Would the British Royal family cease to exist if the media stopped reporting on them?
Is this one of those philosophical ‘If a tree falls in the forest and there’s no one around to hear it, does it make a sound’-questions?Or is it more like the quantum mechanical Schrodinger-type questions, where the Royal family is in an undetermined state between existing and not existing, until they briefly collapse into existence, every time they get mentioned in the tabloids?Interesting thought. On the off-chance that there is actual merit in the second hypothesis, I would recommend trying this with another Royal house first, to see what happens.I would suggest the Belgian Royal family. They aren’t particularly popular even in their own country I believe, so if they permanently collapse out of existence, there isn’t much harm done, entertainment-wise.Afterwards, we can evaluate the outcome and decide on a case-by-case basis, which Royals we’re going to ignore out of existence.I would propose to call this QM-theory (Quantum Monarchy theory), and I think we’re on to something here.If it pays off, we can expand QM into other areas as well. Just imagine what this might accomplish regarding celebrities! Maybe QM will only turn out to be a special case of something more fundamental; a general theory of ignoring famous people out of existence. I expect it will be harder to achieve, the more famous a person is.Which makes the choice for the Belgian Royal family so practical. That looks like an achievable goal. I think it’s a foregone conclusion that we’ll not be ignoring the Kardashians out of existence any time soon.EDITI just had a horrible thought: being a quantum theory, QM probably also allows for a small, but nonzero probability of Royal families spontaneously popping into existence. But maybe that only happens near the event horizon of black holes. Nevertheless, someone needs to do the math on that one. Where is Stephen Hawking when you need him?
Would the country cease to function without a royal family.?
Its not like they do much. CGI royals would be cheaper.
Is there still a French royal family today and if so, what is their function in government?
You're probably thinking of royal families as with the U.K., but would would do better to think of Royal families as dynasties or houses. Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth, is the head of the House of Windsor, the familial name for their family. The family is comprised of her immediate family, children and grandchildren, and such. Her Majesty has various cousins who are royals but we tend not to think of them as the royal family. They're typically not on the balcony with Her Majesty but they do serve various roles within the royal household, a broader term than Royal family. The state acknowledges their centrality to carrying out their various roles under the guidance and auspices of Her Majesty in her role as head of state.France abolished the monarchy multiple times, the most recent with Emperor Napoleon III in 1870. The president serves as head of state and as such the state does not recognize the existence of a royal family for France either de facto or de jure. Because in recent years France was ruled by now fewer than three different dynasties or royal Houses there are multiple claims in presence to the French throne, should France ever decide to become a monarchy again. The House of Bourbon is headed by Prince Louis XX. The House of Bonaparte is currently headed by Prince Napoleon VIII and the House of Orleans headed by Henri d’Orleans, the Count of Paris and Duke of France. Because France abolished the monarchy the have no connection to or role to play in the government. Those who are French citizens certainly can and do speak out on various issues. Prince Louis, the head of the House of Bourbon keeps a pretty high public profile but is rarely critical of the government of the day, largely weighing in on social matters rather than politics. The heads of Bonarparte and Orleans keep fairly low public profiles. A very small percentage of French citizens support restoration of the monarchy so there isn't exactly a clamour for such a movement.
In the united kingdom can the royal family run for prime minister?
This is a tricky question actually. It is generally accepted that the Queen must remain politically impartial but that doesn't mean her family have to. i.e. There is nothing stopping Zara or Peter Philips running for election as they are commoners. Being in the line of succession, does not exclude anyone from running for Parliamentary election. However, you cannot be a Prime Minister and sit or have a right to a seat in the Lords. Therefore, this would exclude the Prince of Wales, the Duke of York, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Earl of Wessex. I'm not sure whether it would exclude anyone who held the title Prince/Princess with the style Royal Highness alone because strictly speaking, they are not Lords.. they are Royal Princes/Princesses which is different. Aristocratic and Royal titles are not the same. They are different by virtue of their rank and positions in society. However, such a person could renounce any such titles at any given time and run for Prime Ministerial election. In such a case, yes a member of the Royal family could run for election. There is nothing stopping Princess Anne's children running for election however. Side note of interest: David Cameron is an illegitimate descendant of William IV and Dorothy Jordan. Had he recieved a majority vote and became Prime Minister he would be a cousin to the Queen as well as the Prime Minister.
What happened to the French royal family?
They’re still around, both Bourbons and Bourbon-Orléans.Contrary to popular belief, the monarchy of France was not overthrown in the revolution of 1789. At that point it became a constitutional monarchy with Louis XVI as king. That is until the radicals took control and had the king and queen executed.However, that wasn’t the end of the House of Bourbon. After Napoleon’s defeat in 1814, and again in 1815, the Bourbon throne was restored with Louis XVI’s brother reigning as Louis XVIII. (XVII was kept for XVI’s younger son who died two years after his father.)Louis XVIII ruled France, with the exception of “the 100 days” when Napoleon returned, from 1814 to 1824. He was succeeded by yet another brother of Louis XVI as Charles X. He ruled from 1824 to 1830, when the July Revolution happened.This replaced the constitutional monarchy of the senior Bourbons with a king from a cadet branch of the Bourbons knows as the Orléanist branch. As its head, and now King of the French (as opposed to King of France), Louis Philippe, who had been the Duke of Orléans. He was king from 1830 to 1848, until the French Revolution of 1848, which led to the Second French Republic, which then became the Second French Empire.Today there are Bourbon and Orléanist pretenders to the defunct throne of France.The Bourbon pretender is this man, Louis-Alphonse, Duke of Anjou:Louis-Alphonse is the senior male heir of Hugh Capet, the traditional method of choosing the King of France.The Orléanist pretender is this man, Henri, Count of Paris:Henri is the 3-x-great-grandson of King Louis Philippe, the last French king.Henri actually took Louis-Alphonse to court over use of the French royal arms. The court said it didn’t have any jurisdiction over the dispute.Should the French crown be restored (and there’s really no reason to think it an impossibility, after all, since the ‘Revolution’ of 1789 they’ve had 4 kings, 2 emperors, and 5 republics), there will be a fight to settle.
Why can't someone in the British Royal Family marry a catholic?
According to the current British line of succession, anyone who is Roman Catholic, becomes Roman Catholic, or marries a Roman Catholic is permanently excluded from the succession. This policy stems from the Act of Settlement of 1701, which was introduced under the reign of Queen Anne. The Act provided that the throne would pass to the Electress Sophia of Hanover — a granddaughter of James I of England, VI of Scotland, niece of Charles I of England and Scotland — and her Protestant descendants. Only the descendants of Sophia who were Protestant, and had not married a Roman Catholic, could succeed to the throne. Roman Catholics and those who marry Roman Catholics are barred from ascending the throne "for ever". The English Reformation was the series of events in 16th century England by which the Church of England broke away from the authority of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church. Ever since the death of Henry VIII's death, founder of The Church of England, there were serious of English Catholic rulers trying to change the nation back into Catholicism. Mary I of England was a Catholic fanatic, who prosecuted over 300 Protestants because they refused to convert back to Catholicism. Elizabeth I was struggling to introduce a law that tried to "tolerate both religion." James II's religion was the main cause of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The Parliament finally decided to pass a law, which prevents Catholics to inherit the crown. This step was taken to prevent future religious conflicts. Note: Protestantism encompasses the forms of Christian faith and practice that originated with the doctrines of the Reformation. Protestant doctrine, in contradistinction to that of Roman Catholicism, rejects papal authority and doctrine, and is also known in continental European traditions as Evangelical doctrine. It holds that biblical scripture (rather than tradition or ecclesiastic interpretation of scripture[1]) is the only source of revealed biblical truth, and also that salvation can be achieved through God's grace alone. The key tenets of Protestantism are outlined in the Five Solas.
How did royal families and noble families keep their land and titles through all those years without dying out or being overthrown?
Primogeniture of the first son. That meant estates were never broken up. If there were no sons it would pass to an uncle or cousin. The family knew it was in their interests to look after the people that worked for them. Yes they paid taxes but never too many to ensure their loyalty to the family.Estates were constantly added too with the purchase small tracts of land when they became available.The Aristocracy also were very careful who they supported. The king wasn't always the most powerful person so they often hedged their bets. They followed power and their tenants followed them.Royalty stayed in power by using land as a bargaining chip. Lords who didn't behave soon were removed and the estate passed to someone more loyal.Politics were far more obvious and instant than they are today.