Some questions about the House of Windsor:

1. Can the reigning monarch change the order of those in line for the throne? For example, the media has often reported that the Duchess of Cornwall will "...never be Queen." Is that because she does not hold the title of Princess of Wales? Could she be designated 'Princess of Wales'?

2. Must one have a royal title to be monarch? The last time I checked, Princess Anne had chosen not to provide her childen with royal titles. Would this prevent one of them from becoming monarch?

3. Could the current Duchess of York become Queen beside King Andrew?

4. A King of the blood may designate his wife Queen; a Queen of the blood may not designate her husband King. Right?

5. Can one abdicate a royal title for a generation and have it re-activated for one's heirs?

Thanks.

1. No. Camilla is actually the Princess of Wales but isn't using the title in respect for Diana. The public would be very upset. I think Camilla will become queen, if Charles becomes king - I don't think she can be anything else. I think the reports were assuming that he wouldn't marry her, but he did.

2. No, if all those ahead of Peter Philips died he would become king.

3. Yes, if Charles, William and Harry died.

4. Yes, he would become Prince Consort.

5. If the Queen abdicates then Charles will be king, if he abdicates then William. If a monach abdicates then it goes down the line of those next in line to the throne.

Thanks, Sue! Clear as a bell and right to the point.

I forgot one--why was Victoria 'Empress' of India? Why not Empress of Wales or Northern Ireland?

India used to be part of the British Empire, thus Queen Victoria was Empress, India finally became independent in 1947. She was Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there hasn't been a Queen of England per se, since 1603 when Elizabeth I died.

The Queen is our Duke of Normandie in the Channel Islands. We are Crown dependencies. William, Duke of Normandie invaded England in 1066, the Channel Islands were part of Normandie. Then when King John lost France the islands stayed with England. We were granted a number of rights for staying, including the right to our own laws and parliament.

In reply to the original question.

a. One shouldn't overrate the powers of the monarch. Parliament is the body that regulates the succession to the throne. One of the most important such acts is the Act of Settlement 1701.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_1701

b. In 1876 Parliament passed an act making Queen Victoria "Empress of India". At the time critcs said it was meaningless, self-important melodrama.

I think we should remember, in all of these quite correct references to various Acts of Parliament, that ultimately the Monarch is accepted or rejected by the "Shout" of assent at the Coronation ceremony.

Presumably, the other feudal governments, such as the individual "things" of the various Channel Islands, The Isle of Man and the Duchy of Lancaster, to name but a few, would have local underlying attestations to verify their feudal authority?

The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall are, in effect, estates and aren't alternative names for the counties concerned, so the question of "acclamation" in Lancaster, Preston, Bodmin, Truro, and so forth doesn't arise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Lancaster

Sue's knowledge of things monarchical is truly impressive. I was thinking of how many people are interested in monarchies and realised that my mother could probably also have answered the questions. The irony is that she is a committed republican (coming where I come from I had better make that a small 'r'). She would deny it utterly but she is truly fascinated by monarchy. She talks of 'William' and 'Harry' as if they were her great grnadchildren, is almost watchful and protective of them and bemoans the British media intrusion into their lives etc.

I have an aunt who thought the late Queen Mother was a role model.

Personally, I was just about to say that I couldn't care less and cannot think of a greater load of nonsense than kings, queens, princes and princesses. Actually, I was about to say the whole thing makes me want to roll about laughing, that I think people are strange for even wanting to talk about them. Then I suddenly realised that I've just spent some minutes being bothered to write this.

When I had a job, before they dispensed with my services, my occupation was all about finding out information on a vast range of subjects. Old habits die hard.

When is the monarch 'officially' and 'legally' a monarch? Is it at the death of the predecessor or at the moment of the official coronation?

For example, suppose that, for whatever reason, Elizabeth was unable to leave Kenya upon the death of George VI. She cannot leave for over one year. Would she be able to function fully as Queen during this period?

A new hereditary monarch ascends the throne from the moment of the death (or abdication) of the previous monarch. Coronation, though important, is not decisive. If we ever have another King Edward, he will be Edward IX. (Edward VIII was actually king - for a few months).

Moreover, strictly speaking, Charles II succeeded Charles I in 1649, though it is acknowledged that those were very exceptional times. Hereditary monarchies are meant to proceed seamlessly, without gaps.

Obviously, if the monarch - crowned or uncrowned - were trapped in, say, Somalia there would be all kinds of practical problems.

If a monarchy is elective, like the old Holy Roman Empire - then the new monarch succeeds from the time of election.

If you want to see all Queen Elizabeth's title and honours look at this (very long) list here . It includes Queen of Tuvalu and the Order Of The Elephant from Denmark. I wonder what their lesser orders are called?