|
Post by cakediva on Apr 20, 2016 1:21:22 GMT
So I'm showing my oldest DD the photo, and we are gushing about that cutie George.
When a question arises.
DD clarified "Queen, then Prince Charles, then Prince William, then Prince George. But if Harry kills them all, then Prince Harry gets the throne, right?" LOL
So I said "well, if William abdicates, then Harry" but she wondered if it would be George instead.
Can anybody answer that?
It was a different situation when the Queen's uncle abdicated, as he had no children at the time, correct?
ETA - Ok totally forgot about Charlotte as she wasn't in the photo - so yes, according to DD's twisted comment - Harry would need to eliminate her as well to be King. But my question was more about the abdication of William - if he abdicated, would his kids also abdicate by default? Which has now been answered.
DD marvels at how quickly you all had an answer for us!
ETA #2 - just mentioning that DD was in no way serious about the Harry killing off anybody - she's currently taking a double History major at University, and her one professor when discussing some ancient brother battle/kingdom thing, was using photos of Harry & William for reference!
|
|
|
Post by gorgeouskid on Apr 20, 2016 1:23:03 GMT
Will is second in line, Charlotte is 4th.
All four previous would have to die/abdicate before Harry could take the throne. If William abdicated before George reached majority, there would likely be a regency.
ETA- George and Charlotte take precedence, as do their offspring. When G&C have children, that would push Harry and his issue further down (as well as others in the line of succession.)
|
|
freebird
Drama Llama
'cause I'm free as a bird now
Posts: 6,927
Jun 25, 2014 20:06:48 GMT
|
Post by freebird on Apr 20, 2016 1:23:19 GMT
George before Harry
ETA: I forgot about Charlotte. Poor Charlotte
|
|
|
Post by myshelly on Apr 20, 2016 1:24:46 GMT
George and Charlotte before Harry
|
|
|
Post by CarolT on Apr 20, 2016 1:26:35 GMT
Yep, Harry comes after any/all children William has.
|
|
quiltz
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,840
Location: CANADA
Jun 29, 2014 16:13:28 GMT
|
Post by quiltz on Apr 20, 2016 1:28:47 GMT
According to a Royal website, the lineage is Charles,William, George, Charlotte, Harry , Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward, James, Louise and Anne.
|
|
|
Post by myshelly on Apr 20, 2016 1:29:59 GMT
According to a Royal website, the lineage is Charles,William, George, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward, James, Louise and Anne. I bet that hasn't been updated since Charlotte was born.
|
|
grinningcat
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,663
Jun 26, 2014 13:06:35 GMT
|
Post by grinningcat on Apr 20, 2016 1:30:38 GMT
Harry is 5th after William's Children. You can see how people get bumped down the line as the heirs have children. It's from here.Regardless of age, they would follow the succession. There will be no abdication (I get so sick of people saying that so and so should abdicate for the next in line) due to what happened with the Queen's Uncle. Because he had not married or had heirs, the next in line was his brother and ultimately Princess (now Queen) Elizabeth, just as it was before Prince William married and had children.
|
|
|
Post by anniefb on Apr 20, 2016 2:09:33 GMT
There will be no abdication (I get so sick of people saying that so and so should abdicate for the next in line) due to what happened with the Queen's Uncle. Yep there are some European monarchies where abdication is common eg Netherlands, but the only English monarch to abdicate was Edward VIII. The Queen definitely views her role as a 'job for life.' On the occasion of her 21st birthday she vowed in a radio message to the Commonwealth “I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and to the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.” And during her coronation, she pledged a solemn oath, asking God's help to govern the countries where she is head of state. As I understand it, she would see abdication as a complete dereliction of duty.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Apr 20, 2016 2:16:46 GMT
There will be no abdication (I get so sick of people saying that so and so should abdicate for the next in line) due to what happened with the Queen's Uncle. Yep there are some European monarchies where abdication is common eg Netherlands, but the only English monarch to abdicate was Edward VIII. The Queen definitely views her role as a 'job for life.' On the occasion of her 21st birthday she vowed in a radio message to the Commonwealth “I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and to the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.” And during her coronation, she pledged a solemn oath, asking God's help to govern the countries where she is head of state. As I understand it, she would see abdication as a complete dereliction of duty. I don't think anyone expects the current Queen to step aside. I hear people blather about Charles stepping aside for his more popular son. I sort of understand as I've never really felt the same about him after the Camille tape reveal... way too much tmi there. But eh - not my circus, not my monkeys.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Apr 20, 2016 2:23:11 GMT
So I'm showing my oldest DD the photo, and we are gushing about that cutie George. When a question arises. DD clarified "Queen, then Prince Charles, then Prince William, then Prince George. But if Harry kills them all, then Prince Harry gets the throne, right?" LOL So I said "well, if William abdicates, then Harry" but she wondered if it would be George instead. Can anybody answer that? It was a different situation when the Queen's uncle abdicated, as he had no children at the time, correct? I believe if the Queen, Prince Charles, Prince William and Prince George were all dead then Princess Charlotte would become Queen.
|
|
|
Post by Eddie-n-Harley on Apr 20, 2016 2:29:59 GMT
Here is a family tree (with pictures) discussing succession that the Telegraph published after Charlotte was born.
|
|
my3freaks
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,206
Location: NH girl living in Colorado
Jun 26, 2014 4:10:56 GMT
|
Post by my3freaks on Apr 20, 2016 2:47:01 GMT
DD clarified "Queen, then Prince Charles, then Prince William, then Prince George. But if Harry kills them all, then Prince Harry gets the throne, right?" LOL Somehow, I think, if Harry kills his nephew, his brother, his father, and his grandmother, who just happens to be the Queen of England, he wouldn't be rewarded with the title of King and the throne. LOL If he had a fool-proof plan, and no way of getting caught, he would have to include his niece in his nefarious plot. Harry IS the naughty one, isn't he??? Now I'm just curious, does England have the death penalty in a situation like that?
|
|
julieb
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,845
Jul 3, 2014 16:02:54 GMT
|
Post by julieb on Apr 20, 2016 4:12:14 GMT
George before Harry
ETA: I forgot about Charlotte. Poor Charlotte
If Kate & William do as good of a job as Diana did raising Will & Harry (I give Charles no credit), Charlotte will be just fine.
|
|
theshyone
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,422
Jun 26, 2014 12:50:12 GMT
|
Post by theshyone on Apr 20, 2016 4:29:14 GMT
Harry is 5th after William's Children. You can see how people get bumped down the line as the heirs have children. It's from here.Regardless of age, they would follow the succession. There will be no abdication (I get so sick of people saying that so and so should abdicate for the next in line) due to what happened with the Queen's Uncle. Because he had not married or had heirs, the next in line was his brother and ultimately Princess (now Queen) Elizabeth, just as it was before Prince William married and had children. Not that I understand this at all: but why isn't princess Ann before andrew & Edward in line of assertion. She is older than him, female now have their place. If if chrlotte had a baby brother, would she be placed after him, or after George?
|
|
|
Post by myshelly on Apr 20, 2016 5:23:52 GMT
Harry is 5th after William's Children. You can see how people get bumped down the line as the heirs have children. It's from here.Regardless of age, they would follow the succession. There will be no abdication (I get so sick of people saying that so and so should abdicate for the next in line) due to what happened with the Queen's Uncle. Because he had not married or had heirs, the next in line was his brother and ultimately Princess (now Queen) Elizabeth, just as it was before Prince William married and had children. Not that I understand this at all: but why isn't princess Ann before andrew & Edward in line of assertion. She is older than him, female now have their place. If if chrlotte had a baby brother, would she be placed after him, or after George? I think you sort of answered your own question. Females "now" have their place. But the law changing the order of succession doesn't apply retroactively.
|
|
theshyone
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,422
Jun 26, 2014 12:50:12 GMT
|
Post by theshyone on Apr 20, 2016 9:54:04 GMT
Not that I understand this at all: but why isn't princess Ann before andrew & Edward in line of assertion. She is older than him, female now have their place. If if chrlotte had a baby brother, would she be placed after him, or after George? I think you sort of answered your own question. Females "now" have their place. But the law changing the order of succession doesn't apply retroactively. If it's not retroactive then Beatrice an Eugene should be after Edward? ? So confusing.
|
|
|
Post by jennyap on Apr 20, 2016 10:04:06 GMT
I think you sort of answered your own question. Females "now" have their place. But the law changing the order of succession doesn't apply retroactively. If it's not retroactive then Beatrice an Eugene should be after Edward? ? So confusing. No, they have always been before Edward because they are Andrew's children and Andrew is before Edward. The male/female precedence has only changed between siblings. If Andrew were to have another child now, they would bump Edward (and everyone after him) further down the list. The only difference is that previously if that child were a boy he would also have bumped Beatrice and Eugenie down, but under the new rules he would slot in straight after them. It always goes down (children) as far as possible before it ever goes across (siblings). If it can't go down any further, it goes across at the lowest level possible, and then goes down again. ETA I'm not sure if this will help (or if the attachment will work) but I drew a rather messy flow chart. Every time you get to someone in a box they become Person A and you start again to find the next person in line. Also for the purposes of determining the line of succession it doesn't matter whether anyone is alive or dead at the time! (although obviously if they are dead they don't get a place themselves)
|
|
|
Post by rhhdk on Apr 20, 2016 10:55:44 GMT
There will be no abdication (I get so sick of people saying that so and so should abdicate for the next in line) due to what happened with the Queen's Uncle. Yep there are some European monarchies where abdication is common eg Netherlands, but the only English monarch to abdicate was Edward VIII. The Queen definitely views her role as a 'job for life.' the same goes for the Danish Queen, but her son and his wife (Crownprince Frederik and princess Mary) take over more and more of her duty or participate with her
|
|
|
Post by cakediva on Apr 20, 2016 11:17:31 GMT
DD clarified "Queen, then Prince Charles, then Prince William, then Prince George. But if Harry kills them all, then Prince Harry gets the throne, right?" LOL Somehow, I think, if Harry kills his nephew, his brother, his father, and his grandmother, who just happens to be the Queen of England, he wouldn't be rewarded with the title of King and the throne. LOL If he had a fool-proof plan, and no way of getting caught, he would have to include his niece in his nefarious plot. Harry IS the naughty one, isn't he??? Now I'm just curious, does England have the death penalty in a situation like that? Well DD is our twisted child - LOL But yes, that is where my head went too! If Harry eliminates them all, wouldn't he be beheaded? LOL
|
|
iluvpink
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,370
Location: Michigan
Jul 13, 2014 12:40:31 GMT
|
Post by iluvpink on Apr 20, 2016 11:18:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gillyp on Apr 20, 2016 11:50:50 GMT
We don't have the death penalty over here no matter how heinous the crime.
|
|
grinningcat
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,663
Jun 26, 2014 13:06:35 GMT
|
Post by grinningcat on Apr 20, 2016 12:39:23 GMT
We don't have the death penalty over here no matter how heinous the crime. Huh?
|
|
|
Post by cakediva on Apr 20, 2016 12:44:49 GMT
We don't have the death penalty over here no matter how heinous the crime. Huh? LOL - up thread, somebody commented that if Harry eliminated all that went before him, that surely he would be in jail instead of rewarded with the title of King. And then asked if they had the death penalty.....
|
|
freebird
Drama Llama
'cause I'm free as a bird now
Posts: 6,927
Jun 25, 2014 20:06:48 GMT
|
Post by freebird on Apr 20, 2016 14:20:19 GMT
George before Harry
ETA: I forgot about Charlotte. Poor Charlotte
If Kate & William do as good of a job as Diana did raising Will & Harry (I give Charles no credit), Charlotte will be just fine.
I meant that as "I forgot to mention charlotte, how terrible of me, poor Charlotte"
|
|
|
Post by myshelly on Apr 20, 2016 14:34:51 GMT
I think you sort of answered your own question. Females "now" have their place. But the law changing the order of succession doesn't apply retroactively. If it's not retroactive then Beatrice an Eugene should be after Edward? ? So confusing. No, that's not how it works. They are before Edward regardless of gender bc of their line.
|
|
|
Post by gar on Apr 20, 2016 14:55:20 GMT
I think you sort of answered your own question. Females "now" have their place. But the law changing the order of succession doesn't apply retroactively. If it's not retroactive then Beatrice an Eugene should be after Edward? ? So confusing. Read jennyap's post - a great explanation
|
|
my3freaks
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,206
Location: NH girl living in Colorado
Jun 26, 2014 4:10:56 GMT
|
Post by my3freaks on Apr 20, 2016 16:29:23 GMT
Somehow, I think, if Harry kills his nephew, his brother, his father, and his grandmother, who just happens to be the Queen of England, he wouldn't be rewarded with the title of King and the throne. LOL If he had a fool-proof plan, and no way of getting caught, he would have to include his niece in his nefarious plot. Harry IS the naughty one, isn't he??? Now I'm just curious, does England have the death penalty in a situation like that? Well DD is our twisted child - LOL But yes, that is where my head went too! If Harry eliminates them all, wouldn't he be beheaded? LOL It's totally a conversation I could see happening in my house too! We're all twisted here, LOL I didn't go do any searching on it, but I did kinda think about the "Harry throne plot" all night. I'm American, so I don't know anything about British laws, but I didn't think they use the death penalty anymore. BUT, in the case of someone, murdering the Queen and also the next 3-4 heirs to the throne, is the death penalty still legal there, and would it apply? Even if that someone was another heir, so obviously, a member of the royal family? IF the death penalty would apply, would it be a more modern method, or stick with tradition, and go with a good 'ol fashion beheading? I am fascinated with the British Royal family. Love them. Well, most of them. I was a kid when Charles & Diana got married, and I fell in love with her along with the rest of the world. I watched the wedding. I followed her through the years. I cried when she died. I watched her funeral, crying. I don't like Charles, and can't stand Camilla. He did seem to step up for William & Harry after they lost their Mother though, and they seem to have a really good relationship with their Father, so he obviously did something right. Harry, he seems like he's a great guy. Fun, and sweet and "real". I want him to get married! I love Will & Kate too. They seem so happy, and everything I read about them, it sounds like they are really nice, warm, funny people. They have the beautiful babies too! George is the cutest little boy, I can just imagine his adorable accent! Charlotte is a doll. I always look forward to more pictures of them being released.
|
|
julieb
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,845
Jul 3, 2014 16:02:54 GMT
|
Post by julieb on Apr 20, 2016 17:24:20 GMT
If Kate & William do as good of a job as Diana did raising Will & Harry (I give Charles no credit), Charlotte will be just fine.
I meant that as "I forgot to mention charlotte, how terrible of me, poor Charlotte"
She's a cutie also. It is refreshing to see Kate & Will's relationship and they do look happy together.
I'll never forget watching a Prince Charles interview, right after getting engaged to Diana, and a reporter asked Charles about being in love and his response was something along the lines of "whatever love is". I was only 16-17 yrs. old and I remember thinking that he didn't even love her. He looked miserable.
|
|