July 10

What would happen if all the descendants of

I'm assuming you've checked

Line of succession to the British throne? A very (very) brief read suggest that list is purely Sophia-based though. Maybe we'd get a King Ralph scenario!! That'd be entertaining (like the movie was, at least to me). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Perhaps the Jacobites would get another chance. If so,

Franz, Duke of Bavaria, would inherit the crown, which would eventually devolve upon Sophie, Hereditary Princess of Liechtenstein. But this is all pure speculations, because nobody knows what would happen. In fact, it is most likely that the UK would become a republic. Surtsicna (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I have no really authoritative source, but as the Royal Family website puts it, "...the Act of Settlement confirmed that it was for Parliament to determine the title to the throne." It would be up to Parliament to elect a new monarch. It's an interesting question whether the power to elect a ruler in the absence of an heir would entitle Parliament to declare a republic (the Finnish Parliament used just that argument in

1917, and we're happily republican since then, having been spared a German king). It's not immediately clear that it would, but then it was not immediately clear that it had the power to install William and Mary, either.--Rallette (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

There's LOTS of legal and historical precedent to say that the Monarch of the UK serves at the pleasure of Parliament. I'm not saying that they would act arbitrarily in any situation, but they have supreme jurisdiction in matters concerning who is or is not elligible to be king or queen. See especially

English Civil Wars, Act of Settlement 1701, Glorious Revolution, etc. etc. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Such an Act of Parliament would still need Royal Assent, so I'm not sure what would happen if they ran out of heirs suddenly and didn't have time to pass an Act before the monarch died. If there was some warning it would be simple enough to pass an act repealing the Sophia-clause (or abolishing the monarchy entirely). --Tango (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the Queen or King could withold Royal Assent; see again Charles I of England, James II of England. In most cases where there has been a constitutional crisis of this nature, parliament has made it abundantly clear that, when push comes to shove, it has supremacy in ALL matters, including this one. Again, I am not saying Parliament would take any act of this nature without just cause to do so, but it has shown in the past that where it deems necessary, it will make the ultimate decision about who will be King or Queen. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but if there isn't a monarch there is no-one to give Royal Assent, even if it is just a formality. Some kind of extralegal action would be required - it would basically be a revolution or coup, albeit an extremely peaceful one. --Tango (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're forgetting that these days the UK monarch rarely personally puts pen to paper to give Royal Assent to bills. This action is taken by the Lords Commissioners in the name of the sovereign. Maybe they could do it on behalf of the crown, even if they could not name the occupier of that office. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's your source for that, Jack? A few years ago there was a BBC documentary about the Queen, which showed her signing bills and giving her Royal Assent. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I’m confused, I must say. I have also seen photos of the Queen personally signing bills, but I thought it was nowadays an uncommon practice. I can’t find it now, but I was certain this topic was discussed here not that long ago, and it was generally understood that only certain special bills are sent to the Palace for the Queen’s personal signature, and that the others are done by the Lords Commissioners in her name.

Royal Assent says that"... the Sovereign does not actually analyze the bill and make a decision on whether or not to grant Assent. In practice, the granting of Assent is purely ceremonial. Officially, Assent is granted by the Sovereign or by Lords Commissioners authorised to act by letters patent". But later on, it says: "During the 1960s, the ceremony of assenting by Commission was discontinued, and is now only employed once a year, at the end of the annual parliamentary session." This link talks about the LCs giving Royal Assent by Commission. If nothing else, it’s a fascinating insight into the sorts of arcane ritual that may still sometimes prevail. However, it seems to suggest that the LCs don’t have a standing commission to assent to any bills without reference to the sovereign, but each bill or group of bills has to be the subject of a separate commission under Letters Patent from the sovereign - which almost seems to defeat the purpose. It would be more time consuming to have Letters Patent created, which she has to sign anyway, than to simply sign the damn bills and be done with it. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I think she would have to actually go to the Houses of Parliament if she were to assent to them herself. If you watch the clip of the new Speaker's recent approbation the commissioners said something along the lines of "It not being convenient for Her Majesty to be present at this time she has commissioned us to issue the following", I guess Royal Assent is a similar process, although apparently they don't go through the whole ritual every time (I don't know what legal fiction they use to get around that). --Tango (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the words are mentioned in the link I provided. But I don't understand why there'd be any such requirement for a queen, when it doesn't apply to her governors-general. They just sign bills into law in the comfort of their official residences, and brief messages are conveyed to the parliament that assent has been granted. The only time governors-general are ever required to physically appear in parliament is at the opening of a new parliament after a general election. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what effectively happens, but what legally happens may well be that the monarch/governor-general signs a commission authorising someone else to sign the actual bill into law, and that happens in parliament. --Tango (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not the case in Australia. The G-G personally signs the bill at home or wherever, and parliament is then informed that Royal Assent has been granted. See a recent example, page 40, 2nd column, where 10 bills have been assented to. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd that no one has mentioned

Alternate successions of the English crown. —Tamfang (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Currently the Dow is something like 8000-8200 ish. It is not a simple average. So with the current values of the stocks, how much does 1 stock going down 1 point affect the Dow average? Say if Chevron dropped 1 point and everything else stayed constant? Googlemeister (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Each component stock has a calculated weighting factor. It changes when the stock splits, for instance. Edison (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So as it is now, how many points down will the dow average go if Chevron goes down 1 point and none of the others changed? Googlemeister (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the article

DJIA divisor (currently 0.132319125). So if the stock price of Chevron dropped one point, the DJIA should go down 1/(DJIA Divisor) or about 7.6 points currently. -- 128.104.112.84 (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks 128. Googlemeister (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard persistent stories for several years now that

I'm concerned that even suggesting this is a

WP:BLP violation - the subject of the question is still alive. Exxolon (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Asking a question is a violation? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may have her (the hotty former 1st lady of Vietnam) with "

Dragon Lady (character)" in Terry and the Pirates, a comic strip, radio program, and TV program. Edison (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• I don't, I promise this is how it's put to me. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And once he has her, what should he do with the two of them? // BL \\ (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I omitted the "confused," but the sandwich might be interesting. Edison (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I like your thinking. ;) Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some record in history of a case where two nations are at war, and the ruler (king, president, whatever) of one nation personally kills the ruler of the other one? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What an interesting question. I'm gonna probably spend the better part of the next hour thinking of possible answers to this. It is certainly the case where heads of state have died in battles where both were present, see

William the Conquerer, then ruling Duke of Normandy, was also present leading the invading army. But it is almost certain that William did not personally kill Harold in battle. It's a certainly interesting question... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, our article on the duel (different thing, I know) mentions that "In 1593 Siamese King Naresuan slays Burmese Crown Prince Minchit Sra, in a duel on the back of war elephants", which is altogether pretty close. I think he was the son of the King of Ayutthaya. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 18:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Single combat in warfare has been common at various times and places, but was normally fought between opposing champions rather than leaders. Naresuan's killing of the opposing prince in elephantback combat is the closest thing mentioned in that article. Algebraist 18:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another close one, but not exactly the same, at the Battle of Corupedium, the last battle of the Diadochi, supposedly Lysimachus and Seleucus did face each other in hand-to-hand combat; but the same article also notes that ultimately Lysimachus was killed by a spear thrown by one of Seleucus' soldiers. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In one account of the Battle of Megiddo, Josiah, king of Judah, was personally killed by the Pharoah of Egypt, Necho II, in battle. However, in a different account, Josiah was killed by Egyptian archers. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one:

Talorgan I of the Picts killed Dúnchad mac Conaing of Dalriada in battle. Not sure if this means personally, or just that Dunchad was killed doing battle with Talorgan's army. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Hmm. So there are a few battles where one of the leaders is killed, but it's not entirely clear whose actual hand did it. In the Biblical case, there are conflicting accounts. Then there's the war-elephant duel. I think I'm gonna go ahead and say that counts, per the "War-elephants Clause", (there always is one) which says that if war-elephants are involved, other rules might just change.

Talorgan I of the Picts and Dúnchad mac Conaing get an honorable mention for cool-sounding names, and obviously, Necho II wins "best dressed".

It is a fun question though, isn't it? I'm not sure what's compelling about it. On a comic-book level, I like the idea of killing someone and taking their country, but I would be horrified if I heard that Obama had gotten on an war-elephant, was vanquished, and now I'm Canadian, or Dutch or something.

Thanks for the replies - have a good weekend! Don't get on any war-elephants... -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than single combat in battle, another way this could happen is if a leader is captured and the opposing leader chooses to kill them personally. I have no idea whether this has actually occurred or not. Algebraist 19:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would work, too. I wouldn't put it past a lot of those Roman Emperors, or Genghis. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bulgarian tsar

Raynald of Chatillon, who, although not the king of Jerusalem, was the most powerful noble of the kingdom. (He had captured the king too, though.) Adam Bishop (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Mstislav of Chernigov killed Rededya in a single combat. --Dr Dima (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Our article, itself unsourced, just has 'vanquished', which might not involve death. Algebraist 20:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Tale of Igor's Campaign; see also Russian version of Mstislav of Chernigov article. --Dr Dima (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Algebraist 03:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to our Battle of Vouillé article, Clovis I, King of the Franks killed Alaric II, King of the Visigoths. Exxolon (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No head of state has actually been killed while fighting in battle leading the army since

Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden in 1632. A fighting leader would be subject to being captured and humiliated before being executed. This dictates against being in the final fight at all, and then there is the unlikelihood of being in a place to do single combat with the opposing leader. Edison (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Does a Roman consul count?

Marcus Licinius Crassus Dives slew Deldo, king of the Bastarnae. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Have you read Albert II, Prince of Monaco#Succession issues? Algebraist 00:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Algebraist points out, Caroline is Albert's heir (unless he actually fathers a legitimate child). A fuller treatment is at

Line of succession to the Monegasque throne. There is no religious requirement: Catholicism is the state religion, but there is no formal requirement in the Constitution of Monaco that the monarch be Catholic. :) - Nunh-huh 00:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Shouldn't a royal family include a king somewhere? grumble grumble. —Tamfang (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]