Challenge: pull a "King Ralph"

[Anja]

The mission:
Kill of [a] enough members of a ruling family to place an [c] outsider on the throne.

The tasks:
a) Find a plausible way (accidents preferred) to get rid of everyone in the line of succession in one sweep. To be considered: Why is everybody (even baby’s/toddles when in the LoS) on the spot. You need a death rate of ~90% (some spouses/attendants may survive).
b) The targets are post 1900 European royals, but others can bee considered too.
c) The new monarch should be some kind of misfit or lead to an exceptional situation.

 

[Meadow]

The mission:
Kill of [a] enough members of a ruling family to place an [c] outsider on the throne.

The tasks:
a) Find a plausible way (accidents preferred) to get rid of everyone in the line of succession in one sweep. To be considered: Why is everybody (even baby’s/toddles when in the LoS) on the spot. You need a death rate of ~90% (some spouses/attendants may survive).
b) The targets are post 1900 European royals, but others can bee considered too.
c) The new monarch should be some kind of misfit or lead to an exceptional situation.

You need to kill about 2,000 people to get to people who are remotely low-born to the British throne.

 

[Blackadder mk 2]

You need to kill about 2,000 people to get to people who are remotely low-born to the British throne.

"No one expected the legendary amnesia epidemic of 1952, resulting in the coronation of King Steve the First Guy We Could Find That Didn't Look Too Shifty..."

You could try that. Not much more ASB than the butchery you'd need, as Meadow says.

 

[wargamer6]

What about if this incident is worse than OTL?

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

 

[SonOfFreedom]

I know a kid that if 312 folks in the los of the UK die in short order becomes king. I'd have a better shot at the Scottish throne. I might be tied in through Robert the Bruce of the Bravehart era.

 

[Anja]

You need to kill about 2,000 people to get to people who are remotely low-born to the British throne.

"No one expected the legendary amnesia epidemic of 1952, resulting in the coronation of King Steve the First Guy We Could Find That Didn't Look Too Shifty..."

You could try that. Not much more ASB than the butchery you'd need, as Meadow says.

Would you please read my whole post and also stop being so anglocentric!

b) The targets are post 1900 European royals, but others can bee considered too.
c) The new monarch should be some kind of misfit or lead to an exceptional situation.

There are other monarchies who aren't as populated as the British and I didn't asked for a low-born as the only possibility.

What about if this incident is worse then OTL?

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

Yes that’s a good way.

My shoot at the target would include a horrible gone wrong fly-by/aerobatic at a celebration/national holiday ~1950-1980.

Editlease also note the and the " " in the title

 

[David S Poepoe]

"No one expected the legendary amnesia epidemic of 1952, resulting in the coronation of King Steve the First Guy We Could Find That Didn't Look Too Shifty..."

You could try that. Not much more ASB than the butchery you'd need, as Meadow says.

Should anyone remember this from Spike Milligan's 'The Bed Sitting Room'?

'God save Mrs Ethel Shroake, Long live Mrs Ethel Shroake, God save Mrs Ethel Shroake of 393A High Street, Leytonstone'

 

[DAv]

Didn't Ralph only come onto the Throne because he was a previously unknown illegitimate child who was revealed to be the heir to the throne as opposed to a giant massacre of contenders?

 

[SLCer]

Didn't Ralph only come onto the Throne because he was a previously unknown illegitimate child who was revealed to be the heir to the throne as opposed to a giant massacre of contenders?

Well the entire Royal Family was electrocuted during the taking of a portrait ... killing the potential contenders.

 

[Westphalian]

The UK is in a rather exceptional position because Electress Sophia, its Ancestor Zero of the succession law is comparably early, so the line of succession is very long.

Just take Denmark: Here you must be a descendant of King Christian X. (1870-1947), Queen Margarethes grandfather, to be in the LoS. That means that beyond the sons and grandchildren of the current queen, we have only one cousin and the children of her sister. Well, you could say that the latter are "misfits", since apparently they are said to have lost their inheritance rights by not being brought up in Denmark.

In the Netherlands, the LoS for the next king will be rather short: His Children, his borther and his nieces and nephews - that's it. I assume that should they all die, the Dutch gocvernment will work its way up the family tree to the next closest relatives, but technically they are not in the LoS.

According to the Constitution of Norway, only descendants of the reigning monarch and the reigning monarch's siblings and their descendants are entitled to succeed to the throne. That means 7 people at the moment, period.

And that is not the shortest list: According to the Swedish Constitution, only Lutheran legitimate descendants (through legitimate line) of Carl XVI Gustaf are presently entitled to succeed - no more than 4 people at all.

In Belgium, only the descendants of the current king, Albert II, are entitled to succeed, but bein Catholics, the dynasty has managed to produce three royal children and 12 grandchildren.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

You need to kill about 2,000 people to get to people who are remotely low-born to the British throne.

I wondered how many descendants Sophie of Hanover had?

 

[Paul V McNutt]

I wondered how many descendants Sophie of Hanover had?

I know she had seven children born from 1661 to 1674 and that Queen Victoria had nine children and George III had 15.

 

[birdboy2000]

A terrorist attack at a royal wedding or other such family gathering?

 

[JedidiahStott]

The UK is in a rather exceptional position because Electress Sophia, its Ancestor Zero of the succession law is comparably early, so the line of succession is very long.
...

Not exactly. And the LoS is even longer. The Act of Settlement 1701 settles the _next_ succession to the English throne after Queen Anne (the Scots joined in later) in Sophie of Hannover, and her descendants , being Protestant.

But it is silent as to what may happen should that line entirely fail , or only non-Protestants be left (the question of an Orthodox successor is entirely vague since the Act at one point only precludes those in communion etc with the Church of Rome, but in a later clause limits the succession to Protestants ).

So, if the line of Sophie should become extinct, then the succession will revert back to that determined by the Common Law . Whoever that may be. It is possibly that it might be necessary to go back to before 1603, which might lead to the situation whereby the successor under Scottish law was different to that under English law.Which would be very interesting. Since the Act of Settlement would still be in force, in so far as applicable, it is very interesting to consider whether prohibition on Roman Catholics would remain. It might be pleaded that the Act precludes non-Protestants in futurity , regardless whether they be successors to Sophie or not. Contrary, it might be pleaded that the wording only extends to those successors declared by the Act, and that a successor of a more distant line was not so precluded. A very interesting question.

 

[LegionoftheUnitedStates]

I wondered how many descendants Sophie of Hanover had?

As of 2011 there were over 4,972. Last in line, at that time, was Karin Vogel of Rostok, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704889404576276502793788310.html

 

[Johnny Canuck]

So, if the line of Sophie should become extinct, then the succession will revert back to that determined by the Common Law . Whoever that may be. It is possibly that it might be necessary to go back to before 1603, which might lead to the situation whereby the successor under Scottish law was different to that under English law.Which would be very interesting. Since the Act of Settlement would still be in force, in so far as applicable, it is very interesting to consider whether prohibition on Roman Catholics would remain. It might be pleaded that the Act precludes non-Protestants in futurity , regardless whether they be successors to Sophie or not. Contrary, it might be pleaded that the wording only extends to those successors declared by the Act, and that a successor of a more distant line was not so precluded. A very interesting question.

The succession would definitely have gone back to before 1603 - there wasn't any other Protestant descendents of James VI & I left. I believe in that case the line of descent for England would have flowed through Edward Seymour, eldest male child of Lady Catherine Grey (provided Catherine's marriage was deemed valid, as there was some questioning apparently). I'm not sure where the Scottish line would have gone - if they wanted to keep a Protestant, & thus exclude the Catholic descendents of James VI & I, they would have had to go back at least to the descendents of Isabella, daughter of James I, though I suspect they might have been Catholic too.

Interesting aside - George I of Britain had two children, the future George II and Sophia Dorothea. If George II is killed off before he has children, the throne would have eventually passed to the eldest son of Sophia Dorothea, who was none other than Frederick the Great.

 

[JedidiahStott]

Unless one of the Roman Catholic (of whom there must be a great number) should be willing to turn Protestant. There is no exclusion in the AoS on those who were _previously_ in communion etc. Only present time. I have no idea if any would be so willing. Or of how these would fit in with the OP, assuming they are at present Roman.

 

[JedidiahStott]

An interesting ObWI:

What if Sophie of Hannover dies in childbed with her first child (the future George I) , and the child dies also. Not uncommon then

That means that come 1701, there will be NO recognised successor available to follow Anne. Clearly, Parliament would have had to select someone else in the Act of Succession, but who ? And the nearest (but still, _Very_ remote possibilities were not at all in line of Succession for Scotland.)

And what effect would that have had, I wonder, on the chances of the various Pretenders and their children.

Interesting that the LoS , now so prolific, at one time came down to one life!

 

[Emperor Charles V]

Well a convient way to do this is have terrorists blow up Westminster Abbey during the Royal Wedding on April 29, 2011. Some were actually even planning to do this as I found out.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...oyal-wedding-terror-attack-highly-likely.html

If that happened and all the royals that attended were killed, then the person next in line of succession would be crowned the monarch.

Looking at the guest list on this site http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/apr/26/royal-wedding-guest-list-invite that person would be David Lascelles the Earl of Harewood. He would therefore be either King David I, King Henry IX or King George VII (those are his three given names). I didn't see little kids on the list such as Savannah Phillips but I assumed they came with their parents so they unfortunately would've also perished.

Since foriegn royals also attended the wedding, similar succession criseses would've happened there as well.