PDA

View Full Version : Royal line of succession- query


The AvgasDinosaur
28th Dec 2017, 18:52
Learned contributors,
I am curious to know what would happen in the event that Prince Charles should die before Her Majesty The Queen ?
Would Prince William still be next in line or would it revert to Her Majesty's eldest male heir born before 2011, Prince Andrew, Duke of York.
I understand that gender discrimination doesn't relate to heirs born after 2011 but does prior to that date.
Thanks for your time and trouble
Be lucky
David

funfly
28th Dec 2017, 19:08
And where would. I be in this?

VP959
28th Dec 2017, 19:09
Prince William is second in line to the throne, Prince Andrew is sixth in line, so the crown would pass to Prince William.

Edited to add: It looks like several of us were typing replies at the same time...............

The AvgasDinosaur
28th Dec 2017, 20:20
So even if his father dies before he accedes to the throne, Prince William still accedes in turn?
Thanks for your contributions
Be lucky
David

Pontius Navigator
28th Dec 2017, 20:42
Then of course Harry might alter things too

atakacs
28th Dec 2017, 21:08
As you are obviously likely aware there are rumors floating around about Charles being out of the succession altogether.

Regardless of the likelihood of this is it "technically" at all possible?

G-CPTN
28th Dec 2017, 21:18
As you are obviously likely aware there are rumors floating around about Charles being out of the succession altogether.

Regardless of the likelihood of this is it "technically" at all possible?

Charles would have to abdicate (as did David, Edward VIII).

ETOPS
28th Dec 2017, 21:22
And don't forget, just to confuse the Americans, Charles is going to be George ;)

G-CPTN
28th Dec 2017, 21:24
Whilst George VI was Albert (or Bertie).

PDR1
28th Dec 2017, 21:32
And where would. I be in this?

Just behind me, helping with a shovel while we bury the bodies...

PDR

chevvron
28th Dec 2017, 21:44
Whilst George VI was Albert (or Bertie).
And Edward VIII was David.

funfly
28th Dec 2017, 21:47
Would Mad Charlie then get the 84M that HM gets plus his (tax free) income from the Duchy of Cornwall?
Wow, they will be really busy in the Camen Islands.

Ascend Charlie
28th Dec 2017, 23:53
The Duchy of Cornwall would go to William.

If the Duchess was part of the package, I think Willy would decline the offer.

SARF
29th Dec 2017, 00:12
If harry murdered his old man.. and then his brother. To get the throne. I’d have a tad more respect for the whining tart . Oh and pop off a couple of sprogs.

back to Boeing
29th Dec 2017, 02:50
If harry murdered his old man.. and then his brother. To get the throne. Id have a tad more respect for the whining tart . Oh and pop off a couple of sprogs.

Why would killing James Hewitt get Henry to the throne?

Bull at a Gate
29th Dec 2017, 07:51
Not a fan of the monarchy, but was impressed that Elizabeth II chose the name she was already known by when she became queen. Why do the rest of them change their name?

sitigeltfel
29th Dec 2017, 08:49
Why would killing James Hewitt get Henry to the throne?

This has been done to death so often that it is difficult to feel any sympathy for anyone stupid enough to mention it.

chevvron
29th Dec 2017, 08:52
If harry murdered his old man.. and then his brother. To get the throne. I’d have a tad more respect for the whining tart . Oh and pop off a couple of sprogs.

Yeah but they'd pop out with brown skin and ginger hair.
By the way, I see Megan's got into the swing of becoming a Royal already; just look at the stupid hat she wore to church like the rest of them (apart from Kate who wore a sensible one)

ETOPS
29th Dec 2017, 08:52
Why do the rest of them change their name?

The heir to the throne has the given names Charles Philip Arthur George.

If he used Charles he would be Charles III which he considers unlucky given the previous two monarchs reigns. As Philip he would be Philip II thus invoking thoughts of the Armada and Spain. As Arthur his ability to bake would be questioned thus he is stuck with George VII

Mike6567
29th Dec 2017, 09:01
If for some reason Charles William George and Charlotte were not available - would it be bun in the oven or Harry?

G-CPTN
29th Dec 2017, 10:07
Elizabeth faced opposition from the Scots as Elizabeth was their First - not the Second.

Mary (QoS) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary,_Queen_of_Scots) was controversial with an untimely end.

Alexandra would have been novel, however, Elizabeth (I) was a respected queen (amongst the English).

ExXB
29th Dec 2017, 10:13
Let the Monarchy die with Elizabeth. Neither Chuck or Bill can hold a candle to her. If not for Britain, then at least for the ROTC - rest of the commonwealth.

Fareastdriver
29th Dec 2017, 11:15
That would mean that every four or five years we would have to elect a president.

No thanks.

Should we not to have to elect a president and it was decided by Parliament who would we get then.

Nick Clegg? Boris Johnson? etc. etc.

NRU74
29th Dec 2017, 11:42
The heir to the throne has the given names Charles Philip Arthur George.
As Arthur his ability to bake would be questioned thus he is stuck with George VII

Is Arthur one of these celebrity chefs?

Krystal n chips
29th Dec 2017, 11:47
Elizabeth faced opposition from the Scots as Elizabeth was their First - not the Second.

Mary (QoS) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary,_Queen_of_Scots) was controversial with an untimely end.

Alexandra would have been novel, however, Elizabeth (I) was a respected queen (amongst the English).

A, ahem, slightly different view as to matters described above.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zpk5FYeaDM

mcdhu
29th Dec 2017, 12:30
Does anyone really care?
After The Queen, for whom I have huge respect, pops off, thats the end of my interest in the Monarchy. What a dull bunch!
mcdhu

Trossie
29th Dec 2017, 13:44
That would mean that every four or five years we would have to elect a president.

No thanks.

Should we not to have to elect a president and it was decided by Parliament who would we get then.

Nick Clegg? Boris Johnson? etc. etc.

Ahem, ahem, I think that this has been posted somewhere here before, ahem:
This is what happens when you don?t have the Queen, Canada tells America (http://newsthump.com/2016/11/09/this-is-what-happens-when-you-dont-have-the-queen-canada-tells-america/)

VP959
29th Dec 2017, 13:53
Whoever succeeds to the throne after the Queen certainly has a very tough act to follow, but then again, we do, perhaps, look back at her reign through rose-tinted spectacles.

Arguably she should have done more to modernise the monarchy a great deal earlier, rather than doing very little, too late. Most of the major constitutional changes have occurred since the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, and before that nothing much had changed since she came to the throne.

Had she been prepared, for example, to drive changes relating to marriage to commoners, marriage of the successor to the crown to anyone they chose, irrespective of background, etc during that great time of change in the 1960's and 70's, rather than rigidly keeping the monarchy running as it had for decades before, then arguably we would not have many of the issues that now face us.

The farce of the arranged marriage between Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer, purely to produce an "heir and a spare" whilst staying within the constitutional straitjacket of the time, was a typical example. It must have been clear to a blind man that Prince Charles was not going to stop seeing the woman he'd been in love with for years, just because "The Firm" organised a suitable bride for him. Quite why they weren't bright enough to foresee that it would end in disaster, given that the increasing power of the press and media was bound to make every and any indiscretion public, is beyond me.

Compare and contrast the situation then with that which exists now. We have the second in line married to a commoner, who quite probably had relationships before they met. We have the fifth/sixth in line marrying a woman who is American, divorced, of mixed race and not yet a confirmed member of the C of E. These were things that would have been an anathema to the Royal Court at the time they were scheming ways to find someone "suitable" for Prince Charles to marry. Arguably, it was an alleged previous relationship that Camilla Shand had before becoming intimate with Prince Charles that ruled her out of contention as his wife, before she married Andrew Parker-Bowles.

I have the greatest respect for the Queen and all she has done, but I don't happen to think she ruled perfectly. She missed many opportunities to reform the monarchy, and might have been better advised to look at how the monarchies of other countries had reformed, like The Netherlands, for example, rather than sticking to advice from a group of courtiers intent on protecting their own positions.

flash8
29th Dec 2017, 14:55
I detest the symbolism of royalty but admire Charles a huge deal... have a lot of time for him. His sons seem to have turned out alright as well.

As for the others.. most of 'em I certainly wouldn't tip my hat to.

artschool
29th Dec 2017, 17:17
so when are we going to get Queen Markle?

Tankertrashnav
30th Dec 2017, 00:18
I think a lot of people have been watching too many "Britain's got Talent" type programmes. The monarchy is not a popularity contest - you get whoever is next in a very strictly laid down line of succession - good bad or indifferent. Frankly that suits me just fine, especially when you look at some of the heads of state of other countries who have been elected recently! As regards a possible Queen Meghan - well you would be looking at a highly unlikely set of circumstances for Prince Harry to be acceding to the throne - it's just not worth bothering about

This has been done to death so often that it is difficult to feel any sympathy for anyone stupid enough to mention it.

Totally agree Sitigeltfel. You get the impression that those who insist on dragging up the Hewitt nonsense again still think they are saying something original, clever or amusing - none of which is the case.

Ancient Observer
30th Dec 2017, 14:23
Well, she isn't British, is she?

Or german.

cattletruck
30th Dec 2017, 14:53
I can't remember whose monarchy this tradition belonged to but when visiting a palace (of which I cannot remember the name or place) I recall the guide said in those days there were always three people in the king's bed - himself, the queen, and a clerk to witness and record any deed being done - just to be sure the DNA was being passed down as required. Is this true and does it apply to the British Monarchy? It's not an easy thing to Google.

Fareastdriver
30th Dec 2017, 15:10
Try this.

http://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beilager

Pontius Navigator
30th Dec 2017, 15:22
And of course she has royal connections, allegedly.

Loose rivets
30th Dec 2017, 17:51
Romesh Ranganathan had me in fits the other night. Normally, I'll smile for a while at stand-up, then turn over, but with Jonathan (yes, really) I was sorry when it ended.

Irreverent and often over the mark, but soooo perceptive.

See, this racist thing is overstated. Especially by Romesh.

Tankertrashnav
31st Dec 2017, 10:53
Well, she isn't British, is she?

Or german.

Or indeed Greek or Danish

Think the wife/husband of the monarch can be any nationality. Not sure if the monarch has to be British though - have the rules changed since George I came over? He of course was Hanoverian, not German (there was no such thing then).

Anyway as I said above, it's all academic as Harry's never going to get the top job.

The AvgasDinosaur
31st Dec 2017, 13:42
Thank you all,
For your time and trouble, I wanted to establish if Prince William would inherit the crown if his father pre deceased Her Majesty.
To those who wished to use this thread to denigrate the monarchy or espouse their racist or xenophobic ambitions, sorry you felt the need to hijack this thread. It was a serious enquiry not intended to be a vehicle for your views.
All my best wishes for the new year,
Be lucky
David

Super VC-10
31st Dec 2017, 19:56
Well, she isn't British, is she?

Or german.


Once and for all, let's knock this German thing on the head. The correct nationality is "Hanoverian". Germany did not exist before 1871.

ORAC
31st Dec 2017, 20:21
Do a little research on the background of Queen Charlotte and her ancestors, the Sousa.

feueraxt
1st Jan 2018, 09:33
so when are we going to get Queen Markle?

Never.

They'll get the chauffeur drunk again before that happens.

teeteringhead
1st Jan 2018, 22:23
Not sure if the monarch has to be British though - have the rules changed since George I came over? He of course was Hanoverian, not German (there was no such thing then).
I guess Dickie 3 was the last Englishman on the throne .....

....... since then we've had Welsh, Scotch, Dutch, German/Hanoverian etc etc




........ dons flak vest and sidles out.......

Tankertrashnav
2nd Jan 2018, 01:01
Welsh? :eek: ;)

Pom Pax
2nd Jan 2018, 02:48
Last?????????? I nominate Harold.

RAT 5
2nd Jan 2018, 10:37
Last?????????? I nominate Harold

I'm glad Harry doesn't do so much equestrian activities. The last Harold was last seen 'with an eye full of arrow, on 'is 'orse with an 'awk in 'is 'and."

teeteringhead
2nd Jan 2018, 11:01
JENKINS mon brave

...... diolch yn fawr a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda!!

Pom Pax
3rd Jan 2018, 04:09
Rat5
Slight confusion I was referring to Harold Godwinson as possibly the last English king. No reference to Prince Henry of Wales.

In the Channel Isles the loyal toast is to the Duke of Normandy not the Queen.

teeteringhead
5th Jan 2018, 12:40
I'm glad Harry doesn't do so much equestrian activities. The last Harold was last seen 'with an eye full of arrow, on 'is 'orse with an 'awk in 'is 'and." But Harry is a Henry and not a Harold ........

But he is quite a horseman - like his big brother, Harry plays off a one goal handicap. Not so dusty - even more impressive for William as he is a southpaw, and polo must always be played right-handed.......

Just saying ......