advertisement
Forums

The Forum is sponsored by 
 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the Tips and Deals forum
Need help w/ Royal succession idiocy....
Posted by: Buzz
Date: September 19, 2022 10:56PM
After Chucky comes Billy, then Mini-George, then if Mini-G's first spawn is a XX, UK, et al, gets another Queen?

Or, if something horrible happens to Mini-G before spawning, or he doesn't spawn, Little Sissy Charlie is next Queen?

Seems like the British Commonwealth loves 'em a good Queen, so just trying to figure out what the minimum time-frame is for a QEII replay?

My Royalty-succession-fu is feeble, at best.
Thanks.
==
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Need help w/ Royal succession idiocy....
Posted by: Tiangou
Date: September 20, 2022 12:07AM
[www.newsweek.com]

Prince William who had been second in line for the entirety of his life became first in line also acquiring a new dukedom, becoming the Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge.

Prince Harry and his children also moved closer to the throne. Whereas at the end of Elizabeth's lifetime they had been sixth, seventh and eighth in line, following Charles' accession they became fifth, sixth and seventh after William and his children.

Royal spouses, including Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle, are not included in the line of succession because they are not of royal blood and cannot inherit the throne in their own right. Instead they could become queen consorts if their husbands first become king...


Seventh in line of succession is Miss Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor, the young daughter of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.

Given the youth of those ahead of her, it would probably take a "King Ralph" event to put her on the throne.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Need help w/ Royal succession idiocy....
Posted by: Buzz
Date: September 20, 2022 01:34AM
So, basically you're sayin' I actually got it right?
Thanks, Doc. Yay!

Ok, then let's give Chucky 14 years, followed by 38 years of Billy, then 27 years of Mini-G, at which point we have a 50/50 shot at another Queen....

or until sometime just after the turn of the next century at a minimum.
Then, if Mini-G is shooting Y's, that could drag on many decades and/or scores longer.

What will the Commonwealth look like down the road?
Will it/can it survive that long without a woman's velvet touch, er, firm grasp on the Royal Orb & Scepter?
There's at least one good reason they're called "The Crown Jewels"....
==
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Need help w/ Royal succession idiocy....
Posted by: Bill in NC
Date: September 20, 2022 09:57AM
As long as Andrew remains just the royal dog sitter everything's copacetic.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Need help w/ Royal succession idiocy....
Posted by: Paul F.
Date: September 20, 2022 10:18AM
If George has kids before, or while he's on the Throne, then His brother and sister, and his cousins (including Lilibet) get bumped down the list... but remain on the list.

If George has a daughter first, then, she will be Queen (capital "Q" for Queen Regnant, rather than queen consort).



Paul F.
-----
A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca c. 5 BC - 65 AD
----
Good is the enemy of Excellent. Talent is not necessary for Excellence.
Persistence is necessary for Excellence. And Persistence is a Decision.

--

--

--
Eureka, CA



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2022 12:18PM by Paul F..
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Need help w/ Royal succession idiocy....
Posted by: A-Polly
Date: September 20, 2022 11:58AM
The top 8 spots look like this now, according to The Guardian:

Quote

1 Prince William, 40
2. Prince George, 9
3. Princess Charlotte, 7
4. Prince Louis, 4
5. Prince Harry, 37
6. Prince Archie, 3
7. Princess Lilibet, 15 months
8. Prince Andrew, 62 - The Duke of York was stripped of royal duties after the Virginia Giuffre lawsuit was settled but he is still in the official line of succession.

[www.theguardian.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Need help w/ Royal succession idiocy....
Posted by: Rolando
Date: September 20, 2022 01:06PM
So the King's Wives are Queens Consort, but the Queen's Hubby was just a Prince?
I don't get that one



San Antonio, TX (in the old city)


"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
“Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Eli Weisel

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

"I don’t want to see religious bigotry in any form. It would disturb me if there was a wedding between the religious fundamentalists and the political right. The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it." - Billy Graham 1981

"Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise" - Barry Goldwater
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Need help w/ Royal succession idiocy....
Posted by: JoeH
Date: September 20, 2022 02:20PM
Quote
Rolando
So the King's Wives are Queens Consort, but the Queen's Hubby was just a Prince?
I don't get that one

Officially Consort to the Queen alongside his other titles as Prince and Duke.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Need help w/ Royal succession idiocy....
Posted by: voodoopenguin
Date: September 20, 2022 02:22PM
Quote
Rolando
So the King's Wives are Queens Consort, but the Queen's Hubby was just a Prince?
I don't get that one

I might live here but I'm not an expert but I believe the Consort name is for non royal spouses. Prince Philip was a member of the Greek royal family.

Paul
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Need help w/ Royal succession idiocy....
Posted by: Paul F.
Date: September 20, 2022 02:25PM
Quote
Rolando
So the King's Wives are Queens Consort, but the Queen's Hubby was just a Prince?
I don't get that one

There is no "king consort"... The definition of "King" includes only King Regnant (ruler in their own right, which Price Phillip was not, and could not be). So, "Prince" or more technically (though he hated the term) "Prince Consort" was his title, along with Duke of Edinburgh.

Queen, within it's definition, can be "Queen Regnant" (in her own right, fairly rare in the UK, but with the change in sucession law in 2013, will become more common)... it can also be "Queen Mother" (technically "Dowager Queen", but, Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, detested "Dowager", so, was called the Queen Mother), or "Queen Consort".



Paul F.
-----
A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca c. 5 BC - 65 AD
----
Good is the enemy of Excellent. Talent is not necessary for Excellence.
Persistence is necessary for Excellence. And Persistence is a Decision.

--

--

--
Eureka, CA
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Need help w/ Royal succession idiocy....
Posted by: Ca Bob
Date: September 20, 2022 06:59PM
I wonder how many of the people on the list have been brushing up on Richard III.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 155
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020