Posted on 10/31/2013 4:10:43 PM PDT by onyx
Edited on 10/31/2013 4:21:42 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
OH, thanks very much.
Not 100% on this but on another recent thread it was mentioned if Charles were to predecease his mother the next in line doesn’t become Charles son William but the next born of the Queen’s children which would be Ann or Andrew and should they become monarch their children then become the next in line. For William to become King his father Charles has to be King before. For all the Prince William fans they better hope Charles becomes King for say a very short period.
Thanks onyx.
Well, he did want to be a tampon.
Long Live The Queen
You read correctly. Diana had internal injuries that cd only be treated at the hospital. But once in the ambulance—I’m not making this up—every time she took a turn for the worse they actually came to a complete stop. The ambulance stood in place while the medics tried to stabilize her. The last time they stopped was w’in sight of the hospital. If they’d been trying to kill her they cdn’t have done a better job. After I read about it, my only thought was, ‘never, NEVER be involved in any kind of accident in France’.
I had the same thought!
Long live the Queen!
Amen!
No, that's incorrect.
The line of succession remains intact even if a person in the line dies. If the Prince of Wales predeceases his mother, the Duke of Cambridge (Prince William) will immediately become heir apparent. If the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge both died, Prince George of Cambridge would become heir apparent.
For the Duke of York (Prince Andrew) to become King, Charles, William, George, and Harry would all have to die or otherwise be removed from the line of succession. (The changes currently in process to give females equal standing in the line of succession only apply to children born from now on, so Anne, the Princess Royal and her descendants, remain behind her younger brothers and their descendants)
When Edward VIII abdicated a special law had to be passed expressly removing any children of his from the line of succession because otherwise any children he fathered would have, at least arguably, had precedence over the current Queen once her father died, such is the 'strength of a line' in the British law of succession. As it is, he didn't father any children, so it was irrelevant in the end, but it was a very real concern while his wife was of potentially child bearing age.
The scenario you describe has happened before - Queen Victoria remained in the line of succession after her father died and became Queen of the United Kingdom ahead of her father's three living younger brothers (the eldest of these did become King of Hanover, because Hanoverian law didn't allow a woman to rule, thus splitting the British and Hanoverian monarchies after a century of them being held by the same people).
In the constitutional monarchy that is the United Kingdom, one should not assume that speeches always reflect the views of the members of the Royal Family making them. The Queen virtually never writes her own speeches without government clearance and input - the Prince of Wales does occasionally but would not have done so with the Prime Minister present - the heir to the throne cannot be in conflict with his mother's first Minister - because in a heartbeat, they could become his first Minister.
The Prince of Wales is an environmentalist, but not as extreme as this speech indicates. And on most other issues he's a conservative, but he's rarely allowed to speak on these issues when he's more conservative than the government.
I'm lucky enough to be a friend to the Prince of Wales, and I find the way he is sometimes misrepresented in the press, and misunderstood by people because of that, fairly upsetting at times. Honestly, most people here would find they agreed with him on a lot of issues (though probably not environmental ones) if they had a chance to sit down with him. He's pro-gun. Pro-Judaeo-Christian (though I'm not sure how Christian he still is, himself - he most certainly is not Muslim or anything else, however). Pro-military. Capitalist. And a profound patriot.
Hello naturalman1975!
I remember that you’re a personal friend of the Prince of Wales, and I found and find that very impressive!
His rather avid environmentalism is a cause for mockery in this country in the conservative circles. Global Warming, AKA “Climate Change” has been outed here as a hoax, so it’s ridiculed. It’s not helpful to Prince Charles, that Al Gore is the American leader of the hoax.
The Prince of Wales is best known to me as an excellent, caring father to his sons and a conservative, like you state, in other matters of importance.
The American press is very harsh on him, and I think some of that is also due to the fact that Americans loved Diana, and detested Camilla. Tabloids were the rage for a quite while.
Thanks so much for your wonderful comments to me.
God bless and keep you.
To say nothing of a git.
Usually quoted as “stupid git”...:^)
Thank you for posting and straightening the record. Knowing your friendship with the prince, my heart wept for you as I read through this thread. Thank you for clearing up the information concerning the public speeches.
BRITAIN’S Village idiot. He will never be King, the succession will skip right over him.
It cant, you are the idiot.
Its lorry, not lorrie. And in the UK, we say ‘garr-age’ or the French ‘garr-aa-sh-ge’.
God, do Americans really believe the UK is an Islamic state, or is it just sarcasm?.
God, do Americans really believe the UK is an Islamic state, or is it just sarcasm?.
Some of us are very loyal friends of the UK. Don’t let the snide comments get to you.
My vote is for Harry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.