Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 May 6

= May 6 =

Does an adopted child change the line of succession to the British throne?
The birth of Princess Charlotte of Cambridge changes the line of succession to the British throne. This made me think of the following question. If a royal adopts a child, does that child then "sneak into" the line of succession? Let's say that, hypothetically, Prince William adopts a child. Would that child follow in succession? Or is he completely left out of the picture? Would that adopted child "bump" Prince Harry down one further step? Or no? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, adopted children cannot normally inherit titles under British custom. See, for example, Baron Haden-Guest; the current holder, actor and comedian Christopher Guest has only adopted children.  They cannot inherit his barony, the heir presumptive in this case is his younger brother Nicholas Guest.  -- Jayron 32 02:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The only way around it that I can think of (other than a change in the British laws) is if it could be proven that the adopted child is descended from Sophia of Hanover. That wouldn't necessarily put the child very high up the succession list, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Such a person would qualify for that place in the list, in their own right, by virtue of their descent from Sophia, regardless of any other events such as being adopted by a parent who was also in the list. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  06:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How would it differ, if any, if they had known before the adoption or if not? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't make any difference. If some plague wiped out everyone above the adoptee in the succession, they'd find out then that they were an heir even if they hadn't known before. Unless and until that happens, it's a moot point. The adoption doesn't change the order of succession, whoever the adoptee is. (NB: The law could be changed to change this. I believe the Wittelsbach family, former rulers of Bavaria, changed their own house law a while back to permit a title to pass to a distant relative who had been adopted, and thus unite two titles.) AlexTiefling (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Here we are: Prince Max, Duke in Bavaria is the heir of his childless elder brother, the Duke of Bavaria, but also inherited the title Duke in Bavaria from their great-uncle, who adopted him. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In medieval Japan however, it was not unknown for an emperor to be persuaded to adopt a prince from another branch of the royal line and then be persuaded to abdicate in favour of the adopted son. In this way, the powerful Samurai families competing for high status could manipulate the imperial court in their own favour. Probably why it's not allowed here. Alansplodge (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Compare that with the Adoptive Emperorship, which worked quite well for Rome until the adopted Marcus Aurelius maid the terrible mistake of naming his son Commodus his heir. μηδείς (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This reminded me there seems to be an error regarding this in the Durant's ""The Lessons of History": in chapter X "Government and History" they state: "Marcus Aurelius had a son, Commodus, who succeeded him because the philosopher failed to name another heir; soon chaos was king." But in fact I believe Commodus was already co-emperor when Marcus Aurelius was still alive, which would seem to be equivalent to naming Commodus his heir. Not the only error in that book but I thought I'd mention it anyway. Contact Basemetal   here  17:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Until 2002 Monaco, which faced demotion from a sovereign principality to an official protectorate of France if its dynasty became extinct, allowed its Princes to adopt unrelated persons into the dynasty, who thereupon became potential heirs to the throne at the expense of born dynasts more distantly related to the adopting Prince -- provided that the adoption was approved in advance by France. In 2002 that clause was abolished when the Line of succession to the throne of Monaco was expanded to include collaterals of the reigning Prince, as well as direct descendants. In the Bavarian case, no house law needed to be changed: the cadet branch of the royal House of Wittelsbach, known as Dukes in Bavaria, was facing male-line extinction, so just as in the case of the Habsburgs of Austria-Este, it was agreed within the family that the "spare heir" of the Head of the dynasty would inherit the title historically borne by an old collateral junior line -- that inheritance consisting only of the title, name and coat of arms, neither a claim to sovereignty nor significant estates. By contrast, the 1999 adoption of his sororal niece by the childless Head of the ex-Royal House of Saxony purported to transfer dynastic headship to a Westernized line of Lebanese sheiks, and although consented to at the time by all the other childless dynasts, a new feud has emerged between the adoptee's supporters and those of a de-morganatized male-line descendant: Adoptions outside the dynasty were not allowed under the Kingdom of Saxony's laws, but neither were morganauts allowed to succeed to the throne. In the former twin Grand Duchies of Mecklenburg, the post-monarchy adoption of a morganaut has resulted in the survival of its ex-ruling family in the form of that morganaut's descendant, the pretender Borwin, Duke of Mecklenburg. In the UK, all legitimate descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover are British dynasts eligible to inherit the Crown or pass to their non-Catholic descendants that eligibility (thus in 1999 Princess Caroline of Monaco obtained Queen Elizabeth II's permission to marry Electress Sophia's heir male so that her daughter, Princess Alexandra of Hanover, was born and remains a British dynast). The names, dates and lines of descent of Electress Sophia's descendants, though largely known, are no longer included in Wikipedia's Line of succession to the British throne, having been deleted as trivia. FactStraight (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Can someone with a bachelor’s degree in political science and an MBA teach undergraduate courses in Political Science?
I've read that it's quite common among students to take a graduate program which is different from the bachelor's degree. I was wondering if it is possible for someone with a bachelor's degree in Political Science and Master of Business Administration to teach Political Science subjects.49.144.249.71 (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this will be up to the establishment who gives the course. Some colleges might publish their required qualifications for teaching, but in general you'll need to contact the institution in question. --ColinFine (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Undergraduate courses are frequently taught by people who are not particularly expert in the course subject. A common attitude is "I don't know enough about X, I'd better teach a course in it" - in my experience the only way to really learn something is to try to explain it to others. If someone has managed to get a decent MA or MSc they should be able to explain the contents of their undergraduate degree well enough, irrespective of the content of their master's degree. As always, though, whether they get to do this will depend on the particular institution employing them.
 * The MBA, however, seems to me to be a special case. My own view is that it's not really an academic degree (have you read the Harvard Business Review?), but simply a rather clever piece of marketing by its originators and an attempt to create a guild-type qualification, maintained by signalling behaviour by its holders. The same, more recently, seems to me to be obviously true of the CFA qualification, the history of which is a comedy of rent-seeking behaviour. I've no doubt that the holders of such qualifications are highly competent in their fields, but I've yet to meet anyone whose MBA has contributed to their academic fitness. RomanSpa (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I suspect the answer would be yes, if the MBA were now pursuing a PhD in Poli-sci. Otherwise you're going to have to ask the department head, and I doubt he'll want to be bothered giving a committed answer to a hypothetical question. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)