The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Addition to the British Royal Family Options
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Monday, April 23, 2018 8:25:07 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 470
Neurons: 2,450
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Good Afternoon!

Just heard the news.

Congratulations to British friends on the new addition to the Royal Family.

Kate Middleton proves to be a good wife. Angel Thanks to her Brits will have a lot of choice in selecting their future monarch at some point, when the time will come for this newest generation to take over.
progpen
Posted: Monday, April 23, 2018 8:44:48 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,836
Neurons: 276,038
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
Congratulations to the happy couple. I've always been curious about the British royalty and it looks like this little one is 5th in line to the throne.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_British_throne

Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince George, Princess Charlotte (love that name), then the new baby.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
FX2
Posted: Monday, April 23, 2018 8:55:16 AM
Rank: Member

Joined: 7/17/2017
Posts: 47
Neurons: 63,062
Applause Great!
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Monday, April 23, 2018 9:18:49 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 470
Neurons: 2,450
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
progpen wrote:
looks like this little one is 5th in line to the throne.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_British_throne

Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince George, Princess Charlotte (love that name), then the new baby.


Is it so? I thought she gave birth to two boys before (so this one is the third child), so those two I would guess would come first in line?

Edit: OH, sorry! I was completely wrong, the second was a daughter Charlotte (lovely name - true!). For some reason I thought they had two boys, so I thought you were talking about some collateral lines.

So you are quite right with your succession tree.
TMe
Posted: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 10:55:42 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/12/2017
Posts: 766
Neurons: 4,856


Britain's Prince William and Catherine, The Duchess of Cambridge leaves the Lindo Wing at St Mary's Hospital with their newborn son in London.

I am a layman.
Sarrriesfan
Posted: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 4:27:05 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/30/2016
Posts: 970
Neurons: 6,229
Location: Luton, England, United Kingdom
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
progpen wrote:
looks like this little one is 5th in line to the throne.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_British_throne

Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince George, Princess Charlotte (love that name), then the new baby.


Is it so? I thought she gave birth to two boys before (so this one is the third child), so those two I would guess would come first in line?

Edit: OH, sorry! I was completely wrong, the second was a daughter Charlotte (lovely name - true!). For some reason I thought they had two boys, so I thought you were talking about some collateral lines.

So you are quite right with your succession tree.


Princess Charlotte is the first female heir to the throne not to be passed over the birth of a younger male heir, prior to this she would have become 5th in line and the new baby 4th.

I lack the imagination for a witty signature.
progpen
Posted: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 6:24:21 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,836
Neurons: 276,038
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
Sarrriesfan wrote:
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
progpen wrote:
looks like this little one is 5th in line to the throne.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_British_throne

Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince George, Princess Charlotte (love that name), then the new baby.


Is it so? I thought she gave birth to two boys before (so this one is the third child), so those two I would guess would come first in line?

Edit: OH, sorry! I was completely wrong, the second was a daughter Charlotte (lovely name - true!). For some reason I thought they had two boys, so I thought you were talking about some collateral lines.

So you are quite right with your succession tree.


Princess Charlotte is the first female heir to the throne not to be passed over the birth of a younger male heir, prior to this she would have become 5th in line and the new baby 4th.


Now I love the name even more. Very interesting.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 2:30:45 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,066
Neurons: 46,386
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
I just looked up popular royal names for boys to see what they might call him. George is the third heir, but the names David, James, Arthur, Albert, and Alfred don't seem to be used so far. They probably don't like King John?

Anne and Margaret are also royal name for girls. I just realized that my small immediate family including in-laws has/had 13 royal names. Not too surprising with a UK background, I guess. Edited - Then there are all the relatives still in the UK that I've never met who have similar names.

Yes, great that girls stay in the line where they arrive. The monarchy is becoming modernized.

(On that note, Meghan Markle has been approved by the family and not so long ago divorcees were not allowed. Maybe after Charles and Anne's failed marriages when they loved someone they were not allowed to marry, the royals have learned a lesson.

Perhaps somebody from the UK has an opinion about how she would have been received, not only by the family but by the public, if Harry were second in line?)

It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning. - Bill Watterson
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 9:24:01 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 470
Neurons: 2,450
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
progpen wrote:


Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince George, Princess Charlotte (love that name), then the new baby.


Do I understand correctly, that it is going to be like this only if Prince Charles does inherit the throne from his mother? I mean, if for some unfortunate reason one of his siblings is to become the next monarch and not him, then the whole tree is going to go another way, is this correct?
progpen
Posted: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 1:02:14 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,836
Neurons: 276,038
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
progpen wrote:


Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince George, Princess Charlotte (love that name), then the new baby.


Do I understand correctly, that it is going to be like this only if Prince Charles does inherit the throne from his mother? I mean, if for some unfortunate reason one of his siblings is to become the next monarch and not him, then the whole tree is going to go another way, is this correct?


I think the Queen has said that if she is still reigning when she is 95 she will ask for special legislation to abdicate and give the crown to Charles. I don't think there is a line around Charles but not at all positive about that.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
TMe
Posted: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 1:27:35 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/12/2017
Posts: 766
Neurons: 4,856
Kirill Vorobyov wrote;

Kate Middleton proves to be a good wife.



Can you elaborate, Kirill?


I am a layman.
Sarrriesfan
Posted: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 5:08:57 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/30/2016
Posts: 970
Neurons: 6,229
Location: Luton, England, United Kingdom
Hope123 wrote:
I just looked up popular royal names for boys to see what they might call him. George is the third heir, but the names David, James, Arthur, Albert, and Alfred don't seem to be used so far. They probably don't like King John?

Anne and Margaret are also royal name for girls. I just realized that my small immediate family including in-laws has/had 13 royal names. Not too surprising with a UK background, I guess. Edited - Then there are all the relatives still in the UK that I've never met who have similar names.

Yes, great that girls stay in the line where they arrive. The monarchy is becoming modernized.

(On that note, Meghan Markle has been approved by the family and not so long ago divorcees were not allowed. Maybe after Charles and Anne's failed marriages when they loved someone they were not allowed to marry, the royals have learned a lesson.

Perhaps somebody from the UK has an opinion about how she would have been received, not only by the family but by the public, if Harry were second in line?)


Well as Prince Charles is a divorcee, and remarried to another divorcee the horse has already bolted with regard to that one.

These days as trolls live on the internet not under bridges anymore there would have been some comment, but most people would have been accepting.

I lack the imagination for a witty signature.
Sarrriesfan
Posted: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 5:14:46 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/30/2016
Posts: 970
Neurons: 6,229
Location: Luton, England, United Kingdom
progpen wrote:
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
progpen wrote:


Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince George, Princess Charlotte (love that name), then the new baby.


Do I understand correctly, that it is going to be like this only if Prince Charles does inherit the throne from his mother? I mean, if for some unfortunate reason one of his siblings is to become the next monarch and not him, then the whole tree is going to go another way, is this correct?


I think the Queen has said that if she is still reigning when she is 95 she will ask for special legislation to abdicate and give the crown to Charles. I don't think there is a line around Charles but not at all positive about that.


There were claims she would abdicate in 2017 when she had regained for 65 years (65 is the pension age in the uK by coincidence) by that was incorrect I think the idea she will do so at 95 is as well.
It is my belief that she will honour her vows at the coronation and reign until she dies, she may step back from public life as Prince Philip has already done and allow Prince Charles to take over many duties but not abdicate.

I lack the imagination for a witty signature.
Sarrriesfan
Posted: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 5:22:30 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/30/2016
Posts: 970
Neurons: 6,229
Location: Luton, England, United Kingdom
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
progpen wrote:


Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince George, Princess Charlotte (love that name), then the new baby.


Do I understand correctly, that it is going to be like this only if Prince Charles does inherit the throne from his mother? I mean, if for some unfortunate reason one of his siblings is to become the next monarch and not him, then the whole tree is going to go another way, is this correct?


No Prince Andrew would not be next in line to the throne if Charles dies, that honour would pass to Prince William. Once the crown prince has an heir the heir takes precedence over his uncle in British law on such matters.

In order for Prince Andrew to take the throne then Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince George, Princess Charlotte, the new baby and then Prince Harry would have to die. (Unless Prince Andrew could prove Prince Harry isn't Prince Charles son as some maintain).

I lack the imagination for a witty signature.
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 5:36:16 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,066
Neurons: 46,386
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
I think Krill means what happens if Charles is unable to become King, maybe even dies, does it still go to William or would it go to Charles' siblings and then down their line. Right, Krill?

I don't THINK so. I think Charles' siblings are down the line after William's children. But I'm not British to know for sure. When Edward VIII abdicated he had no progeny so George V, Elizabeth's father, became king.

Edited - cross posted with Sarri and we said the same thing.

Elizabeth vowed to give her life to her country and I believe she will. She will probably just cut back. But she has said Charles is the man and thus her wishes are known. But who knows. All depends upon her health and energy.
::
Sarri, I had forgotten about Charles being divorced and still in line. I was also thinking of Meghan's diversity.

Plus the fact she's American. Whistle

I think the royalty has grown into this century and it would not have mattered. But I saw an interview with Andrew David Morton who is an English journalist and writer who has published biographies of royal figures and he thought there would have been opposition if there was a chance she could become queen.

Edited - But I just read that the biracial horse left the barn years ago too.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/meet-queen-charlotte-biracial-royal-210651085.html

It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning. - Bill Watterson
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Thursday, April 26, 2018 6:52:25 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 470
Neurons: 2,450
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Hope123 wrote:
I think Krill means what happens if Charles is unable to become King, maybe even dies, does it still go to William or would it go to Charles' siblings and then down their line. Right, Krill?



That's right, I mean if something happens to Prince Charles before he takes over as the new monarch (i.e. he dies before being crowned), then will William still be first in line to the throne, or will it be Charles' eldest sibling (Prince Andrew?) and then that sibling's heirs?

If I understand the Sarrriesfan's answer correctly, that's not the case. So it's Prince Charles' line that is to rein regardless of whether Prince Charles himself is ever crowned.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Thursday, April 26, 2018 7:16:32 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 29,715
Neurons: 172,120
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Yes - over the centuries, there have been wars fought, "strange accidental deaths", kidnappings, disappearances in the Tower and everything.

All these have helped to produce an unchangeable method of naming the heir, even if some freak accident took twenty of the top of the 'tree', the next in line would be known and secure.
"The Brits" don't have any selecting to do.

Hi Hope!
Yes - we've gone as far back as the eleventh century now, with William. We haven't delved into the ninth and tenth centuries to name any princes Æþelbeorht (bright noble) or Ælfrǣd (Elf-wise) - Albert and Alfred. Arthur would be even further back - about the fifth century, by the best estimates, I think.

"Queen Ethel" sounds sort of incongruous now, for some reason.
However, Æthelflæd of Mercia was one of the most successful reigning queens in history when her husband (Æthelræd the Unready) was ill and after he died.
Though she was (being a woman) almost ignored in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, other contemporary histories (including ones from abroad which are less biased) show her to be a major player in the formation of a single nation from the Danelaw (controlled by the non-Christian Norsemen), Mercia and Anglia (controlled by Saxons), and the British (who lived everywhere, but were concentrated in the west).
I think that would be a good name to choose for a new princess.

EDITED to add:
Yes Kirrill.

As far as I know, the line is something like this.

If Charles had died without children, then the crown would have moved "sideways" to his eldest brother (Andrew) - and then down that line (Beatrice).
However, as it stands now, Andrew is about eighth after Charles, William, all William's children and Harry.


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
BobShilling
Posted: Monday, May 7, 2018 3:00:28 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 421
Neurons: 2,918
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
Drag0nspeaker wrote:

If Charles had died without children, then the crown would have moved "sideways" to his eldest brother (Andrew) - and then down that line (Beatrice).

Yes.

Succession always moves directly down the monarch - oldest surviving child - oldest surviving grandchild -, etc line, until there is no-one left.

Then it goes back to the monarch's second oldest child, and down his/her direct line.

When there are no direct descendants of the monarch, then it goes back to the monarch's siblings (in order of age) the offspring of the previous monarch) and their direct descendants.

In the unlikely event of a monarch and all his/her siblings dying without heirs, then we'd start on the offspring of the monarch before that.

So, the current order is:

Charles
Charles's heirs
Charles's siblings (offspring of Elizabeth II) and their heirs
Offspring of George VI and their heirs
Offspring of George V and their heirs
and so on

We don't mention Edward VIII, partly because he had no heirs, but mainly because he renounced the throne for himself and his heirs. Even if he had produced heirs, they would not be in line for the throne.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.