If two European monarchs were to marry each other, what would happen?
Not as hypothetical as you might think. Currently the first unmarried successor to the throne in the UK is Prince George (born 2013) who is 3rd in line. In the Netherlands there’s crown princess Catharina-Amalia (born 2003) If these two ever hit it off, your scenario might just come true.In medieval times, kingdoms either grew through wars or indeed a marriage between the royals of two countries. Love had little to do with it, it was all about expanding territory. In today’s world royal families have a largely ceremonial role. Borders won’t be redrawn just because two royals decide to get married.It would create a pretty unique constitutional situation though, which might be resolved by one of the partners giving up his or her rights to the throne. In the Netherlands, royals have to seek permission from the government for a marriage to keep their right to the throne.When Dutch Prince Friso (the younger brother of current Dutch king Willem-Alexander) announced his marriage to Mabel Wisse Smit, he decided not to seek permission. Permission was unlikely due to Wisse Smit’s former association with a known criminal. As a result Prince Friso lost his rights to the Dutch throne, but married Wisse Smit in 2003.In the event of a marriage between a crown prince and princess, the government of at least one country would likely demand one of the partners give up the right to the throne of his or her respective country.In the case of two reigning monarchs, one would likely be forced to abdicate.Anything after that would be a “normal” royal marriage.
What if HRH The Prince of Wales married both, Diana, Princess of Wales and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall (hypothetically speaking, it could be done), who would be styled The Princess of Wales and would they be treated as equal?
As bigamy is not legal and hasn’t been (in the recent past) so there is no precedent for what would happen in this situation. If it was possible for the Prince to be married to two woman at the same time and I had to speculate, I would say that as established practice is for a wife to taken (as a courtesy) her husband’s style and title… then BOTH wives would be styled HRH The Princess of Wales (plus all the subsidiary titles e.g. Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay etc). In this situation, the individuals may wish to distinguish themselves - so they might…Decide to use different titles (e.g. one be known as Princess of Wales, one be known as Duchess of Cornwall)Use the style of a divorced wife of a peer.. (e.g. Camilla, Princess of Wales + Diana, Princess of Wales)Ask the sovereign allow the use of Princess (even though they are not princesses by birth (i.e. princesses of the blood) with their given name. (e.g. Princess Camilla & Princess Diana). HM The Queen has allowed this before for Princess Alice - to allow herself to be distinguished from her daughter-in-law the “new” Duchess of Gloucester. This was of course after decades of royal servi ce.
What would have changed if Princess Charlotte of Wales and her child had survived childbirth so that she became Queen of the United Kingdom instead of Victoria and her husband, Leopold became Prince Consort rather than King of Belgium?
Things would have been very different. It was Charlotte's death that led to her middle aged Royal uncles to abandon their morganatic wives/mistresses to try and produce an heir. If Charlotte had survived, both George, later King of Hanover and Victoria may not have ever been born.The Salic law would have prevented Charlotte or her children from inheriting Hanover, so that would have been ruled by her Uncle William, Duke of Clarence, after the death of George IV. He may not have married Adelaide because of not having to produce a British heir, but he may have then decided to marry after becoming King and may have produced different kings in Hanover. Otherwise Hanover would have had to find a different male line heir in 1837.Charlotte would have become Queen in 1830, at the age of 34.Presumably Leopold would not have been offered the throne of Belgium if he was consort in Britain; so the whole subsequent history of Belgium and the Congo would have been different.He was popular in Britain and Charlotte did love him, so he may have become Prince Consort much sooner than Albert did with Victoria. But the Great Exhibition may never have taken place.Who knows how many more children Charlotte may have had? Possibly none, after the difficult childbirth with her son, so we may have had a very precious Prince of Wales, until he grew up and started producing children of his own about 1840. Maybe his children would have made the same matrimonial links with Europe that Victoria's did; but they would have been different people.Charlotte was born in 1796, so would probably have died in the 1870's or early 1880's, so her son born in 1817 would have become an elderly king at that time and we may well have had a new older monarch around 1901. But not Edward VII!
Why were world war one and world war 2 the most important wars?
Without the Revolutionary War there would be no United States. Most historians think the Civil War was the most important in the formation of the nature of American society. WWI and WWII were the most important US wars to Europe and to people who think the world did not exist before the 20th century. Compared to the other 20th/21 century wars, the major ones being Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq, there is really no contest. In the latter 3 wars there was no declaration of war but were started by a presidential initiative, and had little public support or enthusiasm and they did/will not end with a clear US victory. All three were proxy wars against an enemy who had only a peripheral interest in the outcome, and would not be defeated, even if the US achieved total victory.
If Charles, William, and Harry die before the queen, would Prince George be the next king?
The order of succession is set in concrete, and cannot be changed except by Parliament. It would take an extraordinary set of circumstances for Parliament to do this, and the premature deaths of anyone in the line of succession would not be considered extraordinary.This Wikipedia article shows the current line of succession.Succession to the British throne - WikipediaYou will see that Prince Henry (popularly known as Harry) is 5th in line to the throne at the moment. If Prince William has more children, he will drop further down the line.Assuming Charles and William die before the Queen does, Prince George will immediately become king on the death of the Queen, even if he is still a minor. If Henry is also dead, Prince Andrew would in all probability become Regent.If both George and Charlotte were to die childless, and Henry died without children, Andrew would become the next king, his elder daughter would be his heir, and her sister would be next in line.And so it goes.
If Prince Andrew had a son, what would his title be? And would he be the heir to the dukedom of York?
If Andrew had a son within a marriage (i.e. legitimate), that son would be known as HRH Prince [First Name] of York. On the off chance his parents chose to have him not use his proper title and be styled merely as the son of a duke (like the Earl of Wessex's children are styled as the children of an earl, rather than HRH Prince James of Wessex and HRH Princess Louise of Wessex, which they are entitled to), then he would use one of his father's subsidiary titles and would be known as the Earl of Inverness. However, that'd be unlikely since his sisters are styled as princesses.Upon Andrew's death, his son would become HRH The Duke of York, Earl of Inverness, and Baron Killyleagh, which are the subsidiary titles to the Dukedom of York. His son, who would not be royal (HRH only extends to the grandchildren of monarchs in the male line and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales*) and thus would not have any higher title such as Prince to go by, would be styled as the Earl of Inverness from his birth.*Exceptions are made to this on a not infrequent basis. When it became clear that Elizabeth would succeed her father George VI, it was decreed that her children would be HRH Prince/ess from birth instead of having to wait for her to ascend the throne. Further, before William and Kate had their first child, the Queen proclaimed that all of their children—i.e. not just the eldest son—would bear the title of Prince or Princess and be styled as HRH.In a far less common exception, the Queen granted her aunt by marriage, the former Lady Alice Montagu Douglas Scott, the right to style herself as HRH Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, instead of the dreaded Dowager Duchess of Gloucester after the death of her husband and the ascension of her son and his wife to the dukedom of Gloucester (in other words, there was a new Duchess of Gloucester on the block). Alice had served the monarchy loyally and quietly for decades, and the gesture was seen as being made out of a combination of the Queen's gratitude for her service and affection for her elderly aunt. Princess Alice later died in 2004 aged 102, the longest lived British royal in history.
Help me plz history project dunno wot 2 do?
Well I wouldn't know since I fought in the Civil War and am answering from beyond. But a thought the library has alot of books on Wars and other helpful information and if you don't know what a library is. It's a big building with alot of books and many other interesting things. Look in your local phone book. Well I am going back to sleep now will wake up again in another century and check my email again. I check it when I awaken from my sleep and by the way I will say hello from Daniel Boone for you.
What would happen if Canada and The United States merged?
It is certainly possible, but unlikely to happen soon.The U.S. has offered to include Canada as a state several times in the past. The sticking point would be Canadian nationalism. Many Canadians like being independent and would rather stay separate.This may prevent U.S. moves towards a merger now, but in the future Canada may find it difficult to resist.Canada is heavily dependent on the U.S. If ever Canada finds itself in a position where statehood becomes advantages, a merger would likely be welcomed by the U.S. Their economies are totally intertwined at this point. Many Canadians work for U.S. companies and even cross into the U.S. to work in neighboring cities. Western Canada is largely dependent on U.S. infrastructure (electricity, plumbing, and gas) making it vulnerable to U.S. influence.With current state law it would not be difficult for Canada to keep the benefits it enjoys. It would likely be able to continue its health care and other social benefit programs that do not heavily impede on U.S. law. Logistical laws in Canada are practically identical to U.S. laws, such as driving laws, as well as transport and quality control laws. We are also assuming that Canada’s wealth remains constant. If ever it comes to a point where Canada’s economy can no longer afford its public benefits it may see opportunity in joining the U.S.But for now Canada is in a position where it feels more comfortable being independent than a state, and the U.S. isn’t in a position where it can enforce a claim on their sovereignty.But maybe…