British Royalty Politics

Politics and religion
1

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/11/11/princessanne.air.reut/index.html

What the hell kind of crazy statement is this? She has little chance of ascending to the throne because she’s a woman? What?! Didn’t seem to stop QE2!

Check out this list of the succession:

http://www.etoile.co.uk/Rsucc.html

There are fully three women in line before her! One of them is a one year old!

There’s obviously more to this than “she won’t ascend because she’s a woman.”

She won’t ascend because she’s number 9!

Just like the secretary of agriculture won’t become president any time soon:

http://bensguide.gpo.gov/9-12/government/national/succession.html

Can one of you brits please explain to me what is really going on here?

Thanks.

2

IANABrit but IIRC, she’s ninth because she’s a woman. If she were male, she’d be fourth.

3

That still doesn’t explain why she’s [behind] Eugenie, Beatrice, and Lady One Year Old.

4

Squirrel Killer is right on the money. If she had been male, she would be fourth in line to the throne. As the only daughter of the monarch, all of her male siblings and all of their respective children are ahead of her in the line of succession.

5

She’s behind them (at 9) because the girls are only children of the second and third sons of the queen (5,6,8). Her children come up last in the grand-child succession order simply because Anne is the only daughter.

If Andrew had a son, that son would leap ahead of his daughters in the order of succession.

It’s not rocket science. Daughters can and do inherit. But it all depends on having no brothers or no children of brothers hanging around.

Not that it matters all that much. Once you get down to 4th or 5th on the list, you need a War of the Roses or King Ralph situation to have anything happen in your favor.

Troy

6

[quote=““TSG””]

Yeah, especially in a family where the women have the life equivalency of a galapogos turtle.

Poor Chuck, his grandmother lived to be over 100, and his mother has a great shot of doing the same. By the time he gets the throne, he’ll be 80.

7

So why is it Andrew gets placed behind Charles’ sons?

Would it not have made more sense, in a time when the monarchy had real power and shorter lifespans, that the next oldest sibling be placed at the head after the King/Queen and oldest Prince go?

You say its not rocket science, but damnit, I still can’t get over referring to the Prince as “His Royal Highness The Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales.”

Or any form of royalty, for that matter. Its like stepping onto another planet. Freaky moonpeople.

8

Because descent is through the first born son. Once that line is exhausted, the line of succession moves to the second born son and his children and so on.

9

I suggest we boot the scroungers out.

10

I meant behind, not in front of.

Well regardless of all of this impossible to understand royalty mumbo jumbo, I believe she has a better chance of becoming queen than Hillary does of being elected president.

11

Not quite through first born son, but it does follow first born.

If First born snuffs it then his/her offspring are next in line. If there aren’t any, for whatever reason, then it passes to next born offspring of monarch and then to their offspring and so on. After relevant siblings and their offspring are exhausted it gets a bit convoluted and I don’t pretend to understand where it goes from there (though I assume it would pass to the Queen’s Sister).

I presume that if one Charles’ kids has a sprog before he gets to the throne then the line of succession would pass through them before it gets to any of Charles’ siblings.

12

So it’s a Depth First Search?