Changes to British Royal Titles Since the Death of Queen Elizabeth II
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 май 2024
- Previous Line of Succession video:
• Line of Succession to ...
Limited edition chart showing Queen Elizabeth II's descent from Alfred the Great of England and Kenneth MacAlpin of Scotland:
usefulcharts.com/collections/...
Limited edition chart showing Queen Elizabeth II's descent from Alfred the Great of England and Kenneth MacAlpin of Scotland, published on the occasion of her Plantinum Jubilee: usefulcharts.com/collections/limited-editions/products/british-monarchy-family-tree
Regal not regnal.
P
Pp0
Aaa01111101111
@@vl6357 Regnal name: "the name used by monarchs and popes during their reigns and, subsequently, historically. Since ancient times, some monarchs have chosen to use a different name from their original name when they accede to the monarchy." Please try to keep up.
People surprised that William’s kids are ahead of Harry have clearly never watched the Lion King
Is this a prophecy that Harry will have William killed by an angry mob, blame George for it, chase him away and create a reign of terror, only for George to return as a young adult and overthrow Harry?
This is the best line I have ever read anywhere.
Or read Hamlet.
Simba: Hey, Uncle Scar, when I'm king, what'll that make you?
Scar: A monkey's uncle.
LONG LIVE THE KING!
Can you imagine being able to trace your ancestry and family tree so completely? What history and lineage. To know that your family has had such an impact on history, to read of what you lineage has done, no questions to ask, to see portraits, paintings, or photographs of them. Wow!
Many people can do this. People in my religion with the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints can do this too. There’s websites for it as well but it helps to have a family history who valued it. Many can go back hundreds of years
This is the Official family tree. No disrespect intended, but the genetic family tree may differ slightly due to indiscretions. Farther back in time it was common for royalty to have affairs, since many royal marriages were political arrangements.
Most don't have that luxury do to lues, Greed, jealousy and envy....Smh Slavery
Kinda cool yes...but the amount of let's say "close" marriages would be kinda disheartening genetically speaking.
Imagine being born black and they striped you of your whole entire lineage and history.
I'm always surprised at how many people don't know this. Thank you for the video. But don't forget Princess Charlotte being 3rd in line for the throne is a gift from Queen Elizabeth who changed the Succession to the Crown Act so that she can equally inherit the throne in line just as her brothers.
It was the Parliaments of the Commonwealth realms that changed the succession not the Queen personally though her or her governors general passed the Acts
@@pedanticradiator1491 I belive the queen lobbied strongly for the change, however.
He went over that in the previous succession video.
The monarchs aren't allowed to express any political agendas so she certainly didn't lobby it strongly. She likely expressed how the previous system might've been outdated and gave a regal version of a *wink wink, nudge nudge.
Yes, I applaud her for that! She changed with the times.
I had argued that without the abdication, this would have still be the line. Since Edward had no children, Elizabeth would still have become Queen - just much later than it happened.
I have long held the same view. So many commentators say that Elizabeth's life changed drastically when Edward VIII abdicated. No. It didn't. When Edward VIII was king, her father was #1 in the line of succession, and Elizabeth was #2. She just would have inherited later.
There was very little chance that Edward VIII was going to sire children, and certainly not with Wallis Simpson. It's rumored that a botched abortion in her 20s rendered her sterile. Be that as it may, she was already in her early 40s when she was with the king and, since Parliament wouldn't let him marry her, it didn't matter anyway.
@@samanthafordyce5795 While I too was certain there would be no children of that union due to age, I was unaware of the rumoured abortion resulting in sterility. Thanks for that and glad to know that my theory is shared.
I always found it annoying when we hear that Elizabeth was never intended to have been the Queen. She was born third in line to throne. From the day that she was born it was expected that she would become Queen unless Edward settled down, got married and had kids or she acquired a legitimate brother. The first event was considered unlikely, but the second was a possibility.
@@snarkfinder2621 Interesting point, but wasn't Elizabeth's mother too old at the point the David was King to have another child - a son?
@@dj3114 Queen Mother was 36 when her husband ascend the throne and Elizabeth was 10 at that point so there is always chance for a son but i guess war time makes it hard for them to produce another child especially when well they are monarch by that point
Princess Anne, who is largely ignored by all despite being the most hard working Royal, also chose not to give her children titles. Queen Elizabeth has changed the order of succession in honour of her daughter, although it doesn't affect Anne (unfortunately). Princess Charlotte will be the first one to benefit.
Let’s hope that Charlotte is not the first to benefit, since it means that George will have died young.
So what does Anne do to be hard working?
@@Saucyakld the inner circle of royal family is also known as "the firm" - they have many obligations to fulfill as representatives of the crown; any one of us would think that "work" would be very pleasant, as it mostly encompasses attending the opening and unveiling of things, quite commonly with an attached banquet... however, if you need to attend 100s of these per year like clockwork, then it is really strenuous... the Princess Royal has been diligently and dutifully gone about this work in the firm for most of her life - in contrast to Harry and Meghan who both opted out of "the firm" to pursue other business instead
@@theorganguy they opted out because the British press and populace were so hateful and abusive towards Meghan. Why were they relevant in this situation? They didn't even need to be brought up
@@arneliashort4647 they are actually quite essential to bring up when it comes to the firm, as them not being part of it is cause for more workload for other royals still active, such as Ann... with them not being part of it the firm did not loose one, but two active royals to take part in these duties
A great 'what if' timeline would be: who would be King/Queen of the UK today if Oliver Cromwell had taken the throne when he was offered it.
Probably still King Charles III, as Cromwell was ultimately king in all but name, even installing his son like a hereditary monarch.
The end result would likely have been the same with the House of Cromwell being deposed in favour of the House of Stuart.
Nobody wanted cromwell as the king btw.
@@pickleman502 A few did, including the most powerful people in parliament.
@@pickleman502 You're forgetting that people still had brain damage in the 1600s
If Cromwell established an elective monarchy, in which Lambert was elected after him...it'd probably survive to the present.
What a great channel you have built here! So full of useful information on a variety of topics. I love charts! I learn best by visualizing a chart format. (I'm about to be 60 and yes, I am still learning!) Thank you for your hard work .I've subscribed. 🙂
Wow! A factually correct video, regarding the British monarchy, on the Internet. Thank you so much…
I figured that after being Charles this long, he would not want to change now, particularly as there is now another “George” in the direct line
I think that is true. I also think he may have felt enough time has gone by (370 years).
grandson George is always able to keep it and become George VIII.
aside from the 8 Henrys and 8 Edwards George is the next most used name afaik
Or Liz Truss Officially called him that in a press briefing before it was announced.
@@Jay_Johnson Yeah I'm not sure if there even was enough time between the Queen's passing and the official announcement by LT that this rather important piece of info has been properly communicated or if she just made it up on the spot and Charles just ran with it bcs f*ck it.
How many Georges do you want?
Prince George: I want my great grandmother
On the ever-revolving Dukes of York: George VI was originally Albert, Duke of York, and so his daughter, who would become Queen, was originally "Princess Elizabeth of York".
On the ever-revolving family of scumbags, georgy porgy was originally Big Fat Wanker but he went on a diet and was then referred to as just Wanker.
This title seems doomed to never have peace, like the ghost of the original Plantagenets of York who took and then lost the throne.
@@ruyfernandez And that song.
@@ruyfernandez that lady had the title take from her family but one of them became queen when she married Henry VII.
Her Aunt Elizabeth of York Duchess of Suffolk lost her 2 of her sons (John and Edmund de la Pole) in the battle to retake the throne from Henry.
@@ruyfernandez What does "anc" mean? As, in, 'who took 'anc' then lost the throne.
I enjoyed this, however I must make 2 corrections as follows:
1, Prince Harry did have a title change upon the death of the late Queen.
He went from Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex to The Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex.
All children of the monarch add the word “The” before their name. They become the definite article. I know this a somewhat pedantic point, but I’m saying it a most cordial and friendly way.
2, You have Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie still “of York” on the family tree. Upon their marriages the “of York” part of their titles was dropped.
Keep up the good work
Just to be uber pedantic it is actually The Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex ...but yea.
And to be very clear, Harry and Meghan's children are officially styled Prince Archie and Princess Lili.
On the subject of Harry & MM fake children than all titles should be removed!
@@birdiemax2693now they are, but not at the time this video was made.
A British Princess who marries does not lose her title designation even if she doesn’t use it. The Hon. Lady Olgivie is still Princess Alexandra of Kent. Eugenie will use her married title but she retains her title as Princess Eugenie of York, even if she never uses it in an official capacity again.
Well done on this video! You sorted out all of my doubts about the titles in a very simple and clear way! Thanks!!!
The Duchy of Cornwall is important because it was a Kingdom a long time back. In the Cornish language it is known as Kernow. It has a distinctive black flag of St Piran with the white Cross. The Capital is Truro. Back when it was a full Kingdom, it was known as Dumnonia until the Saxons arrived.
I wish I could read.
@@willyjankins4793 Same tbh
you could use that argument for other ancient kingdoms.
DRAWING QUEEN ELIZABETH II | IT'S HERE ON THE CHANNEL...
That’s not really relevant to the duchy of Cornwall though. The duchy was created in the 14th century out of an earldom which was created by William the Conqueror. Before the Norman Conquest and for about 2 years afterwards an earldom of Cornwall was held by a Cornish nobleman who might have been the descendent of the Cornish kings, but that is by no means certain. In any case, the importance of the duchy of Cornwall has nothing to do with the old kingdom of Dumnonia.
Another thing has changed aswell. When Charles became King Princess Beatrice became Counsellor of State as she is now the 4th person in the line of succession above the age of 21.
Can you tell us what that means?
@@wendysnelgrove5870 A Counsellor of State fullfill some of the monarch's duties, for example when he/she is abroad.
Camilla, as consort, also became a Counsellor of State.
@@davidringmann3395 Does Harry still have the obligation?
@@user-du7os5yz4e In theory, but he would have to reside in the UK in order to do so.
Have been a fan of your channel for a while. You explain it all soo well❤️👑
Love your Charts!! Great video!
Honestly it still stuns me when people ask why Harry isn't higher up in succession, and you see the media glossing over this all the time, it should be common sense at this point!
For brits that is, but for someone who’s at the other side of the globe, I simply don’t care to know. But glad I now know. Because it’s relieving to know that the kcuc’s lower on the totem pole.
If you don’t know something then you don’t know. There are things that you do not know also.
Honestly i thought Harry was the older brother before watching this video😥
@@KaixoDenek 🙈🙈🙈🙈
@Vanna Stein Troll
I really love your content. Interesting, thought provoking, not sensationalistic, and delivered in a soothing tone. 😃 Already can't wait for the next one.
It's really a great content.
I hated his voice, very scratchy/gravelly.
The soothing tone, lulls me to sleep, and then I re-watch these videos in the morning. lol
@@barbrn this is a really rude comment for really no reason. If someone gave you a compliment and someone else shouted from the back of the room to disagree. that would be unnecessarily rude and bitter.
@@88KeysIdaho I have 4 RUclipsrs I do that with - Matt, AJ Pickett, David Lightbringer, and Properbird. 😃
This is sooo informative. Thank you for clearing up the titles and lines of succession.
Tellharry and megan they nee to learn0
Love your charts and genealogies. Thanks for all your work.
I am so glad I came across this. A lot of people don’t understand the royal titles, who, and why the titles is formally given to each person in the royal family. I had to explain this to a few people in my short version. This one is best told.
Haha, I still don't understand. What is the point. Is not like it comes with any wealth or power.
It's cheating people.
The money they possess is stolen from many countries.
Why not an ordinary person become king or queen?
I just came to see if I moved up in line. I'm not Royal. Or British. Just a flower. But my time will come...
@Vanna Stein Excellent
they're all descended from germany (related to the kaiser)
Another fun thing re: the Princess Royal title, is that the holders of the title follow a pattern. Mary, Anne, Charlotte, Victoria, Louise, Mary, and Anne have been the holders, and Princess Charlotte will most likely be the next holder of the title.
That is interesting!
Interesting! Only time will tell if Prince George will have a daughter and then name her Victoria
@@frenchyladysly George read your comment, he knows what to do now!
DRAWING QUEEN ELIZABETH II | IT'S HERE ON THE CHANNEL...
@@yuurishibuya4797 well he's still a kid so we will need a few years for that
So well explained! Brilliant work! Thank you!👏🏽 💯
I so enjoy your video presentations. They are clear and very respectfully presented.
The editing quality has definitely increased since the older videos that I recently watched. It felt really satisfying when the numbers seamlessly changed, and the other minor edits.
I appreciate the video!
@bilishu aliss who? Dukedom of what
DRAWING QUEEN ELIZABETH II | IT'S HERE ON THE CHANNEL...
The Dukedoms of Cornwall and Rothesay do not go to any male who is first in line to the throne, they only go to the Sovereign's eldest son who is also first in line to the throne. So if William dies before Charles, George would not be Duke of Cornwall or Duke of Rothesay, although as heir apparent he could be created Prince of Wales. For example, George III was the grandson of George II, and the son of Frederick, Prince of Wales. Frederick as eldest son and heir was Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay but when he died before his father, George II created his grandson Prince of Wales but the future George III was never Duke of Cornwall or Rothesay because he was the grandson and not the son of the Sovereign.
Thank you! Also, most people misunderstand or do not notice small details in the Letters Patent... in order for Archie and Lilibet to be prince and princess it is only if their father has the title HRH - since he does not, even if they are Charles' grandchildren, Charles can refuse to confer those titles, issue a new letters patent as part of his slimming down of the monarchy. It's why they are still "master" and "miss"
Correction it's Duchy of Cornwall not dukedom.
@@Fatima_Garabandal2251 No, they are still styled "Master" and "Miss" because The Queen consented to their parents' expressed desire that their children be styled as such, rather than as children of a Duke ("Archie, Earl of Dumbarton" and "Lady Lilibet"), which is how they would have been styled upon birth according to the letters patent then and still currently in force, and to date they have not expressed any desire to The King to revoke their previous expression.
You have made two incorrect statements.
1. The letters patent do not make any such distinction as you claim: "Now Know Ye that We of our especial grace certain knowledge and mere motion do hereby declare our Royal Will and Pleasure that the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour."
2. Harry does still have HRH - he agreed not to use it but he was never actually deprived of it.
@@jesusthroughmary well let's hope so, as they've done quite enough (including claiming their children were denied the prince and princess titles due to their mixed race in the Oprah interview 😉)
@@Fatima_Garabandal2251 Harry is still a HRH but he is not allowed to use it
This was brilliant! Thank you
Not sure if anyone mentioned it, but the titles Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay (along with Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland ) only go to the heir apparent *and* eldest son of the monarch. Thus if the heir is a grandson, he would not be Duke of Cornwall, although he could still be created Prince of Wales (and Earl of Chester). This happened when Prince Frederick, Prince of Wales died, leaving his son Prince George (later King George III) as the heir apparent to his grandfather King George II. Prince George was created Prince of Wales, but he was never Duke of Cornwall, etc.
I didn't know that. Thank you for that bit of history. I do enjoy learning more about the history of English titles as well as Scottish titles. You learn something new each day.
I was hoping you would do an update. Thank you, I really enjoy all your useful charts and learn so much from them.
Only horrible if untrue
DRAWING QUEEN ELIZABETH II | IT'S HERE ON THE CHANNEL..
"because a king cannot officially hold any lesser titles" - I think there is at least one exception to that, as its my understanding that the monarch is also always the Duke of Lancaster (even when female).
Technically that's not a title. Well, not in any legal sense, but it is sometimes used to refer to the Monarch in Lancashire.
Also they are referred to as the Duke of Normandy in the Channel Islands I believe.
No, the title Duke of Lancaster is extinct, and it is true that the monarch doesn't have lesser titles than their Kingdom, Lordship, Head of Commonwealth, and religious title. However, they still hold the Duchy of Lancaster, which is an estate, but not a title.
Also the Queen was Duke of Normandy
@@adammc7170 Duke of Normandy isn't a lesser title I believe because they aren't Kind/Queen there. Normandy and the British Throne a legally separate IIRC
Great explanation. Thank you for such an informative video!
Would like to see a chart from the Spanish monarchy and their relationship to the British monarchy. I do believe that Queen Sofia is prince Philip's cousin.
All the European, Scandinavian, former Russian Royal Families are related.
All current and former Royal Families of Europe except the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Italian Kings. are related.
The Queen was a distant cousin of her husband. Philip was a Prince of Greece and Denmark. A lot of the close relations was through the marriages of Queen Victoria's children. In those days royals did not marry commoners, so all European Princes and Princesses were paired with each other.
@@HollyStingerJustesen They actually identified Tsar Nicholas through Prince Philip's mitochondrial DNA.
@@Boogledigs The Queen and Prince Philip were third cousins, which is not that 'distant'.
On behalf of all Americans who have never known anything about British peerage, royal titles, or lines of succession (except at a very high level), thank you for condensing this into something we can begin to understand.
"Bear in mind this would mean Andrew would be next in line..." Every single British person hearing that immediately becomes a diehard advocate for primogeniture.
who's responsible for The cash code
on per. ex. Camel Tabac
@@bilinasmini3480
am
no man
was
no
and? as ThaT look like i have
a diff
problem why ever .... very mySTerious
indeed
ThaT belongs also To
diff Royal Houses of Europe
and so on ....
.
....oTherwise such -AnasTasia?
case could have
been
never happen
ThaT
Can? only happen in U.S.A.
Thank you for this very timely and informative video!
UsefuCharts have been VERY informative in breaking down the line of succession for so long. I know so much about your Queen and her family ( before and during her reign) but UsefulCharts enceased that knowledge tremendously. I can't understand why so many people are still ill-informed about the royal family.
I suspect that so many are ill-informed because they simply don't care.
I knew all that! But this video is so well done easy & simple for those who may not know! Great job! Thank you!
Let’s go I was waiting for this one
Re Archie and Lilibet: the prince and princess titles need to be conferred by King Charles, they are entitled to those titles, but it's not theirs until the king confers it. Given he wishes to slim down the monarchy (and their parents are not considered royal - they are no longer HRH), it is suspected that he will not.
They are automatic. There has to be a act of parliament to remove those titles from them, which Charles may call for., but they were automatic. The parents can choose whether or not they use them or not.
@@jenswenson5525 No sorry, they're entitled to ask for them as the Sovereign's grand children, but they can't just start using them until the King confers it. The problem is that Harry and Meghan are not royals, they do not have the style of HRH which is what the Letters Patent clearly states needs to be in place for their children to have a right to claim prince and princess titles. This is why Charles was pretty clear in his speech about simply stating "Harry and Meghan as they build their lives overseas" and why on the royal website they are still (after all the changes) "master" and "miss". The palace is extremely clever... most people (and maybe Harry and Meghan) miss this. But bottom line, nobody is allowed to use any title, unless the sovereign officially confers it and it is announced by the palace.
@@Fatima_Garabandal2251 Ok, one thing though, Harry and Meghan do still have their HRH styles, they just agreed not to use them.
@@jenswenson5525 Nope they don't, the Queen took those away - that was the deal. It's not that they agreed not to use them, they CAN'T use them (remember that whole affair around SussexRoyal and the palace told them they couldn't use it and Meghan said the Queen doesn't own the word "royal"? Well they lost that battle - because they are no longer royal). They were allowed by the Queen to use Duke and Duchess but they were no longer HRH (just like Diana) - these would be given back upon their return to the fold as full-time working royals. Reading between the lines of Charles' speech, he's not letting them back.
@@Fatima_Garabandal2251 The statement released by the Queen said that they were still theirs, but they agreed not to use them. I’m gonna go ahead and believe the Queen, but you do you. ✌🏼
Has recently been suggested that Charlotte, Prince William's daughter will be created Duchess of Edinburgh, a title the Queen held from 1947 to 1952
Very unlikely as Princess Charlotte is in line to become Princess Royal one day. This is title can only be bestowed on the Kings eldest (or only) daughter but there is only ever one holder of the title at a time and she could not receive it until (a) her father is King and (b) after the death the current holder, her great aunt Princess Anne.
@@janetwilcock2120 Agreed. It's also very unlikely as it would mean Princess Charlotte would be a Duchess in her own right, and any further descendants would hold the title Duke of Edinburgh but would not be members of the Royal Family. Princely status does not descend through females of the Sovereign.
There’s one small part that you have left out, then Princess Elizabeth was The Duchess of Edinburgh through marriage because it was Prince Philip who was granted the title The Duke of Edinburgh.
Thank you very much for your detailed information about the Monarchy!! There is so much for us to learn, because it's all very important for All Of Our History to learn it.
Thanks for this update, it was very useful for me in planning my next CK3 moves, whom to marry, and whom to plot against!
DRAWING QUEEN ELIZABETH II | IT'S HERE ON THE CHANNEL..
Also:
They still keep surname Windsor, but dynasty changed.
Elizabeth II was Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. But Philip was Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg and this dynasty name follows on all their children unless Elizabeth II and Prince Philip were married matrilineally.
The go by Windsor for Dynasty/family name. But the use the name Mountbatten-Windsor in school and such.
Yeah, good point and probably that's why Elizabeth II was just a trash Queen.
Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg sounds so complicated on British royals.
but also kinda funny
Yeah, german royal names kinda went out of fashion during the 1930s-40s
Thanks for clarifying the sucession hierarchy.
I learned a lot. Thank you. ❤
Thank you for explaining the title changes now in the house of Windsor ❤️ Well done!
Saxe Coburg and Gotha you mean
DRAWING QUEEN ELIZABETH II | IT'S HERE ON THE CHANNEL..
You made this very easy to understand. Thank you!
Excellent video Matt. Thank-you 👏👏👏 I shared on Twitter…so much confusion out there
Although Harry is now 5th in line he will fall further down when George, Charlotte and Louis grow up and have children
From the US, the British system of peerage has always been fascinating to me. Until now, the rules behind it seemed mysterious and rather hard to understand. Great video explaining how things work.
@Vanna Stein no, they're CofE
@Vanna Stein Genuine question-
Aren't they Protestant? Like back then they were Roman Catholic but King Henry VIII decided he wanted to remarry so he decided the British Royal Family would be Protestant after breaking with Rome _(with many wars happening about religion because of this.)_
@Vanna Stein *English
@@biglawturbo6703 There is no British royal family, they are of England!
@@albagubrath9073 Since you're getting technical...
England, Scotland, and Wales = *Great Britain*
England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland = *United Kingdom*
Considering the Crown owns various estates in various parts of the UK, and gives the ceremonial title of "Prince/Princess of Wales" even when it isn't really needed... they're *BRITISH* royals, England isn't their only land.
_(Also, I was asking if they were Jewish or not since I remember they're Protestants. Your statement came out of nowhere-)_
Extremely well explained, nice
Very informative - thank you!
This answered some questions for me.
Thank you!
Hello 👋 how are you doing?
What an amazingly complicated process -- thank you so much for making it clearer. 😁
Hi pretty lady. How are you doing today? And how is the weather over there?
Yeah he really did
This is so cool! Thank you!
Very interesting and very well explained. 👍
I generally watch with the help of a translator) Thanks for the your content and good diction, which translates perfectly))
I really appreciate your presentation. This is one of the best video about the royal family. It was done with impartiality. Great job....
DRAWING QUEEN ELIZABETH II | IT'S HERE ON THE CHANNEL...
Thank you for sharing the Royalty Families information ..much appreciated indeed ..Blessed you Sir ..
Kind regards from
The S. G. Tuxford Esq
Wollongong City NSW Australia 🇦🇺 ✨️
Thank you for the video. Good explanation.
what a great explanation! Thank you
I had a feeling this video would be coming in the wake of Elizabeth II.
Thanks for clearing up several questions I'm sure most of us had!
DRAWING QUEEN ELIZABETH II | IT'S HERE ON THE CHANNEL..
Wow thx 4 sharing very informative
Amazing explanation 👍🏼
I was wondering when useful charts is going to do a video on this
Thanks very much for sharing this video and for the explanation.
Thank you.
Great information❤
A update is always good and long live the king
Thank you I needed to know
Wonderful organized and presented. 🙏🏽📖😇
When Charles bestowed the Duke of Edinburgh title to Edward, it was announced that upon Edward’s death, the title will revert back to the King, not to be passed to Edward’s son, James...
"Bear in mind this would mean Andrew would be next in line..."
Every single British person hearing that immediately becomes a diehard advocate for primogeniture.
they love money
Rather Andrew than Harry honestly.
@@Yue_Jin I'm not saying Harry's a Saint but you'd rather have a pedo than him?
Louis would get Andrew's title and place.
@Vanna Stein
Not so fun fact, so was Hitler.
Come to think of it so is every European and descendants of them. On the other it also means that every Jew is of German, Celtic, ... descent. One big happy family.
Don't know about the Chinese however.
We need a video about the "NEW" most recent common ancestor of all European monarchs. Not John William Friso anymore. It's Louis IX, Landgrave of Hesse Darmstadt
Has he been gained or did someone die out and change things ?
@@highpath4776
Elizabeth II is not a descendant of Louis IX Hesse Darmstadt.
While Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and ALL other European monarchs are descendants of Louis IX Hesse Darmstadt. So that's why Charles III of UK is also a descendant (through his father).
Louis IX Hesse Darmstad is younger than John Willem Friso. So, after Elizabeth Ii died, Louis IX is more RECENT ancestor of all EU monarchs than Friso.
@@visenyatargaryen9130 I love this and agree 100% that this requires a new video
@@visenyatargaryen9130 wow thanks for this. Good job
Incredibly well done. Accurate and to the point. Avoided all the usual pitfalls.
A 55-year-old Englishman, looking in… It is a joy to watch your entirely accurate and informative videos… The truth on the Internet is as rare as hens teeth.
"Note that if primogeniture was not used, Andrew would be next in line."
Thank fuck for that, then.
Always the problem with spare heirs, and the rush for Charles to find a fertile female
Everybody said Charles becoming king would dismantle the commonwealth. No, Andrew would 😂
Except that primogeniture is the British way.
Can you imagine?! 🤯🫣 sheeesh
Prior to the revelation of his sexual misconducts Andrew was more popular due to his actions in the Falklands.
Ever since I heard the Queen died, I've been looking forward to this video.
Thank you for the explanation. Was educational and easy to follow this who do not live in the Kingdom.
Fascinating. Thanks for the education!
Thank you Matt, very informative. Very skilful as well, with the current controversy around the prince of wales title, you managed to state these things factually and impartially.
DRAWING QUEEN ELIZABETH II | IT'S HERE ON THE CHANNEL...
Not really impartial. He failed to note that the title was forcibly taken and that Wales was annexed, not just simply merged or amalgamated.
@@donottouchmyfood yes, we would prefer that this truth be told, but I think he wanted to avoid saying things in a way that might inflame unionists who are in denial. I felt that the way he said it was not denying the facts, but not elaborating on them either.
@@VULAcosa dovrei aggiungere alla mia risposta se non è un grazie infinito tutti
@Scott Williams Yes
Not much changed that we weren’t expecting! Except Charles’ regnal name. I was kind of surprised.
A very snarly move by the brave King Charles to distance himself from Saxe-Coburg house and the trash Queen Elizabeth II, a calculated step subtly marking his closeness to the Stuarts, his Absolutist idea of good government and the return of Catholicism to this island. This also indicates a future alliance between the King of U.K, Vladimir Putin of Russia and Vatican. A definite leap towards a Christian Europe. It's time the people of Britain do away the corruption of Tudors.
Yeah both King Charles before him were notorious kings, but I think it made sense as it is the modern age and his mother did the same
Not me. I'm glad he kept it, shows he's not superstitious.
@@DeSlagen8 Also Charles is also important to Scots. And Charles is King of Scots. So a good diplomatic move, we've already had some "Charlie's Angels" up in Scotland .
A missed opportunity, I think - the UK could at last have had a King Arthur, that being ob of Charles' names..
Thanks for the info....it was very interesting.
THANK YOU very well explained !!!!!
Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay are NOT given to the first male in line, but to male heir apparent. For example, the brother of a British monarch could not be Duke of Cornwall even if he is the first in line, because any future children of the monarch would make him second in line.
DRAWING QUEEN ELIZABETH II | IT'S HERE ON THE CHANNEL...
I’ve been anxiously awaiting this video. I sure do hope King Charles honors his parents wishes about Prince Edward becoming the Duke of Edinburgh
Yeah, I don't think it's quite so certain as Matt makes it out to be.
@@jwolfe01234 At this point, I'd be up for Anne...
I have never understood this convoluted nonsense about the Edinburgh title.
It should be reserved for husbands of future Queens Regnant.Calling Edward 'Duke of Edinburgh' isn't going to work.
I believe The Prince Consort is what they called Prince Albert, I think that is the title that should be used for future husbands of Queen Regnant’s husbands. The fact is, Edward should’ve been made a Duke upon his wedding day, but since Charles wants a more “slimmed down” monarchy, Edward will probably just remain an Earl. I think he deserves the title of Duke more than Andrew ever did.
@@jwolfe01234 I completely agree
Two corrections for you: Prince Edward is known as the Earl of Wessex and Forfar now not simply the Earl of Wessex. The King cannot strip Andrew of his Dukedom, which is a peerage, without an Act of Parliament.
DRAWING QUEEN ELIZABETH II | IT'S HERE ON THE CHANNEL...
@@VULA STOP ADVERTISING YOUR CHANNEL!!!
@@keanureeves1803 Thank you and greetings in return.
Officially it's Prince Henry not Harry.
Interesting is that the Queen was Duchess of Edinburgh and Charles was born Prince Charles of Edinburgh. It would be an honor knowing how close Sophie, Countess of Wessex was to the Queen to become Duchess of Edinburgh like her.
DRAWING QUEEN ELIZABETH II | IT'S HERE ON THE CHANNEL...
I think it had more to do with Edward’s desire to continue his father’s work with The Duke of Edinburgh scheme for youngsters, than any connection to Sophie.
@@dizzyduck44 Of course, but it's a nice thought anyway. And the late queen might have thought it nice as well.
@@dizzyduck44 Edwards desire?
Quick note: Prince Edward's son James uses Viscount Severn, his father's secondary title, as a courtesy title. When Prince Edward becomes Duke of Edinburgh, his son will more than likely become James, Earl of Wessex (although not The Earl of Wessex...that would still be his father along with the higher Duke of Edinburgh).
And I suppose that if James becomes Earl of Wessex and have a son that son will become Viscount Severn.
What about the older daughter Louise? I'm curious as to why she doesn't get a title.
@@mayloo2137 she's a Princess by birth and styled as Lady. When she becomes 18 she can choose if she wants to use the HRH (Her Royal Highness Princess Louise of Edinburgh if Edward gets the Dutchy of Edinburgh, if not Of Wessex)
Same as Archie earl Dunbar and his sister would get the title of lady Sussex
@@ILoveManCity. Louise (Edward's daughter) is Lady Louise Mountbatten Windsor and she's already 18 years old. She has chosen not to take/use the HRH style or the princess title.
clear and cogent, thankyou
Very informative...ty
Very informative.
This made me want to play Crusader Kings III again.
Queen Elizabeth II was not just Britain's longest reigning monarch, she was also the world longest reigning female monarch of a sovereign state
DRAWING QUEEN ELIZABETH II | IT'S HERE ON THE CHANNEL...
No real power. Queen of nothing
@@Shaolin91z in your dreams maybe
@@Shaolin91z You managed to be both wrong and correct at the same time, well done
Actually, prince Harry’s title did change when the queen died, because he became a child of a sovereign, which makes him HRH “The“ prince harry, Duke of Sussex
To anyone saying King Charles III is also the Duke of Lancaster, yes he is but the title is only a custom for sovereigns, rather than a legal title. When Henry V (who held the title before he acceded to the throne in 1413) became King, the dukedom merged with the crown and has not been officially recreated.
So he's not really the Duke of Lancaster but rather just holds the duties and responsibilities of the title.
Yes, but the Duchy does also have an important role for the Monarch, in that it provides them with a private income outside of the Sovereign Grant; much as the Duchy of Cornwall supports the heir to the Throne.
The Duchy is also represented in Parliament through the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster - which is always a Ministerial post and is often given to a Minister without Portfolio in the cabinet - historically, the role has been to prevent the government from passing laws to the disadvantage of the Crown's private estate.
@@robholloway6829 I would say it's also symbolically important because it deepens ties with the North. Wars of the Roses and all that.
@@TaliyahP wrong. There is a Duke of Lancaster as a secondary title and a Duchy of Lancaster as an entity. Since 1399 the title Duke of Lancaster has been held by the reigning Sovereign. Revenue from the Duchy of Lancaster forms a vital component of the Sovereign's income and is held seperately from that of other Crown properties. His Majesty King Charles III is the current Duke of Lancaster.
I mean *every* title is just a formality with no meaning. especially the non-royal titles other than Cornwall
As long as Andrew doesn’t get the throne I can sleep at night
DRAWING QUEEN ELIZABETH II | IT'S HERE ON THE CHANNEL..
SUGGESTION: Could you do a chart on the 18th Duchess of Alba? Cayetana Fitz-Stuart? I read long ago about how she became the most titled woman in the world who also strangely enough has a Guinness World Record of it. I've also do better with a chart and after trying to imagine how that works I did give up on it. Since I've been subscribed to your channel I've always wondered if you would do this one. Thank you for consideration. :)
Wonderful and clear explanation!
Just noticed that Andrews photo is cropped from his park walk with Epstein, that is 11/10 funny shit.
Thumbs up for that alone.
This was actually really fascinating to look into. Monarchies are very interesting!
DRAWING QUEEN ELIZABETH II | IT'S HERE ON THE CHANNEL...
And very costly to British Tax Payers!
really? hadn't noticed except it's much ado about nothing really... 🥱😴
'scuzi. need to find something more interesting.. toodles