Before anyone reads this post, I must point out that since writing it yesterday a number of my followers have commented that they had doubts about what I say below regarding Prince Andrew becoming first in line of succession if Charles pre-deceases the Queen. I am indebted to Andrew Brown (comments below) who pinpointed the evidence to show exactly how I was wrong - and that in the mid 18th century there had been the case of George III who succeeded his grandfather after his own father, Prince Frederick, died before his father George II, the crown thus leaping over a generation.
With this error now pointed out, I leave the article intact as I wrote it. My humble apologies for not having thoroughly checked the facts beforehand. (And Peter, why did you ever tell me that porky-pie? - which I believed!)
Oh, spare us all this "Awwwww - coo-coo - three cheers - royal gun salutes - I'm-crying-with-joy" flapdoodle! I've already had more than enough of channel switching, thank you.
While being mildly republican, I'm in no way bellicosely anti-monarchist - at least not while Her Maj clings on. That may well change when the Prince-in-waiting-ever-so-long ascends to the royal throne. I think I'm right in saying that no British/English monarch in history will have been at such an age as he will be when he does eventually take over.
This new sprog could well be a middle-aged man by the time his turn comes, by which time there'll have been plenty of opportunity for him to have been inculcated into all the jolly-hockey-sticks life of the privileged, he'll long since have been 'blooded' into his first experience at the noble 'sport' of fox-hunting (oh, what spiffing fun!), very likely have been induced into the hush-hush exclusively male world of freemasonry - and, no doubt, gained his valorously-earned stripes in the armed forces, having risen, (by his own, unassisted, sheer dogged efforts, no doubt), to a rank of considerable seniority. Well, good for him. Hurrah!
But will it happen? Oh, we do all hope so!
(I repeat here, the following paragraph is factually incorrect. Andrew will not become heir apparent. S-o-r-r-r-r-y!)
Although everybody must want Chas to live until he's 150 (at least), it is by no means certain that he will outlive his mum. (The Queen's own mother saw her 101st.) But (and perish the thought!) suppose.....just suppose..... there were to be an 'accident' - for example, the lovely Camilla crossing her legs at an unfortunate moment, and thus most tragically breaking her husband's neck - then the succession would pass, not to William, as even most British people (ignorant of their own history) assume it would, but to the eldest son of the previous monarch, not the eldest grandson - so Andrew would become king. The order of succession would be turned almost on its head. Andrew would be succeeded by his daughters, then by their children, if any - then would follow Edward ("He's not gay!") and his two children - then, Princess Anne (if she's still around) followed by her children.........and only after all that motley group would come William, followed, finally, by yesterday's arrival, who'd now be way down on the succession list. So, Charles honey, an awful lot hangs on your survival - and if you were to pop your clogs before 'mummy' does, an awful lot of people are not just going to be surprised and disappointed, but damn near outraged!
Of course I only posit a possibility of what could happen. Might be interesting times ahead!
most people over here are gaga about the baby. hell, we as a country don't even report to royalty!
ReplyDeleteit's nice and all, but I have my own life to lead. long life to prince cambridge!
now back to my regularly scheduled programme...
Exactly, A.M. It's out of all proportion.
DeleteBtw: It's funny how nearly everyone interviewed outside Buckingham Palace gates happens to be American - or maybe not so strange. Not that I care!
Thankfully I'll be dead and gone before you republican's have your way and the monarchy of this once fine nation is tossed on the scrap heap. However even to me the news frenzy over the dropping of your aforementioned royal sprog has been way over the top, wall to wall reporting inherently boring and beyond any merit.
ReplyDeleteI think you are being a touch arrogant in your superior assertion that most people in Britain are ignorant of our history and wouldn't know the line of succession would change in a heartbeat, literally, should anything happen to Charlie! Just think, if it did, we'd be looking forward to a Queen Bea, or not as the case may be.
I hope I AM wrong, Jase, in maintaining that the majority of British people are ignorant of their country's history. Sadly, I think I'm not - though must confess a large part of my assertion is based on quiz shows where members of the public reveal just how woeful their knowledge is. (My otherwise clued-up sister didn't know of the above until I told her.) If I went out onto any local High Street and questioned random passers-by on British history generally I don't think I'd find many who'd impress - though I could always be wrong. (I'm pretty sure, for example, that a majority couldn't name the 'Axis' powers in WWII.)
DeleteBtw: Jase. Your comment here gives me an opportunity to explain my apparent silence on your own blogs. I was thinking of e-mailing you (really!), that a few weeks ago I did have an unfortunate computer experience when opening up a post of yours to read. I'm assuming that this action of mine was the cause of an 'attack' on my own computer which was a headache to resolve. Must admit that since then I've been reluctant to open more of your posts, though I do see, through notifications, when you have posted. Maybe it's time for me to be brave and try again with fingers crossed.
It seems that, after all, it is I who am the ignorant one, Jase. I put my hand up. It seems that most of the British people know more about the subject of the succession than I did. (Cringe cringe!)
DeleteSo, no Queen Bea, I'm afraid - but maybe there won't be too long to wait before this country has another 'queen' on the throne, though I'm not going to be around to see it!
Well... congratulations to the happy couple.
ReplyDeleteHow about King Raybeard the First?
It wouldn't be a long reign, Mitch. I'd abdicate in favour of King Blackso!
DeleteCan so many people be ignorant of the line of succession?
ReplyDeleteI did a google inquiry for the following topic:
What would happen in line of succession if Prince Charles died before Queen? From the many answers I read, all were in agreement with the following answer:
"The line of succession goes to the monarch's oldest offspring's children. The throne then goes to William. In order for Andrew to become king, the queen, Charles, William and Harry would all have to die or abdicate."
Paul, I'd be happy to admit that I might be wrong - and it's perfectly possible that I am. But in view of what you've found I must express astonishment if it's true - though you HAVE succeeded in sowing a seed of doubt in my mind.
DeleteI'm trying to think back to any time in history when a deceased monarch's GRANDson took precedence over a surviving SON - and so far can't think of one. But there may well be one or more cases of that happening, in which case I would indeed be wrong. But it's not only me who'd be in error - so would a number of historians! Sounds to me like those who've provided the Google opinions are expressing their belief as to what would happen based on their WISH, and hence expectation, that that would happen - after all, even to me, William gives the appearance of a King-in-Waiting.
As far as I know William could only become king if his father had had a period of reign, however brief - which could well happen if the present Queen decides to abdicate, something which, in fact becomes a bit more likely as time goes on. (Maybe she's just clinging on for 2 or 3 more years in order to snatch the record from Queen Vic!)
But I'm certainly not going to dismiss what you say. I'll 'store' it in my memory should it be necessary for future reference.
Thanks.
Paul, it does appear that you were right after all - and I was wrong. (See my response to Andrew below).
DeleteIt's a good job I'm a bit darker than the usual Caucasian complexion - it might help a little to cover my blushes.
Gratitude to you for being the first to question my faulty assertion. I'm also adding a prominent note at the head of the above post.
Thanks.
I hate to admit to ignorance Ray, but I assumed that William would become King if Charles died before the Queen. Oh God, what if he remarried Fergie? Queen Fergie. And I bet tat pretzel hat would be dusted off by B or E for the coronation.
ReplyDeleteI'm a monarchist but have been dreading this week for the saturated news coverage. It didn't disappoint.
It might be ME who is the ignorant one, Craig (see Paul's comment above - with my rejoinder). We'll just have to wait and see - though before then someone (such as the Arch of Cant) should state it publicly. If I'm right, just imagine Andrew as Head of the Church of England! - which I'd take great fiendish delight in seeing.
DeleteQueen Fergie? I very much doubt it. Bet she wouldn't even get invited, just she wasn't asked to Will & Kate's wedding.
But Beatrice and Eugenie would be polishing their 'princessy tiaras' awaiting their turn to wear the big one - and squabbling as to how long one should reign before abdicating in favour of the other. Oooooh, it'll be great!
As to the interminable news coverage - yes, long since past the time to 'cool it'!
Craig, I have to confess that your assumption on the succession was right after all - and I was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! (See my note below replying to Andrew's comment)
DeleteWhat a pity, though! Charles is going to be a lively king - let's see if he can break the habit of a lifetime and keep his opinions to himself. But William looks he could be a crashing bore - maybe looking the part but so uncontroversial!
But a King Andrew would have been fun - I'd imagine he'd be continually dropping bricks, and would he have invited Koo Stark to his coronation? Alas, we'll never know as it's not to be.
Well done for being more ahead on facts than I was.
I am a royalist
ReplyDeleteSo I will say no more
Yes, there was something in the back of my mind from your previous blogs that you were 'that way inclined', J.G. I do hope that nothing in my post was TOO offensive for you. Just a bit of, you know, light-hearted banter. (There could be more to come - but that largely depends on Chas!)
DeleteJ.G., knowing where your sympathies lie it's my duty to tell you that my assertion on the succession above seems to have been wrong. (See my further comments both above and below on other peoples' comments). I only hope you haven't gone and told too many of what I said. If you have, well, tell me what forfeit I must do, and if it's in my power.......
Delete? Could the queen give the throne straight to William? I cant see Camilla coming out with Comedy one liners like Phillip.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure she couldn't do that, Sol. In fact I AM sure. Since at least Edward VII all monarchs have been completely powerless, bound by convention like a strait-jacket, and are obliged to act on the advice of their Government through the Prime Minister. If she did attempt to over-ride those principles and exercise a non-existent prerogative it would bring about a constitutional crisis (even though most people might be on her side on this issue) and make the institution of monarchy more fragile than it already is - something she just would not do. One thing we do know about the present Queen is that throughout her long life she has always been a stickler for tradition.
DeleteI think there might be comic potential in Camilla, so I wouldn't quite give up on her yet. Her father-in-law's gaffs have always been delivered off-the-cuff without any regard as to how they sound like, which makes them so wildly amusing - but which, coming from a member of the public would be condemned as unacceptably prejudiced, often racist. Because of who he is, he gets away with it - at least in a way, he does.
Thanks for your visit here, Sol.
Best blog entry ever!
ReplyDeleteThank you, Cubby, but it just ain't true. Some of your own blogs (as well as others I could mention) deserve a far higher rating than mine.
DeleteSpeaking of which, does your rare appearance here mean that you're about to re-start regular posting? I do hope so. Come on - make the world a better place, PLEASE!
Ehm...
ReplyDeleteSurely William *would* succeed Mrs Windsor, should his father pre-decease her.
After all, he is 1b in this Burkes Peerage line of sucession:
http://www.burkespeerage.com/articles/scotland/page31i.aspx
And precendence of George III suceeding George II suggests so too:
http://www.burkespeerage.com/articles/roking10.aspx
Andrew would only have succeeded Elizabeth if Charles had died with no legitimate issue (or if Charles, both sons and now grandson were to all die before QEII)
Andrew, I think I'm going to have to eat some humble pie - and the only proper way to do that would be to insert a note to that effect at the head of the above post, while leaving the body intact with my now seemingly factual errors.
DeleteSince Paul (above) raised doubt in my mind twelve hours ago I've been trying to think all day about if there was a time the the succession skipped a generation, but I couldn't come up with any previous occasion. I hadn't checked the Internet, which I obviously ought to have done before writing the post, but with your direction I've now done so. I should have remembered (which I do now recall) that George III had been the son of his pre-deceased father, Prince Frederick, eldest son of George II - so there is indeed precedence for a grandson to succeed.
It's not a defence that I'm making, but someone told me some years ago that if Charles died the succession would pass to Andrew - and I did take that on trust, though I've actually heard others on the radio voicing the same opinion, which I now accept is erroneous.
So, thank you for putting me right. As penance, I've now got the task of correcting all those to whom I've told the story and who believed me.
Moral: Check one's facts, especially when going out on a limb with something controversial.
Thanks again!
Ray,
ReplyDeleteI'll admit it, I'm an unrepentant Anglophile. Yes, I can name all the British monarchs from William the Conqueror to England's present monarch, Queen Elizabeth. No, I don't want to be a subject of a British monarch but I do see their value, to the United Kingdom. Those who want to abolish the monarchy I don't understand. What's the harm? To maintain the British monarchy cost 33 million pounds or something like that? 33 million pounds is a great investment, the British monarchy brings many more millions back in tourist dollars.
So what is the harm? I really don't understand who some get so worked up about abolishing the British monarchy. We have Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Mariah Carey and (ice) Jo Lo as our "royalty." Nuff said.
Ron (thanks for your visit) I don't think it's so much that the monarchy does any actual HARM, it's more that it's now become little more than a tourist attraction. I don't think most British people want it to be reduced to that. Its ceremonial functions do slow down and clog up the legislative process - and the monarch, also being head of the Church of England, allows undue prominence and influence to that body with no modern-day justification. e.g. this is the only democracy in the world that includes non-elected clergy (C of E bishops) in its legislature BY RIGHT!
DeleteHaving said that I'd admit that, through the existence of the monarchy, this country can put on a splendid show of pageantry, which is unrivalled anywhere.
As I've said elsewhere, when Charles does get his turn I'd expect the mumblings of discontent to grow, especially if he doesn't keep his trap shut, something his mum has done so well.
And yes, I'd rather have our 'lot' than the names you mention as your 'equivalents', so I do have a degree of tolerance for the present royals because I know that it could be worse.
Anne Marie is right about the cover here. It must be wall to wall there.
ReplyDeleteRe succession. During the coverage of Wm & Kate's wedding I recall one of the media folk commenting that Beatrice was "5th in line for the throne"; after Charles , Wm, Harry, and Andrew. I had not considered that it might change if Charles died before QEII. A bit of a tangent but I thought Anne gave up her successions right somewhere along the way. Maybe when she married... Or divorced??
As you'll see from my added comments above, H.K., I'm having to grovel to everyone with apologies. It seems that there IS precedent for a grandson to succeed if his father pre-deceases him. (Oh, the hurt!)
DeleteNo, I think Anne's still in there, but well down on the list, after all the males in the immediate family and their male offsprings, of course. I don't think she's given up her place in the order, nor had them taken away.
Ray,
ReplyDeleteEngland has the queen to perform the ceremonial functions and the Prime Minister to run the government. In the United States our president performs both functions, which I isn't very efficient. The monarchy works in Britain because Britain's long and rich history. Our history is different. Our "monarchy" are celebrities. I'll take the queen and her dysfunctional family any day over our "celebrity monarchy." If I see Jennifer Lopez's massive ass one more time I'll throw up.
I had to guffaw at your final sentence, Ron - but I feel much the same way about Ms Carey and that dreadful tic-full, warble-y voice - and it just makes me livid why she's such a big star, earning dollars by the lorryful. But maybe it's a generation thing.
DeleteUntil your first comment on this blog above I had no idea you were such a fan of our Royals, feeling more strongly about it even than many of the Brits I've known (though my own circles may not have been typical). But there is no right or wrong. You are fully entitled to feel that way. And it's true that our lot do give us full entertainment's worth, rather than many other jumped-up, here today, gone tomorrow, celebrities.
Btw: Can I just use this oppotunity to tell you that the reason I haven't commented on your recent blogs is that this ancient computer of mine is definitely on its last legs now, slower than ever - and still I can't afford a new one. So even trying to open up one of your blogs (one of the two I most often have trouble with), alas, it often freezes the screen, sometimes for an hour or more, which is clearly hopeless. As soon as I can have the darned thing improved or, better, replaced, I'll be back with you, Meantime, fulsome apologies.
I've been away for a week; haven't read blogs in nearly 10 days now! Tut, I turn my back on you and look at the imbroglio you created!
ReplyDeleteHere is what us Yanks are told:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUY6HGqYweQ
Yes, I really wish I'd never embarked on this one - as though there wasn't enough said of the subject already, I go and get egg on my face!
ReplyDeleteThe short film encapsulates the unfairness and silliness of it all.
And to think that Chas the First had maintained that the law of hereditary was also God's law and so he was the one true monarch by Divine Right. Just look where that got him - left shorter by a head!
I'm tempted to say more but I've just about had enough. The hoo-ha in the media has abated a bit and I'm in no mood to swim against that tide.