history.
I don’t know what led the TH-cam algorithms to suggest this video to my feed, but I’m glad it did. You did such a good job delivering the content that 27 minutes just flew by.
At 4:23 I laughed my ass off, because you made it sound as if Charles is expected to battle the Queen to the death, and she is a force to be reckoned with. I think you meant to say "So long as he outlives his mom". Love the channel
I think it is more that he is expected to battle the time, as there were few cases in British monarchy, when the heir apparent died just few weeks before the monarch
In obituaries, it is customary to say the deceased "is survived by" and then a list of relatives who are still alive. It is this sense of the word which was used.
This is such a cool video, I love the history of our royal family. Although the late Prince Phillip was not a Prince-Consort. On his wedding day he was styled as HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth, and Baron Greenwich. Therefore we has outranked by his son, Charles. In 1957 the Queen made him a prince, and from then on he to precedence over Charles on all occasions apart from in the line of succession and in parliament.
RIP to Queen Elizabeth II. To the author of this video, the algorithms may pick up on this video real soon so expect to have a lot of comments and views.
I love learning about English History, including knowing the royals. I loved this video because you went further back than I've seen before. Thank you for all your hard work!
Fantastic video as always! Just one tiny bit of pedantry: the correct plural of 'queen regnant' is 'queens regnant', not 'queen regnants' (the noun gets pluralised, not the postpositive adjective). Keep up the great work :)
It's worth mentioning, the 2013 change from male-preference primogeniture to absolute primogeniture ONLY applies to the Royal Family, NOT to the peerage/ English aristocracy. This is because royal inheritance is under some kind of grant or package related to public law, whereas with most aristocrats it is a different method (I don't remember the specifics, my partner explained it to me ), and not always the same method at that, its written in each original document. So if the eldest child of most peerage titles is a woman, the title goes to her brother, (or if she has none, her eldest uncle, then his firstborn son). HOWEVER this is just a TITLE that says youre the head of that family, she still inherits her father's resources.
@@fliconmigo The Grantham estate is governed by a fee tail or entail, a form of trust established by deed or settlement which restricts the sale or inheritance of an estate in real property and prevents the property from being sold, devised by will, or otherwise alienated by the tenant-in-possession, and instead causes it to pass automatically by operation of law to an heir determined by the settlement deed. The entail in _Downton Abbey_ endowed title _and estate_ exclusively to male heirs.
the first time I watched this video, I was confused since Princess Anne was placed after Prince Andrew and Prince Edward, so does the placement of Prince Edward's children. But then I remembered that the change in 2013 was not retroactive, which means everyone born before 2013 does not follow the change. No change of successor line in Queen Elizabeth's children or grandchildren, but started from the generation of her great grandchildren.
The title of Prince of Wales has been traditionally given to the heir apparent. It was not given to George VI - he went straight from being the Duke of York to the king when his brother abdicated. George VI's daughter Elizabeth was never heir apparent. There was the tiny possibility of her mother dying, her father remarrying, and having a son. This hypothetical son would have superseded Elizabeth, and he would have been heir apparent. With changes to the succession laws in 2013, a female can now become heir apparent. It will be interesting to see if there will be a Princess of Wales, and Prince-consort , or even a Princess-consort.
When Edward VIII became king, his younger brother, the Duke of York, immediately became heir _presumptive_ . When George VI became king, then Princess Elizabeth of York became heir _presumptive_ as _The Princess Elizabeth_ .
Why isn't Diane's first born child (daughter) the next in line before William. And the proper linage line starts with the real king of England who is living in Australia so really I think your chart is wrong.
One prince consort was called “king”. Philip, the husband of Mary I, inherited the title of king of Spain while they were married. The last Prince of Wales to die without becoming king was Frederick, son of George II and father of George III.
William III was also King, because he was the next in line after his wife Mary's sister Anne, so they just said what the heck and gave him the title. He reigned after Mary died, but not for very long before Anne took over.
@@corvus1374 also they hadnt figured out who of mary and william was more senior in the line of succesion, he being the son of the sister of charles II and James II, because when mary I and Elizabeth I became queens their was no female line male clearly available. They didnt know if a female line male heir was senior to a male line female heir. That and it was Williams army that got rid of James II.
Philip of Spains father the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V made him King of Naples and Jerusalem just before he married Mary so they would be the same rank then about a year or so later he abdicated and Philip became King of the various Spanish kingdoms, King of Sicily and ruler of most of the Netherlands. The HRE and the Austrisn doninons went to Charles's brother
It works the same way in Denmark. Queen Margrethe II late husband was prince consort, much to his chagrin. No matter how much he tried to change it, he remained prince consort. Also you would find the Danish royal family somewhere on in the line of succession to the British throne, just very, very far down the line. 😅
Hypothetical question: In the event of Prince George becoming King now (presuming that Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles and Prince William suddenly die), who would become his Regent? As far as I know there are no official regulations, so I would like to hear the thoughts of you all on this matter. :) My guess would be Princess Anne. She is a member of the royal family, very popular and fulfills the most representative duties after Prince Charles. After all, nowadays a regent would not really "reign" anymore but only take over the formal responsibilities of the monarch.
There are in fact regulations: the Regency Act 1937 spells out that the next person in line for the throne who is over 21, domiciled in the UK, and capable of succeeding to the throne (i.e., not Catholic) becomes the regent. If George becomes king while still a minor, Harry would be next but right now he doesn't live in the UK, so Andrew would be regent, so I think Parliament would swiftly rewrite the Regency Act to give the job to somebody else. Beatrice, Eugenie, and Edward are all eligible and ahead of Anne in the succession; Edward is a full-time working royal alongside Anne, so I speculate he might be a contender. Alternatively, the Regency Act 1953 specifically provided that the Duke of Edinburgh would become the regent for any of his minor children if needed; that law ceased to have effect when the last of Philip's children attained adulthood, but it might become a model for a new regency act giving the position to George's surviving parent, Catherine.
The Counsellors of State stand in for the monarch if they are unable to perform their duties, which in this hypothetical scenario is because the monarch is too young. At the moment that council is made up of Charles, William, Harry and Andrew. The last two are probably going to be removed soon and replaced with Anne and Camilla. It’s likely Catherine would be brought in if Charles and William had died as the mother of the monarch has often acted as regent or senior advisor.
The Regency Act of 1937 was passed when Elizabeth became the heir and says who the regent should be: the next person in the line of succession who is over 21, capable of succeeding to the crown according to the inheritance law, and a British subject “domiciled in the United Kingdom.” So this is a little complicated, because assuming he was still alive at that point, Harry would be the next adult in line, but he could be potentially disqualified because he lives in America and has quit working for the royal family. I don’t know, but maybe they could come to an agreement where he and his family move back to the UK permanently and he becomes regent. If he can’t do it, then next in line would be Prince Andrew. I can’t imagine that would go over well, though, but I don’t know if he has the option to decline. But if not him, maybe his daughters? But if those are skipped too, then it would go to Prince Edward, and I don’t see any reason why he wouldn’t be able to do it. It’s kind of a complicated scenario when the next two adults in line are both no longer doing royal duties haha
@@christinewolfe5481 Rewriting the Regency Act would require royal assent, something that might be problematic if Prince Andrew was acting as regent at the time. Also, Prince Harry might return to the UK and claim the right to act as regent. It could potentially get very messy if this scenario came about. I could see a negotiated settlement that resulted in someone entirely unexpected acting as regent. If George was close enough to majority, he might also have a say in who his regent was. With the support of Harry, Andrew, and George, my money would be on Catherine. Not unprecedented in light of the Regency Act 1953.
@@jwolfe01234 : True enough. However, no British monarch has refused the royal assent since Queen Anne in 1707, so if Andrew got uppity and refused, I suspect Parliament would have more to say on THAT subject first.
I had to laugh when you mentioned that in the 1930s, the Church of England didn't allow divorced people to remarry, since that was the exact reason the church was created.
yeah that was a mistake. It's not that they didn't allow divorced people to remarry, it's just that they didn't want the King to marry a divorced woman. If he were the one divorced, he'd probably have been allowed to remarry
The Church of England was created by Henry VIII to allow him to annul his marriage (declare that the marriage has never been valid in the first place) rather than to get divorced. Despite the popular rhyme, he never actually divorced.
@@melianna999 there are so many videos to educate you, i hate to have to spell it out. but he beheaded ONLY two of his wives. he annulled the first and fourth. third one died in childbirth and sixth outlived him. in a nutshell.
Just to let you know, Prince Charles' full title is: His Royal Highness The Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Chester, Earl of Carrick, Earl of Merioneth, Baron of Renfrew, Baron Greenwich, Lord of the Isles, Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, KG, KT, GCB, OM, AK, QSO, CC, PC, ADC.
Small note. England does not control Jersey and Guernsey, they’re crown dependencies. Meaning the queen is the head of state but the British parliament is not. Both have their own independent governments.
Acts of the UK Parliament do not normally apply in the Channel Islands but they can if so specified in the Act (for instance, the Television Act 1954) or by the monarch by Order-in-Council, although it's usually by consent. Technically, although the Queen is the UK monarch and head of state the sovereign is the Queen-in-Parliament.
The reason why no one in the line of succession can be anything other than either Church of England (Anglican) and/or Church of Scotland (Kirk) is because the monarch is head of both these churches and therefore cannot be head of either church while worshipping the laws of a different church.
@@pedanticradiator1491 Her Majesty The Queen swore an Oath of Security to defend the Reformed and Evangelical doctrines and the Presbyterian Church Government of the Church of Scotland at Her Majesty's Accession Council on the 8th Day of February 1952 as required by the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government Act 1707 (enacted by the last Parliament of the Kingdom of Scotland), and the Union with Scotland Act 1706 (enacted by the last Parliament of the Kingdom of England), and the Union with England Act 1707 (enacted by the last Parliament of the Kingdom of Scotland).
Slight correction at around 2:00: For the heir-apparent to be automatically Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay, the heir-apparent must be male, as you state, and must also be a son of the monarch, which you didn't. So, if the current Prince of Wales pre-deceases the Queen, the Duke of Cambridge may (and probably would) be created Prince of Wales in place of his dead father, but he couldn't be Duke of Cornwall or Duke of Rothesay, because he would be the grandson of the monarch, not the son. This happened when Frederick, Prince of Wales, eldest son of George II, pre-deceased his father, so his eldest son Prince George was created Prince of Wales, but not Duke of Cornwall/Rothesay, and soon thereafter he succeeded as George III.
Some of the statements made in the video - such as that the royal house will continue to be called Windsor (and not Mountbatten, nor Mountbatten-Windsor) after Charles becomes King, or that Camilla will not be called Queen Consort - despite the fact that either the Queen or the Prince of Wales have publicly made these statements - could, of course, change when Charles becomes King and he gets to do what he wants. I could see him both honoring his father's legacy by renaming the royal House (Prince Philip famously objected to his children not carrying on his family name), and I could also see him honoring his wife by making her the Queen Consort.
Two little words: Constitutional Monarchy. Charles will not be able "....to do what he wants." Any changes etc who require the agreement of parliament.
Camilla will automatically become queen consort should Charles become king. That is the law. Neither the queen nor Charles can change this. For her to have any other title (or no title) would take an act of Parliament. I imagine when Charles and Camilla first got married that statement that was put out was a PR stunt (and that statement disappeared from his web site years ago). When Edward VIII was trying to marry Wallis while still king, he proposed a morganatic marriage to his government, in which she would not have a title, and the fact it was law was explained to him (he spells this out in his autobiography). In Edward's time, it was explained that Parliament would be unwilling to make the change. Today, who knows? I'm guessing that is why the Queen put out her statement, to inform Parliament she doesn't want them to act otherwise.
@@daniel_sc1024 That's true but also let's consider the fact that Charles' and Camilla's marriage isn't even constitutionally valid since it was only a civic marriage and not recognized by the CoE (even though they had a 'blessing' ceremony). Even the Queen couldn't attend their wedding.
@@prudencel1652 The Marriage Act of 1949 repealed the ban on royal civil weddings, and the CoE has allowed divorced persons to remarry since 2002. At the time the Archbishop of Canterbury issued the statement "These arrangements have my strong support and are consistent with Church of England guidelines concerning remarriage which the Prince of Wales fully accepts as a committed Anglican and as prospective Supreme Governor of the Church of England." Per the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, the Privy Council met and gave it's consent. And the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor issued a statement saying it was constitutional. The Queen chose not to attend, there's no law saying she couldn't have.
Great video! I think that it might have been fun to mention that Prince Michael of Kent lost his place in the line of succession after his marriage to a Catholic under the terms of the Act of Settlement of 1701; however, he was reinstated to the line of succession on thanks to the Succession to the Crown Act of 2013. His children were not excluded from the line of succession due to his marriage. The funny thing was that marrying a Jew or a Hindu or Muslem has always been fine, but marrying a Catholic had been on par with marrying Voldemort.
The video is very simple but i fell in a loophole that if all the royals make a party then the Norwegian king has business then the party is hit by a really big bomb does that mean norway and uk are united or both have the same king and will he move into the palace and oml my brain hurts
Wow, I just realized Prince Edward Duke of Kent has held his title 10 years longer than Queen Elizabeth has held the throne--80 years in August! You go boy!
Technically speaking, Phillip’s house is Oldenburg. His mother is a Mountbatten (previously Battenberg), a junior branch of Hesse. His father is the grandson of Christian IX of Denmark, the son off the duke of Schweslig Holstein Sonderburg Glücksburg. This was created through a j7nior branch of the house of Oldenburg. But he uses Mountbatten due to both Hesse and Glücksburg being German
Philip and his mother are both dead so his house was Oldenburg not is. Philip's mother was technically never a Mountbatten as she had married by the time her family changed their name
@@Officialaaravd No, Princess Alice was a Battenberg. Her paternal grandparents (Prince Alexander of Hesse and Countess Julia von Hauke) had a morganatic marriage (which, yes, was not practiced in the UK, but it was common in German countries which is the more relevant point since Hesse is in Germany) so her father was not ALLOWED to be called HRH Louis of Hesse, instead His Illustrious Highness Count Louis of Battenberg (randomly chosen, it seems) and eventually His Serene Highness Prince Louis of Battenberg. So you could say she's ACTUALLY a Hesse, but she's still TECHNICALLY a Battenberg. Haha no offense, it's just fun to nitpick tiny historical details like this.
@@pedanticradiator1491 Technically Prince Philip's Descendants,The First 13 Persons In Line To The British Throne Are Oldenburgs,His Children,Grandchildren And Great Grandchildren,Although Legally By And An Act Enforced By Queen Elizabeth II In The 1960's The Family's Name Will Remain Windsor. The More Junior And Non-Reigning Members Of The Family In The Male Line Go By The Surname Mountbatten-Windsor,The More Senior Members Prince Charles,Prince William Etc. Don't Use A Surname At All.
A couple of comments on Prince Philip: he was born a foreign prince, Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark, so he was always Prince Philip. As well, he was given the title of a prince of the United Kingdom either by the Queen or by her father when they got married (I can't remember which). All the women who married princes are not technically Princess ____, including Diana, Camilla, Kate, Meghan, Sarah, Sophie, etc., but referred to by the princess title of their husband: Diana, Princess of Wales, not Princess Diana of Wales.
@@corvus1374 Yes, you're correct. Diana was: 1. HRH Diana, Princess of Wales 2. HRH Princess Charles of Wales. I can't find a single instance where the second title has been used. An identical usage applies to the titles of the duchesses of Cornwall, Cambridge, Sussex and York.
@@gordonsmith8899 : No, sorry. She was never "HRH Diana, Princess of Wales": she was "HRH The Princess of Wales" during her marriage and "Diana, Princess of Wales" (no HRH) afterwards. She would have been HRH The Princess Charles during her marriage as well (no "of Wales" because Charles is THE Prince of Wales, not Prince Charles of Wales), but likely never used it because The Princess of Wales was a higher title. (Similarly, her sisters-in-law are/were The Princess Andrew and The Princess Edward, but were/are generally known as The Duchess of York and the Countess of Wessex, those being more important titles. (However, Sophie's stallplate at the Queen's Chapel of the Savoy, the chapel of the Royal Victorian Order, reads "HRH The Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex." [Neither Diana nor Sarah were appointed to the RVO and so never had stallplates there.])
So apparently today a new detail was added. In the Queen's letter that marks the beginning of her Jubilee, she stated that when it comes the time for Charles to replace her on the throne, it is her wish for Camilla to receive the title of Queen Consort, and not let history simply record her as a duchess.
@@Missangie827 true, but my comment was specific to Camilla's status. She never used the Princess of Wales title that she was (unavoidable pun) entitled to, out of respect for Diana, and many people wondered if she should stay a duchess when Charles ascended, because some people didn't favour her. The Queen made her wish be known for her to use the Queen-Consort title she rightfully would had, as she had earned the title in her eyes.
Thank you! This is one of the most interesting YT videos I've seen. Even in the US a lot of people are interested in the royal family 🙂 I've been curious about Andrew. You explained that situation very well. So, you can commit a heinous crime and go to prison and still be in the line of succession. But heaven forbid you become a Catholic.
@JimA Anders Bear in mind that when the law prohibiting Roman Catholics from the line of succession were passed by parliament, a Pope had ordered the murder of Elizabeth I, absolved all Roman Catholic subject from their allegiance to their king, and our mortal enemies were Roman Catholic monarchs. Add to this the fact that the Borgias were holding regular orgies in the Vatican and giving cardinal's hats to family teenagers.
@@gordonsmith8899 : Um, no. The first law prohibiting Roman Catholics [the Bill of Rights] was passed in 1689, reaffirmed in 1701, and affirmed again in 2013. The Borgias had been gone from the Vatican for nearly 200 years by then. (Pope Alexander VI, born Rodrigo Borgia, died in 1503, and Cesare in 1507.)
As the Monarch is also the head of the Church of England, it makes sense that you have to be protestant. Would be a bit weird to have a Catholic head of the CofE, considering how the whole thing came to be in the first place.
The Lady Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor is(as of now) the HIGHEST-RANKING American in line to the British throne. She's Henry and Rachel's daughter over in California.
Understanding the history and evolution of major historical characters is crucial for understanding our world today. This channel offers an accessible and engaging way to do just that.
this is probably your most commonly updated chart lol, to bad Andrew can't be fully stripped of the Ducal title and Prince title without an act of parliament (which doesn't look likely considering the state its in)
A little known role that could be interesting to include on a future one of these videos is that of the Counselors of State. The spouse and 4 eldest in line over the age of 21 who can act on the monarchs behalf should they be out of the country or incapacitated in some way. So it's currently Charles, William, Harry and Andrew. When Charles acends the throne it will then include Camilla and Beatrice until George turns 21 or one of the other members that isn't Camilla passes away.
Adding to that, two Counsellors of State must be present to act on behalf of the Monarch. Since Harry and Andrew are no longer working royals, that only leaves Charles and William. That's why William was there when Charles read the Queen's speech at the state opening of parliament recently. The Counsellors of State also have to be resident in the UK. Harry currently satisfies that requirement by maintaining a lease on Frogmore Cottage, but he would lose eligibility if he let the lease expire.
Jersey and Guernsey are not controlled "by England", whatever that would mean. They are Crown Dependencies, which are independent countries in all but name. Indeed people there would point out that they conquered England in 1066, England is their colonial possession.
I’m skeptical of the whole “Princess consort” thing. No wife of a British monarch has ever not been the Queen consort. I sincerely doubt they’re going to bother because it’s frankly irrelevant, and Diana has been dead for more then 20 years. At some point, it just cannot matter anymore
@@DS9TREK I really hate to break it to you but that’s just not true, because a Queen consort doesn’t have to be crowned. Charles I’s wife Henrietta Marie wasn’t crowned because she was Catholic and it was an Anglican ceremony, but she was still the Queen consort. Hell, even the monarch doesn’t have to be crowned. Edward VIII wasn’t but he was still undoubtedly King for the period before his abdication
Very informative! I love how you explained the line of succession in a way that’s easy to understand. Now it brings me back to Meghan’s interview where she said the the RF refused to give Archie a title. Clearly, this is not true and all she needs to do is wait for Prince Charles to ascend to the throne then Archie will become a Prince.
That's not what she said. Harry and her were told the letter patent would be changed so their children would not be Prince and princess. Charles when King could change it. Since Williams kids are already Prince and princess it would not affect them.
@@mageboom6632 huh? Where did she say this? Well first they said they don’t want titles for their kids and then they changed it to “refused to give him a title”
I’m pretty sure that the previous succession laws would have allowed George to be a prince regardless, it was Charlotte and Louis who benefitted from the more recent amendment the Queen made. Letters patent 1917 from George V says that the eldest son of the eldest son of the prince of wales is entitled to be a Prince
1:41 - Princess Elizabeth, as she was then, was not Heir Apparent, since (at that time) the throne operated on male-preference primogeniture (it doesn't any more), so she could in theory have been usurped in the line by a newborn male heir. The term for this is Heir Presumptive. This, as I understand it, is why she was never made Princess of Wales.
I think you should make a video about who would be the Sultan of Ottomon Empire (Turkey) if Ottomon monarchy never collapsed. Also there can a interesting video about the Habsburg monarch today or the Austrian Emperor.
Your delivery is excellent! Thank you for speaking the truth on Andrew, the Duke of York. Crazy to think they could hold a title and still be in line while being incarcerated!
I imagine that's a holdover from when a monarch could just throw people in jail. They would just eliminate rivals by throwing someone higher in the tree in the Tower and be done with the whole line.
Its crazy for me how old William and Harry are! I was in, I think 4th or 5th grade and day after Charles and Diana's wedding, they wheeled in a television and showed us a video of it. So from then on people of my gen remember Wills and then Harry being born
Very Good and thank you for clearing up many many arguments. It would be interesting to plot such a succession map and allow for assumptions based on age say 90 for women and 85 for men (Because the queen was extraodinary when she died at 96). It would most certainly make for an interesting probability of whats to come. One could even type in the age when a successor dies (From whatever cause) before expeceted age and the whole table would change accordingly.
It's a fun little academic discussion and all, but I think it's become readily apparent that Lizzy is going to outlive all of us and who knows how many generations after that, so it's a bit early to talk about succession.
This reminds me of the movie King Ralph with John Goodman. Where a lot of the royal family died in some weird way and they had to search through lines of lines of people til they got to the main character to be the next King. It was such a good movie and I highly recommend watching it.
Just to be clear the Duchy of Lancaster is a Duchy Palatine which is the same as a County Palatine but ruled by a Duke and not a Count. The vast estates are still administered separately to the crown.
I'm pretty sure your great-grandfather/great-grandmother (basically what Queen Elizabeth is to Prince George/Princess Charlotte etc) has a lot of siblings and their siblings have lots of descendants too, it's just that we don't have a formal family tree to look at and don't even know their descendants anymore😭
It is not a bigger family than most other families. If you just count backwards through the generations and looks up all the cousins you have. 2nd cousins 3rd cousins so on then everyone has many relatives.
@@arpitarunmishra Things are rather tough for Beatrice and Eugenie these days I would imagine... Of course, there's a LOT of pressure and stress I would imagine being in Charles' family.... Anne and Edwards' families seem very content (strictly from an outsiders' perspective)
Unfortunately the WARGS compiler passed away and no one else has taken up the thankless task of updating his chart of everyone in line for the throne. At its last update it ran to about 5000, with the last person in line still a German woman called Karin Vogel.
Awesome video! You mention that the title Prince of Wales is traditionally given to the first in line to the throne, and that the first in line is the heir apparent. That’s not always true. An heir apparent is someone who WILL become the monarch upon the death of the previous monarch, provided they survive them. An heir presumptive is someone who is currently first in line to the throne, but could be displaced by the birth of someone senior to them in the line of succession. The title Prince of Wales has traditionally gone to the male heir apparent descended from the current monarch, but never to the heir presumptive. Thus, the title Prince of Wales has almost always gone to the eldest son of the reigning monarch, but there are exceptions. Most recently, George II named his grandson (later George III) Prince of Wales, after the death of Frederick, George II’s eldest son, before his father. But George was the eldest son of the eldest son of the monarch - no one could have been born at a higher place in the line of succession than him, thus he was heir apparent. Elizabeth was not given the title Princess of Wales because, although she was first line to the throne, she was not heir apparent - under male preference primogeniture, if Elizabeth’s father, George VI, had had a son, he would have acceded to the throne instead of his older sister. Same applies to younger siblings of the monarch - for a childless monarch, their next youngest sibling would be first in the line of succession, but since the monarch could have children (the age and marital status of the monarch don’t matter) the monarch’s next sibling can only ever be heir presumptive. When George V died and Edward VIII took the throne, the Duke of York (later George VI) became his heir presumptive, but since Edward could have had children (he didn’t), the Duke never could have been Prince of Wales. Until 2013, it would have been nearly impossible to have a female heir apparent. The most likely situation I could imagine would be if the eldest son of the monarch had a daughter, and then died before the monarch, leaving no potential for the previous heir apparent to have a son who would displace his sister. However, now under absolute primogeniture it would be much more likely. Will female heirs apparent get the title Princess of Wales under the new system? We’ll have to wait at least until Prince George of Cambridge takes the throne to find out. Unless something terrible happens to George and Princess Charlotte becomes heir apparent. Great content, keep it up!
Other European countries that have changed over to absolute primogeniture succession already have heiresses apparent. The Crown Princess of Sweden, Princess Victoria is one of them.
Second mistake... The husband of a reigning queen is NOT automatically a "Prince." At the time of their marriage, the Duke of Edinburgh was limited to that Noble title. A special law was passed (around 1960) to elevate Philip to Royal status, becoming a Prince of the realm in his own right.
@@andrewakes307 In 1957 Queen Elizabeth issued Letters Patent making her husband a Prince of the United Kingdom, Letters Patent are issued by the Monarch not Parliament.
at 12:30, which technically correct and complete. It should be pointed out that being removed from that line of succession "by dying" includes by becoming catholic. The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 still term someone who has ever been a Catholic to be "naturally dead and deemed to be dead" (Until the 2013 act, marrying a Catholic would have also meant that you were forever naturally dead)
UPDATED video here: th-cam.com/video/Cs1Qq9C5haA/w-d-xo.html
I watched that and went here to learn more; title here is probably somewhat misleading now, add month or whatever to name it precisely
💀💀💀💀💀
I'm sorry ok
At least for a few titles
Everything was super interesting and very well explained, except for the ridiculous assertion that Harry's wife was victim or racism. We all know that is absolute bullsh. Besides that, what an entertaining and well made video.
I think this is the first time I've ever understood 1) the UK line of succession, 2) why Philip was only just prince, 3) the differences between consort/regnant/regant, and 4) where all the bloody different titles come from. ...and I'm a UK citizen. 😅
Prince Philip's titulature was even more complicated because he originally was "Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark", since he was a male-line grandson of King George I. of Greece. However he gave up this title (as well as his real dynastic name) before marrying Princess Elizabeth. On the day of his marriage, King George VI. bestowed him with the british title "Duke of Edinburgh" (as it is customary in this kind of situation). In 1957, Queen Elizabeth granted him the additional special title of "Prince", this time a british one. (I think it was because he was a prince by birthright and had lost the title when he gave up his greek and danish connection).
It’s probably a fun exercise to list all the duke titles and trace who those titles have been given to.
@@linggao2602 Also since the reign of May Tudor ( daughter of Henry VIII) Engeland avoided the titel of King Jure Uxoris, King by right of marriage, bestowed on Mary's husband Prince Philips of Spain. The husband of queen Anne Stuart, prince George of Denmark, was never made king, nor Prince Albert, the husband of queen Victoria.
@@untruelie2640 damn
UK citizen or a British subject? 😛
Why can I watch & enjoy a 27 minute video on a group of people I have no interest in? Because this is an incredibly entertaining & informative channel.
Absolutely agree!
Because you're actually interested in this particular group of people
Also, seeing it laid out visually helps form the relationship between yourself, the viewer and, it, the visual representation of a family tree.
How can anyone not be interested in the royal family?
Celticwolff, I was thinking pretty much the same thing!
I can’t believe I watched this entire video about the line of succession of the English monarchy. As interesting as it is, this is a testament to the excellent narrator. He must be a teacher. Great job.
British not English
@@pedanticradiator1491 But wasn't Elizabeth II the Queen of England?
@@Tony_Baloney_69420 no her title was Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Kingdom of England ceased to exist in 1707
@@pedanticradiator1491 Guess Titan from Megamind was wrong then.
@@Tony_Baloney_69420 A lot of people said “Queen of England” because it’s shorter, but it wasn’t the correct title.
While I understand why Princess Anne cannot inherit the throne, I think I would be a little ticked were I her, knowing my great-nephew who is still playing with Hot Wheels, is at number six, while I sit in the 16th position!
I think Anne would have done as well or better on the throne than King Charles, I've always been fascinated by her.
Thank You for a perfectly lovely and easy to follow explanation.
What great nephew?
@@audreymarie9646 Should read number six in line, I will proceed to edit it. Thank You for bringing my error to my attention.
Have a great day!
it do be like that sometimes
She can inherit the throne. However, at the time, younger brothers took presidence of sisters. This no longer happens. However, Charles was still born before her and only had sons.
I know that Feeling 😁
Fun Fact: Somewhere down the line of succession is Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preußen ("Prince of Prussia"), the great-grandson of Emperor Wilhelm II. and head of the prussian branch of the House of Hohenzollern. This is because the mother of Wilhelm II. was the eldest daughter of Queen Victoria.
(Note: "Prince of Prussia" isn't a title but his legal surname, since all feudal titles in Germany were abolished in 1919 and transformed into "normal" surnames.)
(cough.. Georg Friedrich .. cough)😌
@@lapernice6978 My mistake. 😅 I corrected it.
The husband of Princess Caroline of Monaco is Prince Ernst Augustus of Hanover, whose ancestor King Ernest Augustus was the uncle of Queen Victoria. The original Ernst Augustus took the throne of Hanover because Hanoverian law forbid women from ruling. Since Ernst Augustus is in the British line of succession, he had to get permission from Queen Elizabeth to marry Caroline. He also had to get permission from Caroline's father, Prince Rainier. He also technically had to get permission from the government of France, due to technicalities in the French and Monaco rules over Monaco being an independent country. Since Ernst Augustus is the head of the House of Hanover, he didn't have to give himself permission. :D
Hitler gave himself the title Furher, so that 1919 thing may be out.
@@jeffkardosjr.3825 Furher was not a Royal or aristocratic title and the 1919 law still stands
Some of these people may never sit on the throne but to say you’re top 20-30 in line would be pretty cool
Good stuff for a tinder profile. "57th on the line of succession, (no really)"
Some? You mean all right?
@@pitakon Most.
@@pitakon Do you expect the 100 or so people shown to be in line to the throne on this chart will die before the current reigning monarch?
@@johnmcphee3136 the queen will outlive our great great great great grandchildren
Very good video! One minor quibble - technically, the only prohibited religion is Catholicism. You can be anything else and still be in line, but you have to be an Anglican to actually inherit the throne. Also, if someone were to renounce Catholicism, they can get their place back or take up the place they would have had based on ancestry. Converting to Catholicism doesn’t bar your descendants unless they too are Catholic. Converting to anything else doesn’t actually raise any legal issues (just maybe public opinion ones). Granted, there isn’t really a precedent for this, as no one high up in the line of succession has married a non-Christian. For people lower down, it doesn’t really matter so genealogists leave anyone who isn’t Catholic in.
Well, the monarch is still the head of the Church of England, so although Catholicism is the only explicitly prohibited religion, any potential monarch would be expected to convert away from whatever religion they possess if it’s not Anglicanism, or join the Church if they do not possess one
How about a Mormon monarch
@@anameglass1607 Not Anglican so nope
So basically Catholicism is permanent but anything else can convert to Anglicanism.
@@anameglass1607 Im pretty sure Mormonism is most common in America , given that it is an American based branch of Christianity although some people don’t believe Mormons are Christians because they have a third testament.
Only after watching the full video did I realize it was almost 30 minutes long.
Well done, sir ! Very entertaining and informative on an academic level!
Ø7
I wonder if Lady Louise and James are switched as she is older.
@stephanieknowles7586 no because they were born before the law was changed
To everyone whining in the comments, if the naming conventions used in most royalty were respected, the royal house after the death of the Queen would actually be the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, the house to which Philip belonged in the male-line. Mountbatten is the anglicized name of the house his mother belonged to, the House of Battenberg, a Hessian… sort of noble, sort of royal house whose name was changed after WWI
didnt the queen declare that after her death the house would still be windsor? or am i wrong about that
@@chfrqn4dl Yes, but some people are saying it “should be” Mountbatten, even though there is no universe where that makes sense
The Dutch had 3 reigning Queens in succession but the Royal House still uses the name of Orange or Orange-Nassau.
Queen regnants have always been the last monarchs carrying their house names. For eg, Queen Elizabeth I was the last Tudor, Queen Anne was the last Stuart monarch and Queen Victoria was the last monarch from the House of Hanover. Traditionally, Queen Elizabeth would be the last monarch of the House of Saxe Coburg Gotha, if not for World War 1 and anti German sentiments in Britain, causing them to "become" Windsors for eternity.
@@pedanticradiator1491 we’ll we arent the dutch
Nicely explained. As for Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, he was originally a prince of Greece and Denmark, but renounced his titles before his marriage to Elizabeth of York (now Queen Elizabeth II), so he was a "commoner", Philip Mountbatten. He was later created a Prince of the United Kingdom by his wife, although he had been previously allowed, by King George VI, to use the style "HRH". And he was his wife's cousin, both being descendants of Queen Victoria & Prince Albert.
Elizabeth stopped being Elizabeth of York when her father became King she was simply The Princess Elizabeth when she married. Philip and Elizabeth were 3rd cousins in the British Royal Family and second cousins once removed in the Danish.
So back up a bit to an alternate timeline - had Elizabeth II died before him - Prince Philip wouldn't get any titles other than being a commoner and live out in Greece. Thus making Charles as King? which is what we see now?
so there'd be no difference which parent died
@@lavans06
Then he wouldn't have renounced his Greek and Danish title.
@@lavans06 😅. Somebody Has their thinking cap on 😅😅😅. Prince Phillip was only a commoner ... So what was the problem with Diana's - ( Spencer's ) Bloodline ? How does that bloodline really tie into Royalty if any ...😮
@@countofdownable what this means to me: is that Prince Philip could only have ownership of certain assets otherwise the Mattbattons and Greece would be running uk ....OMG 😮
The fact you chose the picture of Andrew from his walk with Epstein 😂
Salty!
@@jasonkiefer1894 000000000000000000p0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000⁰00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000⁰0000000000000p⁰l
I glad I had ancestors that fought Revolution to get rid of these entitled slugs!
Bunch of baby eaters....
would you rather it was him holding that girl?
Honestly I wasn't expecting to make a comeback to this video so soon, unfortunately current events have drawn me back here.
Rest in Peace, You Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II.
👑👑👑
Same
sameee
Aaa me too
R. I. P. ❤❤❤
The Queen was the leader of a monstrous empire and it's good that she's dead.
It's remarkable that the line (and other royal lines) ever have succession crises with how easy it seems to "fill out" the line of succession. It's not like anyone on this list has a huge batch of children, and you can still get to 100 with ease.
I think the crises are usually because someone a bit lower down the list tries to push a claim over someone else. But also part of the reason it IS so nailed down now is to prevent the crises of the past from arising yet again. One of the few places we as a species seem to have learned a lesson, just in time for monarchies to be largely figureheads.
The problem is very rarely that there aren't enough successors. It's mostly conflicts over which claim is the most senior. And figuring that out can often be incredibly tricky with all the laws and customs in place!
It was very common throughout for family disputes to end up narrowing the family tree down significantly, add that to the fact that mortality rates were so much higher lifespans so much lower, it explains why potential heirs weren't always as clear cut as in modern times.
One aspect of the reason why there's no danger of a succession crisis now, but there has been in the past, is because healthcare - even for royals - is much better than it used to be. Back in the day royal couples would have fertility issues that are easily cured now, miscarriages and stillbirths that would be born live now, and infant and child mortality is much better now. This means that most royals have no problem having a couple of children, and they can be reasonably assured that's all they need to do to secure the line. Back in the middle ages a queen could spend her entire life attempting to have as many children as possible and still not be sure that any of them would make it onto the throne.
Also there's less killing each other
Minor correction, the King of Spain a Catholic and therefore he is not eligible to be included in the UK line of succession. Otherwise. Very entertaining video!
Until Catholic in UK became popular again
@@kenhartono5956 hasn't happened in dutchland
Actually the King of Spain could become king of the UK if he converts to the church of England, because catholicism is transitional in the law, but it doesn't work the way around, you can on go from being Catholic to being Anglican, you can't go from being Anglican to being Catholic to being Anglican again, so it would be the kings of Norway and Sweden that couldn't become the kings of the UK because they're neither Catholic nor Anglican.
@03:48 The Church of England did permit divorcees to remarry ONLY on the grounds that the ex-spouse of the remarrying person was already deceased. Wallis had living ex-spouses, two, as a matter of fact, in contrast with Edward who was never married before marrying Wallis. So yeah. Even if Edward was never married, never divorced, no living ex-spouse, the fact that one of the marrying parties (Wallis Simpson) had living ex-husbands made it more unacceptable and frowned upon.
@@nromk No, Catholics are barred from the succession, but all other religions are permitted to be in line, so long as someone converts to Anglicanism to become monarch since they have to be head of the Church of England.
I feel terrible that all 29 of my dear family members that were ahead of me in line for the throne passed away so suddenly. I am truly heart broken and I grieve with all of you.
Nepal royalty? 😏😜
My deepest sympathies, your loss is truly--waiiiiiit a minute here... ;D
Wow, they just disappeared!
i don't know 29 sounds like alot and with the internet half of them are gonna see it comming it's basically open war at that point too hard you might as well take the throne by force at that point
@@kellynolen498 you might as well take the throne by force at that point............... How do you think most thrones were taken ? :)) It is only in recent times , that we settled down and became civilised :)
I came here because of the recent news that happened to Queen Elizabeth II. She died at the age of 96. May her soul rest in peace. We express our condolences to the bereaved family
Amen🕊
@@PastorIhaza 🙏
She is most likely rotting in hell after all the conolizations she did.
@@-Abdulhadi- Where did she colonize? And you will likely, see HELL first... 🤣
@@PastorIhaza have you forgotten history? What the uk and france did in the last 200 years? Uk alone invaded more than 50 countries. Millions are dead.
The reason Queen Elizabeth was never made the Princess of Wales is that until 2013 no woman could ever be the heir apparent, as any younger brother born later would become the heir apparent. From her father's accession to her own, Elizabeth was only the heir presumptive.
Yes. Theoretically her father could “always” have more sons, even though it was not realistic.
That and her father, George VI, felt the title was reserved only for the wife of the Prince of Wales. Although the Queen did actually receive a sort of equivalent, I think she was given a leading role in… some kind of Welsh-wide scout troupe? I’m not sure
@@Edmonton-of2ec Not Princess of Wales? Eh, how about Den Mother--close enough.
Yes, I think until she actually came to the throne, wasn't she simply Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth?
@@Wosiewose Yes, that would have been her pre-marriage title. After marriage, she was also known as The Duchess of Edinburgh.
Also, Elizabeth was not heiress-apparent. She was the heiress-presumptive. The difference between the two: had their been a son born, he would have come before Elizabeth in the succession.
Some years ago after doing some genealogical research I discovered that I am a distant, very distant, cousin of Elizabeth II. After a few weeks of intense calculation I concluded that I am somewhere between one and a half millionth and two millionth in the line of succession. In other words, a massive cataclysmic event of biblical proportions would be needed for me to ascend the British throne. I decided that would be more trouble than it is worth and have chosen to be happy with just being fifth cousin once removed of a baronet by marriage instead. Though I have heard that one can obtain a Knighthood for services to philanthropy if one donates sufficient amounts of money to appropriate UK based charities. So in theory I could in this way buy a knighthood though again, that's a lot of trouble. I hear north of twenty five million pounds is the going rate though someone recently acquired the honor on a much smaller donation which has caused some amount of controversy. Unfortunately for me, the likelihood of ever having that much money is quite low and plus I'm probably far to selfish to give away such a large sum just to have "sir" added to the front of it. Seems simpler to just found my own cult and declare myself grand poobah.
To be in the line of succession you must be a descendant of George I's mother and I don't think there are 2 million people with that descent only a few thousand
@@pedanticradiator1491 Yes, royal geneologists have determined there are around 6,000 living people who are descended from Sophia of Hannover, with Karin Vogel being the last person in line. Quite a few of those 6,000 are Catholics and thus ineligible, so the actual number in line is smaller, but you're definitely right, it would not be anywhere near 2 million!
@@pedanticradiator1491 That's good to know. I'm 15th cousin to Princes William and Harry but off the hook because I am only 9th cousin ten generations removed from George I's mother. Plus I'm Catholic. Whew!
Unrelated sidenote: If you want a title I think the cheapest way to do it is to buy a plot of land in Scotland - and you can become a lord or lady 👍
@@benedictewrstad8379 you become a Laird or lady laird or sometimes a feudal Baron. Up until recently lairds did have a little bit of power left but today it is pretty meaningless much like the title of Lord of the Manor is in England and Wales.
To be real honest I can't deal with this youtube page..
... It's TOOOO Good! Well done guys. Been watching for years. Never disappointed
This video is exceptionally well made and clearly narrated. Most important is it's super relevant today. RIP Queen Elizabeth II.
I just LOVE LOVE these charts, I have purchased three. It is wonderful to really understand a complicated subject but the charts mays things so clear. keep up the good work and i look forward to more.
Dam you know you can get them done for free on the internet :/
Matt: "What better time to talk about some of the more famous members of the British royal family, as well as some of the more-"
Me: Infamous?
Matt: "- lesser known ones."
Correct on both accounts.
Every time you say “god save the Queen,” she lives for another minute!
Let's hope this is said more than once per minute, on average.
Or “Long live the Queen!”
So that why are national anthem hasn't changed since 1745 thanks for the fact lol
Long live the Queen!
Which version the national anthem or sex pistols or both ?
Sooooo basically what I’m hearing is that the throne goes to William and his children and everybody else basically won’t have a chance at all unless God forbid something takes half the family out. The blue and green section of people looking real civilian like to me. I’m a US resident so what do I know. I’ve always been intrigued on the line of succession. Great video. Rest in Power to Queen Elizabeth II.
Correct, this is also the plot of the movie Shanghai Noons with Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson
Why are you sad about the Queen if you're American? You should be celebrating.
actually it probably will just go to george and then straight to his children.
@@derpeth2101 because I have freewill and she’s still a mother, grandmother, great grandmother, aunt and sister and I respect the office.
@@globalcomparisons1973 you don’t think William will get the crown. King Charles III is 73yrs old.
Not me sitting here nerding out and getting so excited on a Friday afternoon to learn about this. As a US citizen, I had no clue what some of the recent changes meant for the actual line of succession (or rather, what they DIDN'T mean). Thank you so much!
Fun fact: being a descendant of Sophia of Hanover was a way to get British citizenship until 1949.
What changed in 1949?
@@jamesknapp64 I’m not sure but it was at that time that the term British subject was dropped for all of the empire, and citizens of each country of the commonwealth became commonwealth citizens. To avoid large scale migration, Wikipedia’s words, not mine.
The law had been forgotten about until 1947 when Prince Frederick of Prussia pursued a claim to British citizenship had anyone remembered this law then Prince Philip would not necessarily have had to change his name etc. The law was repealed but anyone born before 1949 could still try to claim as Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover did in 1955
@@AlixZouzou nope, if you lived in a British colony you were British subject before 1983, and citizen afterwards, until your colony gained independence. The exception came a few years later when Britain took British citizenship from Hongkongers to keep China happy.
@@DS9TREK : Nope, sorry, the British Nationality Act 1948 created the status of Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies [CUKC], effective 1 January 1949, so those resident in a British colony were citizens until their colony gained independence. From 1949 until the effective date of the British Nationality Act 1981, "British subject" held the same meaning as "Commonwealth citizen," meaning any citizen of the UK, the remaining colonies, or any other member of the Commonwealth. The 1981 act divided CUKC into three categories: British citizens, British Dependent Territories citizens [i.e., those resident in what remained of the colonies, such as the Turks and Caicos and St Helena], and British Overseas citizens [which was a weird class of people, mostly those who had ties to a colony but did not acquire citizenship in that colony when it became independent, such as Indians settled in parts of east Africa]. Most residents of Hong Kong were CUKC between 1949 and 1983, and then British Dependent Territories citizens post 1983 until Hong Kong ceased to be a British Dependent Territory in 1997. Many now qualify as British National (Overseas), which means they are not British citizens or subjects but are considered British nationals (and since last year generally have the right to remain in the UK and eventually acquire British citizenship). Meanwhile, "British subject" status now refers mainly to people born in the Irish Free State before 1949 who do not possess British citizenship but who have opted to retain a link to Britain by registering with the Home Secretary.
No way the queen would skip Charles . His whole life was defined by being the heir and he’s suffered to some degree due to the restrictions and stresses such a title bears compared to his other siblings . He’s also waited longer than anyone else. Doing that would be incredibly cruel and rather unnecessary.
The Queen can not choose her successor the line of succession can only changed by an act of Parliament
I think it does look like the Queen does not want Charles on the throne because of her age she could/would have stepped down a long time ago. It really would have not change a thing for her if she had done so.
Edit: abdicated was changed to "step down". I realize from the comments the word "abdicated" is extreme and in all the cases this is a job for life. On the other hand so did the catholic pope until recently.
@@pedanticradiator1491
Yes exactly, the British royal family is a puppet to the whims of parliament. Parliament can make up any silly rule change it wants without having to worry if it makes sense or if it makes sense within the context of royal history and the queen can't do anything about it.
Even sillier they can even will that the name of the royal house doesn't change even when it should change, bruh. What a joke.
@@PR-fk5yb Abdication, however, is not something British monarchs do willingly, no matter what their feelings about their successors. 1936 casts a long shadow; it is her uncle, not her son, that prevents her abdication.
@@darken2417 Actually the name didn’t change specifically because the Queen acted to ensure. She made a declaration that the royal house would retain the name Windsor. In effect, she did what George V did in 1917, although for different reasons, it was the same, legally recognized process
Very interesting video! I'm from Taiwan and this is the first time I know the whole picture of the royal family. Thanks for clarifying their relations in such an informative way!
15:31 Minor correction: it is not the rule that when the Sovereign is a woman her husband is a Prince, this is simply often what happens. The rule seems to be that there is no rule. In the two most recent cases, Prince Phillip (who was already a Prince as a child) was created “Prince of the UK” (not prince consort) and Prince Albert, Queen Victoria’s husband, (who Queen Victoria wanted to be made King) was made ‘Prince Consort’ some 17 years into her reign. Mary I’s husband Phillip was declared King and given equal powers to his wife and Queen Anne’s husband Prince George was never given a British title of prince; he was a Prince of Denmark from birth. Lastly Mary Queen of Scots three husbands held varying titles. Her first husband Francis was King of France and sought to be recognised as King of Scotland too. Her second husband Lord Darnley was unofficially declared King of Scots but this was never officially enacted. Her third husband, Lord Bothwell, was never created a Prince a or King. In short, when a woman has sat on the throne in Britain, her husband has had a different title every single time, and in the future, the title (pr lack thereof) of a husband, will be decided case by case.
Anne's husband had been created Duke of Cumberland and Earl of Kendal but never used the titles
It was weird, because Philip had to give up the title of "Prince of Greece and Denmark" to marry Elizabeth, but she later made him a Prince again. So Philip was a Prince two different times.
@@peteg475 Phillip's titles throughout his life:
10 June 1921 - 28 February 1947: His Royal Highness Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark
28 February 1947 - 19 November 1947: Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten
19 November 1947 - 20 November 1947: Lieutenant His Royal Highness Sir Philip Mountbatten
20 November 1947 - 22 February 1957: His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh
22 February 1957 - 9 April 2021: His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
Although there’s no official rule now, it’s perfectly possible one will be created in the future. Which will probably be that a husband of a reigning Queen is automatically a Prince Consort as that seems the easiest way of doing it.
You cannot be made consort. That Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh has been made Prince of the UK is one thing, he was still Prince consort to Queen Elisabeth I. Prince consort means husband of a queen, when he does not reign himself. Etymologically, consort is an old legal term coming from the Latin consortium, designating the community of property or fate that exists between two people, by extension of the spouses (from the Latin consors, consortia which are common in property).
I think it’s important to point out that George would’ve been a prince anyway had no change been made. According to letters patent issued by George V in 1917 the title of Prince or Princess and the style of Royal Highness was limited to the children of the monarch (Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward), the monarch’s male-line grandchildren (William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise and James [Louise and James voluntary don’t use those titles]) and the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (so George). Louis and Charlotte were simply granted that right since it would be odd for George to be a prince while Charlotte and Louis would not be
Plus, it would have been really awkward if Charlotte had been born first. Under the 1917 Letters Patent, she would have been only Lady Charlotte, but since the changes to the succession in 2013 she would have been the heir, while George as second-born would have been Prince George but not the heir.
i came here to comment that!
Actually, it was Edward and Sophie (in consultation with HM) who decided on their children's titles. James and Louise are (as the the 1917 LP) entitled to be styled as HRH Prince and Princess". Whether either will take on royal duties as adults remains to be seen.
@@gidzmobug2323 Well, Louise is a legal adult and hasn’t, so that’s pretty conclusive
@@Edmonton-of2ec Nothing's been announced.
The whole "prince" mess in english is always confusing to me, because the word describes two different "functions", which both have their unique word in german. Prince means both "Fürst" (i.e. the ruler of a principality, as in "The Prince of Monaco", "The Prince of Darkness" or ... _Prince_ ;D) and "Prinz" (i.e. the son of any ruler, as in "Haakon, Crown Prince of Norway").
Also: Shouldn't the Queen be the _Duchess_ of Lanchester and Normandy, not the _Duke_ ...? Please excuse me if this is a dumb or rude question, I'm not a native speaker.
She is definitely the duke of Normandy, eventhough it makes little sense
Technically yes, but in these cases the title Duke is used, regardless if the monarch is male or female. She is also 'Lord of Mann' as in the title of the head of state of the Isle of Man. And yes, for some reason the island has only one 'n' but the title has two. So, yeah :)
@@Wolfsgeist The island of Mann also can have two 'n's, it comes from the Manx name Mannin.
It comes down to the fact there is no form in English of Duchess-Regnant in the same way as Queen-Regnant is used, so Duke is used regardless of gender.
@@Wolfsgeist A few years ago we had a man from Maine who came over claiming to be the rightful King of Mann because someone told him he was descended from one of the Stanleys (who used to be the Lords of Mann). He was met with great hilarity and disdain.
RIP to her majesty the Queen. Thank you for your 70 years of service ❤️
The Queen is dead! God bless His Majesty King Charles III. 😔😔😔 a grateful nation says Farewell to our war time princess. Best of wives and best of women, and of Kings’ and Queens’.
What service? lmao She's dead and hopefully her old ass son will join her soon enough.
What service would that be?
@@redkop510 even if you only spoke about when she enlisted after her 18th birthday during WW2 and was a mechanic and truck driver that wold be enough to qualify the use of the word ‘service’. She also changed laws to provide women equal opportunity within the UK, she oversaw the imperialistic pull back of the Britain Empire from 3 nations and supported the development of their own governments. No one is perfect the royal family definitely isn’t but when you are handed the rule of an empire at 27, an empire who’s history is responsible for arguably more death then any other in history, 3 years after your capital city was literally flattened by bombers burning the Second World War, you don’t have a functioning sewer system, 70% of your counties men are dead, everyone expects you to do something, yes there’s a parliament but they can only do so much. Then she helped turn Britain into the UK you know today. She’s not perfect neither is her family but she served her country as it’s longest and considered the Best British Monarch in history.
@@dopedreamz Yeah,yeah..not hard to sign a piece of paper..🤔
I don’t know what led the TH-cam algorithms to suggest this video to my feed, but I’m glad it did. You did such a good job delivering the content that 27 minutes just flew by.
At 4:23 I laughed my ass off, because you made it sound as if Charles is expected to battle the Queen to the death, and she is a force to be reckoned with. I think you meant to say "So long as he outlives his mom". Love the channel
It does sound funny, but "survives" is the technical term for remaining alive after the death of someone else.
I think it is more that he is expected to battle the time, as there were few cases in British monarchy, when the heir apparent died just few weeks before the monarch
In obituaries, it is customary to say the deceased "is survived by" and then a list of relatives who are still alive. It is this sense of the word which was used.
@@sjkirkpatrick1 Huh, I wonder why it isn't just "outlived". The more you know.. :)
@@jacobandrews2663 I can imagine it would just sound strange, like John Doe was competing with his late grandmother to outlive her 🤣
This is such a cool video, I love the history of our royal family. Although the late Prince Phillip was not a Prince-Consort. On his wedding day he was styled as HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth, and Baron Greenwich. Therefore we has outranked by his son, Charles. In 1957 the Queen made him a prince, and from then on he to precedence over Charles on all occasions apart from in the line of succession and in parliament.
RIP to Queen Elizabeth II. To the author of this video, the algorithms may pick up on this video real soon so expect to have a lot of comments and views.
I love learning about English History, including knowing the royals. I loved this video because you went further back than I've seen before. Thank you for all your hard work!
That's terrific. This vid isn't about English history, though.
Fantastic video as always!
Just one tiny bit of pedantry: the correct plural of 'queen regnant' is 'queens regnant', not 'queen regnants' (the noun gets pluralised, not the postpositive adjective). Keep up the great work :)
In an informal setting, grammar Nazis are quite annoying. However, this is the furthest setting from informal, so your comment is quite welcome.
We have the same issue within embassies and consulates: it is the consuls general, not consul generals.
Mothers-in-law, not mother-in-laws, the list goes on. Love your comment, thanks!
@@dianem8544 culs de sac not cul de sac
@@TSV805 Nice, now I know that one, too. Never had to pluralize it, had no idea.
Descendant No. 94 planning an elaborate plot to become the king
😂😅🥲😅🤣
I actually met a woman who was 245th in line for the throne though she told me she has no plan on acting on it...
For now
Thank you for detailing this chart and for making it much easier to understand.
It's worth mentioning, the 2013 change from male-preference primogeniture to absolute primogeniture ONLY applies to the Royal Family, NOT to the peerage/ English aristocracy. This is because royal inheritance is under some kind of grant or package related to public law, whereas with most aristocrats it is a different method (I don't remember the specifics, my partner explained it to me ), and not always the same method at that, its written in each original document.
So if the eldest child of most peerage titles is a woman, the title goes to her brother, (or if she has none, her eldest uncle, then his firstborn son). HOWEVER this is just a TITLE that says youre the head of that family, she still inherits her father's resources.
So Mary really had nothing to worry about when Lord Grantham died 😅...
@@fliconmigo The Grantham estate is governed by a fee tail or entail, a form of trust established by deed or settlement which restricts the sale or inheritance of an estate in real property and prevents the property from being sold, devised by will, or otherwise alienated by the tenant-in-possession, and instead causes it to pass automatically by operation of law to an heir determined by the settlement deed. The entail in _Downton Abbey_ endowed title _and estate_ exclusively to male heirs.
@@RaymondHng by the time Downton had finished the laws concerning entails had been abolished
the first time I watched this video, I was confused since Princess Anne was placed after Prince Andrew and Prince Edward, so does the placement of Prince Edward's children. But then I remembered that the change in 2013 was not retroactive, which means everyone born before 2013 does not follow the change. No change of successor line in Queen Elizabeth's children or grandchildren, but started from the generation of her great grandchildren.
The title of Prince of Wales has been traditionally given to the heir apparent. It was not given to George VI - he went straight from being the Duke of York to the king when his brother abdicated. George VI's daughter Elizabeth was never heir apparent. There was the tiny possibility of her mother dying, her father remarrying, and having a son. This hypothetical son would have superseded Elizabeth, and he would have been heir apparent.
With changes to the succession laws in 2013, a female can now become heir apparent. It will be interesting to see if there will be a Princess of Wales, and Prince-consort , or even a Princess-consort.
When Edward VIII became king, his younger brother, the Duke of York, immediately became heir _presumptive_ . When George VI became king, then Princess Elizabeth of York became heir _presumptive_ as _The Princess Elizabeth_ .
Why isn't Diane's first born child (daughter) the next in line before William. And the proper linage line starts with the real king of England who is living in Australia so really I think your chart is wrong.
@@roxyview who's Diane?
I'd something happened to George this would be Charlotte becoming The Princess of Wales instead of The Princess Royal after Anne and Charles dying
@@adamfilewood3416 nothing has ever been officially said to that effect
One prince consort was called “king”. Philip, the husband of Mary I, inherited the title of king of Spain while they were married.
The last Prince of Wales to die without becoming king was Frederick, son of George II and father of George III.
William III was also King, because he was the next in line after his wife Mary's sister Anne, so they just said what the heck and gave him the title. He reigned after Mary died, but not for very long before Anne took over.
@@corvus1374 also they hadnt figured out who of mary and william was more senior in the line of succesion, he being the son of the sister of charles II and James II, because when mary I and Elizabeth I became queens their was no female line male clearly available. They didnt know if a female line male heir was senior to a male line female heir. That and it was Williams army that got rid of James II.
Philip was also King of England by marraige, same as his wife was Queen of Spain by marraige.
@@corvus1374 William III is one of my favorites.
Philip of Spains father the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V made him King of Naples and Jerusalem just before he married Mary so they would be the same rank then about a year or so later he abdicated and Philip became King of the various Spanish kingdoms, King of Sicily and ruler of most of the Netherlands. The HRE and the Austrisn doninons went to Charles's brother
It works the same way in Denmark. Queen Margrethe II late husband was prince consort, much to his chagrin. No matter how much he tried to change it, he remained prince consort. Also you would find the Danish royal family somewhere on in the line of succession to the British throne, just very, very far down the line. 😅
Excellent video, clearly explained. Showed this to my parents to explain the succession easily.
Hypothetical question: In the event of Prince George becoming King now (presuming that Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles and Prince William suddenly die), who would become his Regent? As far as I know there are no official regulations, so I would like to hear the thoughts of you all on this matter. :)
My guess would be Princess Anne. She is a member of the royal family, very popular and fulfills the most representative duties after Prince Charles. After all, nowadays a regent would not really "reign" anymore but only take over the formal responsibilities of the monarch.
There are in fact regulations: the Regency Act 1937 spells out that the next person in line for the throne who is over 21, domiciled in the UK, and capable of succeeding to the throne (i.e., not Catholic) becomes the regent. If George becomes king while still a minor, Harry would be next but right now he doesn't live in the UK, so Andrew would be regent, so I think Parliament would swiftly rewrite the Regency Act to give the job to somebody else. Beatrice, Eugenie, and Edward are all eligible and ahead of Anne in the succession; Edward is a full-time working royal alongside Anne, so I speculate he might be a contender.
Alternatively, the Regency Act 1953 specifically provided that the Duke of Edinburgh would become the regent for any of his minor children if needed; that law ceased to have effect when the last of Philip's children attained adulthood, but it might become a model for a new regency act giving the position to George's surviving parent, Catherine.
The Counsellors of State stand in for the monarch if they are unable to perform their duties, which in this hypothetical scenario is because the monarch is too young. At the moment that council is made up of Charles, William, Harry and Andrew. The last two are probably going to be removed soon and replaced with Anne and Camilla. It’s likely Catherine would be brought in if Charles and William had died as the mother of the monarch has often acted as regent or senior advisor.
The Regency Act of 1937 was passed when Elizabeth became the heir and says who the regent should be: the next person in the line of succession who is over 21, capable of succeeding to the crown according to the inheritance law, and a British subject “domiciled in the United Kingdom.” So this is a little complicated, because assuming he was still alive at that point, Harry would be the next adult in line, but he could be potentially disqualified because he lives in America and has quit working for the royal family. I don’t know, but maybe they could come to an agreement where he and his family move back to the UK permanently and he becomes regent. If he can’t do it, then next in line would be Prince Andrew. I can’t imagine that would go over well, though, but I don’t know if he has the option to decline. But if not him, maybe his daughters? But if those are skipped too, then it would go to Prince Edward, and I don’t see any reason why he wouldn’t be able to do it. It’s kind of a complicated scenario when the next two adults in line are both no longer doing royal duties haha
@@christinewolfe5481 Rewriting the Regency Act would require royal assent, something that might be problematic if Prince Andrew was acting as regent at the time. Also, Prince Harry might return to the UK and claim the right to act as regent. It could potentially get very messy if this scenario came about. I could see a negotiated settlement that resulted in someone entirely unexpected acting as regent. If George was close enough to majority, he might also have a say in who his regent was. With the support of Harry, Andrew, and George, my money would be on Catherine. Not unprecedented in light of the Regency Act 1953.
@@jwolfe01234 : True enough. However, no British monarch has refused the royal assent since Queen Anne in 1707, so if Andrew got uppity and refused, I suspect Parliament would have more to say on THAT subject first.
I had to laugh when you mentioned that in the 1930s, the Church of England didn't allow divorced people to remarry, since that was the exact reason the church was created.
Well… not really. An annulment isn’t the same thing as a divorce.
Also, the prohibition only applies if the former spouse is still *alive*
yeah that was a mistake. It's not that they didn't allow divorced people to remarry, it's just that they didn't want the King to marry a divorced woman. If he were the one divorced, he'd probably have been allowed to remarry
Another reason was to get rid of the Catholics. Well done.
The Church of England was created by Henry VIII to allow him to annul his marriage (declare that the marriage has never been valid in the first place) rather than to get divorced. Despite the popular rhyme, he never actually divorced.
@@melianna999 there are so many videos to educate you, i hate to have to spell it out. but he beheaded ONLY two of his wives. he annulled the first and fourth. third one died in childbirth and sixth outlived him. in a nutshell.
Queen died today... came to watch this ... great video! RIP Queen Elizabeth the second!
Just to let you know, Prince Charles' full title is: His Royal Highness The Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Chester, Earl of Carrick, Earl of Merioneth, Baron of Renfrew, Baron Greenwich, Lord of the Isles, Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, KG, KT, GCB, OM, AK, QSO, CC, PC, ADC.
...mother of dragons, breaker of chains
Protector of the realm
Defender of the faith
Wow, that’s a mouthful. Makes him sound important.*
@@tvelicia The Queen being the reigning monarch has the title, 'Defender of the faith', not Prince Charles as he is not a king yet.
Small note. England does not control Jersey and Guernsey, they’re crown dependencies. Meaning the queen is the head of state but the British parliament is not. Both have their own independent governments.
Do you still in EU? Cause you know Scotland has it's parlament too but they are not in EU.
You say about papers. Something official that doesn't true.
And Sark has its own ruler, Seigneur Christopher Beaumont.
@@empireofengland6039 Jesery and Guernsey were never in the EU.
Acts of the UK Parliament do not normally apply in the Channel Islands but they can if so specified in the Act (for instance, the Television Act 1954) or by the monarch by Order-in-Council, although it's usually by consent. Technically, although the Queen is the UK monarch and head of state the sovereign is the Queen-in-Parliament.
The reason why no one in the line of succession can be anything other than either Church of England (Anglican) and/or Church of Scotland (Kirk) is because the monarch is head of both these churches and therefore cannot be head of either church while worshipping the laws of a different church.
The monarch is not actually head of the Church of Scotland but is a member of it and sends a representative to its annual General assembly
@@pedanticradiator1491 My mistake. I made an assumption which I should have verified before posting.
Sounds like heresy. [Insert Warhammer meme and Deus Vult meme]
@@pedanticradiator1491
Her Majesty The Queen swore an Oath of Security to defend the Reformed and Evangelical doctrines and the Presbyterian Church Government of the Church of Scotland at Her Majesty's Accession Council on the 8th Day of February 1952 as required by the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government Act 1707 (enacted by the last Parliament of the Kingdom of Scotland), and the Union with Scotland Act 1706 (enacted by the last Parliament of the Kingdom of England), and the Union with England Act 1707 (enacted by the last Parliament of the Kingdom of Scotland).
@@ronaldmccallum2111 yes I know
Just came back to see who takes the throne after today... RIP the Queen.
Slight correction at around 2:00: For the heir-apparent to be automatically Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay, the heir-apparent must be male, as you state, and must also be a son of the monarch, which you didn't. So, if the current Prince of Wales pre-deceases the Queen, the Duke of Cambridge may (and probably would) be created Prince of Wales in place of his dead father, but he couldn't be Duke of Cornwall or Duke of Rothesay, because he would be the grandson of the monarch, not the son. This happened when Frederick, Prince of Wales, eldest son of George II, pre-deceased his father, so his eldest son Prince George was created Prince of Wales, but not Duke of Cornwall/Rothesay, and soon thereafter he succeeded as George III.
I don't know why I love this trivia so much. Great video. Hard work is appreciated!
Some of the statements made in the video - such as that the royal house will continue to be called Windsor (and not Mountbatten, nor Mountbatten-Windsor) after Charles becomes King, or that Camilla will not be called Queen Consort - despite the fact that either the Queen or the Prince of Wales have publicly made these statements - could, of course, change when Charles becomes King and he gets to do what he wants. I could see him both honoring his father's legacy by renaming the royal House (Prince Philip famously objected to his children not carrying on his family name), and I could also see him honoring his wife by making her the Queen Consort.
Two little words: Constitutional Monarchy. Charles will not be able "....to do what he wants." Any changes etc who require the agreement of parliament.
Camilla will automatically become queen consort should Charles become king. That is the law. Neither the queen nor Charles can change this. For her to have any other title (or no title) would take an act of Parliament. I imagine when Charles and Camilla first got married that statement that was put out was a PR stunt (and that statement disappeared from his web site years ago).
When Edward VIII was trying to marry Wallis while still king, he proposed a morganatic marriage to his government, in which she would not have a title, and the fact it was law was explained to him (he spells this out in his autobiography). In Edward's time, it was explained that Parliament would be unwilling to make the change. Today, who knows? I'm guessing that is why the Queen put out her statement, to inform Parliament she doesn't want them to act otherwise.
@@daniel_sc1024 That's true but also let's consider the fact that Charles' and Camilla's marriage isn't even constitutionally valid since it was only a civic marriage and not recognized by the CoE (even though they had a 'blessing' ceremony). Even the Queen couldn't attend their wedding.
@@prudencel1652 The Marriage Act of 1949 repealed the ban on royal civil weddings, and the CoE has allowed divorced persons to remarry since 2002. At the time the Archbishop of Canterbury issued the statement "These arrangements have my strong support and are consistent with Church of England guidelines concerning remarriage which the Prince of Wales fully accepts as a committed Anglican and as prospective Supreme Governor of the Church of England." Per the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, the Privy Council met and gave it's consent. And the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor issued a statement saying it was constitutional. The Queen chose not to attend, there's no law saying she couldn't have.
Great video! I think that it might have been fun to mention that Prince Michael of Kent lost his place in the line of succession after his marriage to a Catholic under the terms of the Act of Settlement of 1701; however, he was reinstated to the line of succession on thanks to the Succession to the Crown Act of 2013. His children were not excluded from the line of succession due to his marriage. The funny thing was that marrying a Jew or a Hindu or Muslem has always been fine, but marrying a Catholic had been on par with marrying Voldemort.
I thought I "just" read (in this article) that you could only be protestant to be in the monarchy.....
@@cathyskulborstad3378 Marrying "out" is not the same as converting.
That was so informative. I have always wondered about the line of succession. You explained things and it was so easily understood.
The video is very simple but i fell in a loophole that if all the royals make a party then the Norwegian king has business then the party is hit by a really big bomb does that mean norway and uk are united or both have the same king and will he move into the palace and oml my brain hurts
Wow, I just realized Prince Edward Duke of Kent has held his title 10 years longer than Queen Elizabeth has held the throne--80 years in August! You go boy!
Well he was a young child when his father died in WWII so that makes sense
I would love to see you break down the Line of Emperor in Japan this same way! Seems like a lot of similarities and confusions with recent events.
Glad this got explained. Especially now Her Magesty has passed.
The king of Spain is a Catholic, so as you explained two minutes earlier, he would not be in the line of succession, right?
Correct. My mistake.
@@UsefulCharts Queen of Denmark as an alternative! She and the King of Sweden are first cousins, descendants of Queen Victoria's third son Arthur.
@@UsefulCharts what if he converts...
@@darynvoss7883 nope, once catholic always catholic
@@wiekeboiten6742 henry viii?
Thanks so much for this update! I always enjoy your insights on this topic ⭐️
Technically speaking, Phillip’s house is Oldenburg. His mother is a Mountbatten (previously Battenberg), a junior branch of Hesse. His father is the grandson of Christian IX of Denmark, the son off the duke of Schweslig Holstein Sonderburg Glücksburg. This was created through a j7nior branch of the house of Oldenburg. But he uses Mountbatten due to both Hesse and Glücksburg being German
Philip and his mother are both dead so his house was Oldenburg not is. Philip's mother was technically never a Mountbatten as she had married by the time her family changed their name
@@pedanticradiator1491 Yeah well technically she is a Hesse
I was looking for this comment.
@@Officialaaravd No, Princess Alice was a Battenberg. Her paternal grandparents (Prince Alexander of Hesse and Countess Julia von Hauke) had a morganatic marriage (which, yes, was not practiced in the UK, but it was common in German countries which is the more relevant point since Hesse is in Germany) so her father was not ALLOWED to be called HRH Louis of Hesse, instead His Illustrious Highness Count Louis of Battenberg (randomly chosen, it seems) and eventually His Serene Highness Prince Louis of Battenberg. So you could say she's ACTUALLY a Hesse, but she's still TECHNICALLY a Battenberg. Haha no offense, it's just fun to nitpick tiny historical details like this.
@@pedanticradiator1491 Technically Prince Philip's Descendants,The First 13 Persons In Line To The British Throne Are Oldenburgs,His Children,Grandchildren And Great Grandchildren,Although Legally By And An Act Enforced By Queen Elizabeth II In The 1960's The Family's Name Will Remain Windsor. The More Junior And Non-Reigning Members Of The Family In The Male Line Go By The Surname Mountbatten-Windsor,The More Senior Members Prince Charles,Prince William Etc. Don't Use A Surname At All.
RIP Queen. Came back to this video and many more to understand what can happen next
A couple of comments on Prince Philip: he was born a foreign prince, Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark, so he was always Prince Philip. As well, he was given the title of a prince of the United Kingdom either by the Queen or by her father when they got married (I can't remember which). All the women who married princes are not technically Princess ____, including Diana, Camilla, Kate, Meghan, Sarah, Sophie, etc., but referred to by the princess title of their husband: Diana, Princess of Wales, not Princess Diana of Wales.
Philip was given the rank of Prince of the United Kingdom by the Queen in 1957.
Don't they use their husband's names? Wasn't Diana technically the Princess Charles?
@@corvus1374
Yes, you're correct.
Diana was:
1. HRH Diana, Princess of Wales
2. HRH Princess Charles of Wales.
I can't find a single instance where the second title has been used.
An identical usage applies to the titles of the duchesses of Cornwall, Cambridge, Sussex and York.
@@gordonsmith8899 : No, sorry. She was never "HRH Diana, Princess of Wales": she was "HRH The Princess of Wales" during her marriage and "Diana, Princess of Wales" (no HRH) afterwards. She would have been HRH The Princess Charles during her marriage as well (no "of Wales" because Charles is THE Prince of Wales, not Prince Charles of Wales), but likely never used it because The Princess of Wales was a higher title. (Similarly, her sisters-in-law are/were The Princess Andrew and The Princess Edward, but were/are generally known as The Duchess of York and the Countess of Wessex, those being more important titles. (However, Sophie's stallplate at the Queen's Chapel of the Savoy, the chapel of the Royal Victorian Order, reads "HRH The Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex." [Neither Diana nor Sarah were appointed to the RVO and so never had stallplates there.])
Prince Philip wasn’t always a Prince, he gave up his Royal titles before he married then Princess Elizabeth.
So apparently today a new detail was added. In the Queen's letter that marks the beginning of her Jubilee, she stated that when it comes the time for Charles to replace her on the throne, it is her wish for Camilla to receive the title of Queen Consort, and not let history simply record her as a duchess.
So the old homewrecker would be queen. Ugh.
consort is just a title-when Charles passes William will get the crown and probably Kate will be consort -she already is a duchess
@@Missangie827 true, but my comment was specific to Camilla's status. She never used the Princess of Wales title that she was (unavoidable pun) entitled to, out of respect for Diana, and many people wondered if she should stay a duchess when Charles ascended, because some people didn't favour her. The Queen made her wish be known for her to use the Queen-Consort title she rightfully would had, as she had earned the title in her eyes.
21:22 I saw that crash - it was at the start of an air race from Halfpenny Green Airfield near Wolverhampton. Pilot error, as is most often the case.
27 minutes about pampered royals and it felt like only 5 minutes.
Great storytelling.
Thank you!
This is one of the most interesting YT videos I've seen.
Even in the US a lot of people are interested in the royal family 🙂
I've been curious about Andrew. You explained that situation very well.
So, you can commit a heinous crime and go to prison and still be in the line of succession.
But heaven forbid you become a Catholic.
@JimA Anders
Bear in mind that when the law prohibiting Roman Catholics from the line of succession were passed by parliament, a Pope had ordered the murder of Elizabeth I, absolved all Roman Catholic subject from their allegiance to their king, and our mortal enemies were Roman Catholic monarchs. Add to this the fact that the Borgias were holding regular orgies in the Vatican and giving cardinal's hats to family teenagers.
@@gordonsmith8899 : Um, no. The first law prohibiting Roman Catholics [the Bill of Rights] was passed in 1689, reaffirmed in 1701, and affirmed again in 2013. The Borgias had been gone from the Vatican for nearly 200 years by then. (Pope Alexander VI, born Rodrigo Borgia, died in 1503, and Cesare in 1507.)
As the Monarch is also the head of the Church of England, it makes sense that you have to be protestant. Would be a bit weird to have a Catholic head of the CofE, considering how the whole thing came to be in the first place.
Yes. We want no Catholic kings in England. We learned that lesson the hard way, when we had to get rid of Charles I. He was a Catholic zealot.
That was VERY INSIGHTFUL, especially to those of us Americans who are admirers of the British royal family(Windsor Dynasty). Thank you!
The Lady Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor is(as of now) the HIGHEST-RANKING American in line to the British throne. She's Henry and Rachel's daughter over in California.
Watching this after Queen Elizabeth II has passed. This is fascinating. Thank you for explaining all this so concisely! RIP Queen Elizabeth 💗
Understanding the history and evolution of major historical characters is crucial for understanding our world today. This channel offers an accessible and engaging way to do just that.
this is probably your most commonly updated chart lol, to bad Andrew can't be fully stripped of the Ducal title and Prince title without an act of parliament (which doesn't look likely considering the state its in)
Charles was right. He is a minor royal. And lo, it was impressively c**ty.
Eh, if he avoids jail it won't really matter. He'll be shoved to some musty house somewhere in the countryside where no one has to see him, lol.
Has he been found guilty?
@@comparedtowhat2719 no, trial ongoing/not begun not sure which
@@comparedtowhat2719 No.
A little known role that could be interesting to include on a future one of these videos is that of the Counselors of State. The spouse and 4 eldest in line over the age of 21 who can act on the monarchs behalf should they be out of the country or incapacitated in some way. So it's currently Charles, William, Harry and Andrew. When Charles acends the throne it will then include Camilla and Beatrice until George turns 21 or one of the other members that isn't Camilla passes away.
mm hoj
Adding to that, two Counsellors of State must be present to act on behalf of the Monarch. Since Harry and Andrew are no longer working royals, that only leaves Charles and William. That's why William was there when Charles read the Queen's speech at the state opening of parliament recently.
The Counsellors of State also have to be resident in the UK. Harry currently satisfies that requirement by maintaining a lease on Frogmore Cottage, but he would lose eligibility if he let the lease expire.
Jersey and Guernsey are not controlled "by England", whatever that would mean. They are Crown Dependencies, which are independent countries in all but name. Indeed people there would point out that they conquered England in 1066, England is their colonial possession.
UPDATE is needed. Love your content!
Just move everyone a number down what?
@@blob3106 and titles change
I’m skeptical of the whole “Princess consort” thing. No wife of a British monarch has ever not been the Queen consort. I sincerely doubt they’re going to bother because it’s frankly irrelevant, and Diana has been dead for more then 20 years. At some point, it just cannot matter anymore
Henry VIIIs last four wives weren't queens. He didn't have any of them formally crowned so none were queen
@@DS9TREK I really hate to break it to you but that’s just not true, because a Queen consort doesn’t have to be crowned. Charles I’s wife Henrietta Marie wasn’t crowned because she was Catholic and it was an Anglican ceremony, but she was still the Queen consort. Hell, even the monarch doesn’t have to be crowned. Edward VIII wasn’t but he was still undoubtedly King for the period before his abdication
Very informative! I love how you explained the line of succession in a way that’s easy to understand. Now it brings me back to Meghan’s interview where she said the the RF refused to give Archie a title. Clearly, this is not true and all she needs to do is wait for Prince Charles to ascend to the throne then Archie will become a Prince.
This is the kind of spin from Harry/Megan that causes her to be disliked in the UK>
Yup. Which is why I no longer believe anything that comes out of her mouth.
That's not what she said. Harry and her were told the letter patent would be changed so their children would not be Prince and princess. Charles when King could change it. Since Williams kids are already Prince and princess it would not affect them.
@@mageboom6632 huh? Where did she say this? Well first they said they don’t want titles for their kids and then they changed it to “refused to give him a title”
I’m pretty sure that the previous succession laws would have allowed George to be a prince regardless, it was Charlotte and Louis who benefitted from the more recent amendment the Queen made. Letters patent 1917 from George V says that the eldest son of the eldest son of the prince of wales is entitled to be a Prince
This was the perfect moment to make the video in hindsight
1:41 - Princess Elizabeth, as she was then, was not Heir Apparent, since (at that time) the throne operated on male-preference primogeniture (it doesn't any more), so she could in theory have been usurped in the line by a newborn male heir. The term for this is Heir Presumptive. This, as I understand it, is why she was never made Princess of Wales.
I think you should make a video about who would be the Sultan of Ottomon Empire (Turkey) if Ottomon monarchy never collapsed.
Also there can a interesting video about the Habsburg monarch today or the Austrian Emperor.
Your delivery is excellent! Thank you for speaking the truth on Andrew, the Duke of York. Crazy to think they could hold a title and still be in line while being incarcerated!
I imagine that's a holdover from when a monarch could just throw people in jail. They would just eliminate rivals by throwing someone higher in the tree in the Tower and be done with the whole line.
It’s crazy how much older William and Harry’s kids are . Like I remember them being born and always seemed as little babies
Its crazy for me how old William and Harry are! I was in, I think 4th or 5th grade and day after Charles and Diana's wedding, they wheeled in a television and showed us a video of it. So from then on people of my gen remember Wills and then Harry being born
Very Good and thank you for clearing up many many arguments. It would be interesting to plot such a succession map and allow for assumptions based on age say 90 for women and 85 for men (Because the queen was extraodinary when she died at 96). It would most certainly make for an interesting probability of whats to come. One could even type in the age when a successor dies (From whatever cause) before expeceted age and the whole table would change accordingly.
It's a fun little academic discussion and all, but I think it's become readily apparent that Lizzy is going to outlive all of us and who knows how many generations after that, so it's a bit early to talk about succession.
Watched this now after the Queen’s passing and would be cool to have an updated one now! Awesome information! Thanks!
This reminds me of the movie King Ralph with John Goodman. Where a lot of the royal family died in some weird way and they had to search through lines of lines of people til they got to the main character to be the next King. It was such a good movie and I highly recommend watching it.
I have not seen that film in a long time. First thing that came to my mind seeing this chart.
Just to be clear the Duchy of Lancaster is a Duchy Palatine which is the same as a County Palatine but ruled by a Duke and not a Count. The vast estates are still administered separately to the crown.
Imagine being 50th in line. I think of the Lloyd Christmas line "So you're telling me there's a chance?"
I assume that person would become a serial killer that only kills royals higher than them in the line of succession.
Looks like we need an update please Matt. Love your content
Wow! This is a big family! I wish I also had a big family like that (also, let's put in "rich" too).
It might be a big one, it might be a rich one but I doubt if it's a happy one...
I'm pretty sure your great-grandfather/great-grandmother (basically what Queen Elizabeth is to Prince George/Princess Charlotte etc) has a lot of siblings and their siblings have lots of descendants too, it's just that we don't have a formal family tree to look at and don't even know their descendants anymore😭
It is not a bigger family than most other families. If you just count backwards through the generations and looks up all the cousins you have. 2nd cousins 3rd cousins so on then everyone has many relatives.
@@arpitarunmishra Things are rather tough for Beatrice and Eugenie these days I would imagine...
Of course, there's a LOT of pressure and stress I would imagine being in Charles' family.... Anne and Edwards' families seem very content (strictly from an outsiders' perspective)
@@davidbrown4540 beatrice and eugenie are andrew’s daughters, not charles
Matt please stop deleting your old videos after you remake them, they're your history!
Unfortunately the WARGS compiler passed away and no one else has taken up the thankless task of updating his chart of everyone in line for the throne. At its last update it ran to about 5000, with the last person in line still a German woman called Karin Vogel.
Where on that list was King Ralph?
This was very informative and clear. Excellent delivery. Sad to say - the Queen Mother, died today. God save the KING.
The Queen died today. The Queen Mother died 20 years ago
Awesome video! You mention that the title Prince of Wales is traditionally given to the first in line to the throne, and that the first in line is the heir apparent. That’s not always true.
An heir apparent is someone who WILL become the monarch upon the death of the previous monarch, provided they survive them. An heir presumptive is someone who is currently first in line to the throne, but could be displaced by the birth of someone senior to them in the line of succession. The title Prince of Wales has traditionally gone to the male heir apparent descended from the current monarch, but never to the heir presumptive.
Thus, the title Prince of Wales has almost always gone to the eldest son of the reigning monarch, but there are exceptions. Most recently, George II named his grandson (later George III) Prince of Wales, after the death of Frederick, George II’s eldest son, before his father. But George was the eldest son of the eldest son of the monarch - no one could have been born at a higher place in the line of succession than him, thus he was heir apparent.
Elizabeth was not given the title Princess of Wales because, although she was first line to the throne, she was not heir apparent - under male preference primogeniture, if Elizabeth’s father, George VI, had had a son, he would have acceded to the throne instead of his older sister.
Same applies to younger siblings of the monarch - for a childless monarch, their next youngest sibling would be first in the line of succession, but since the monarch could have children (the age and marital status of the monarch don’t matter) the monarch’s next sibling can only ever be heir presumptive. When George V died and Edward VIII took the throne, the Duke of York (later George VI) became his heir presumptive, but since Edward could have had children (he didn’t), the Duke never could have been Prince of Wales.
Until 2013, it would have been nearly impossible to have a female heir apparent. The most likely situation I could imagine would be if the eldest son of the monarch had a daughter, and then died before the monarch, leaving no potential for the previous heir apparent to have a son who would displace his sister. However, now under absolute primogeniture it would be much more likely. Will female heirs apparent get the title Princess of Wales under the new system? We’ll have to wait at least until Prince George of Cambridge takes the throne to find out. Unless something terrible happens to George and Princess Charlotte becomes heir apparent.
Great content, keep it up!
Or the UK could decide to abolish their monarchy after the queen dies
Other European countries that have changed over to absolute primogeniture succession already have heiresses apparent. The Crown Princess of Sweden, Princess Victoria is one of them.
I would love to see one of these from like the 1500s but with all the current pop culture
Second mistake... The husband of a reigning queen is NOT automatically a "Prince." At the time of their marriage, the Duke of Edinburgh was limited to that Noble title. A special law was passed (around 1960) to elevate Philip to Royal status, becoming a Prince of the realm in his own right.
So the husband of a reigning queen is automatically a "Prince" thanks to the 1960 law?
@@timtreefrog9646 No, I dont believe so. The law passed in Parliament was specific to HRH Prince Phillip
@@andrewakes307 In 1957 Queen Elizabeth issued Letters Patent making her husband a Prince of the United Kingdom, Letters Patent are issued by the Monarch not Parliament.
at 12:30, which technically correct and complete. It should be pointed out that being removed from that line of succession "by dying" includes by becoming catholic. The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 still term someone who has ever been a Catholic to be "naturally dead and deemed to be dead" (Until the 2013 act, marrying a Catholic would have also meant that you were forever naturally dead)