i can try and raise an army

still looks banging in real pic tho

our history (and that of most of the european monarchies) is full of dubious (sometimes farcical) claims to the throne that got pushed through due to a big supporting army. go for it.

ill join if i can work in logistics and u promise me first go on Kate

you can have her, Kate Upton shall be my queen

now i just need to forge me some documents and win the peasants over

better hurry up before kate upton gets fat then

alright now you're going to be the first to get beheaded under my reign of terror

queen consort (i.e. what kate would be, what camilla (might) get to be) is a lot different than queen regent (QEII, Victoria, etc).

im going to bed gl with the revolt

If william dies as king, she becomes a dowager. If he dies after they marry but before he becomes queen, she gets some sort of placeholder duchess styling (but probably not an actual peerage).

your kid gets nothing, ever.

illegitimate kids are ignored for all of these exercises.

How about this. William sexes Miley Cyrus and she has a son. He later has a son with Kate (you know, legitimately) . Fast forward 15 years, William and Miley have been secret lovers all along and he decides to divorce Kate for his true love, marries Miley. Does Miley's son now become next in line?

Only after Miley and the love child slip some arsenic in Kate and her sons drink.

But he was first and she is queen!

No. All that matters is the marital status at the time the child is born. What happens later isn't relevant.

wtf is going on here

What if Harry knocks up Kate while she is queen, William has no kids ever, and this is the only kid Harry ever has? Beatrice becomes queen regent or this kid becomes king?

succession and sucession.

Nm

If william has no kids, Harry is next in line. If kate has Harry's illegitimate son while married to william, I believe that would leagally be considered william's offspring (at least, that was the traditional way these things were decided). If not, then yeah, Andrew is next after harry, then beatrice and euginie.

Ok. Last question (lol). Imagine Kate already had one of his sons prior to marriage, and bares him another after. You really think the first born wouldn't be a prince (and next in line)? I guess it is possible this is the case but I doubt it.

The rich got richer but so did everyone else...



http://blogs.reuters.com/james-petho...-huge-apology/

I knew it!!!!!

Are these people descended from the guy who won the battle of Hastings or not? If no, when did this dynasty take over?

Yeah, they are. Just not in a direct male line.

The house of Windsor (or technically the house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, but in WWI they changed their brand) was founded when Queen Victoria (House of Hannover) married Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (her first cousing nontheless). He was never King either, but his house-name was transferred to his children. Why this didn't happen with prince Phillip I have no idea (guess it's the German thing again: House of (Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-)Glücksburg didn't sound too great shortly after WWII).

On the illegitimate children issue: There have historically been instances of Kings and other nobles legitimizing their children out of wedlock. John of Gaunt is one I can think of right now. Although I am pretty sure if this was still possible today, parliament would have to agree.

Why am I posting this in the politics forum?

edit:
The house of Hanover "took over" after Queen Anne (of the house of Stuart) died without living descendants. The Act of Settlement made it impossible for Catholics to ascend to the throne and George I. of Hanover was the most direct protestant heir.

Fwif: all royal dynasties are relatives. Inbreeding was, and is, a popular sport in those circles (lol Habsburgs). And if it wasn't for bigoted rules (no catholics or people married to catholics) all of the other monarchs would be in line for succession of the British throne.