Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 39

Thread: In Case You Care

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Hymesa Estates, Killeen
    Posts
    29,484
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Harry is sixth in line.
    yeow, that's what my girls tell me too......which puts Archie in 7th.......unless, of course, william and kate have another kid.....mac
    Don't ask f'r rights. Take thim. An' don't let anny wan give thim to ye. A right that is handed to ye f'r nawthin' has somethin' the matter with it. It's more than likely on'y a wrong turned inside out.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,178
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    seems to me that prince william's kids come before harry........
    Not in the case of abdication - that takes the abdicating monarch's line out of succession.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Harker Heights
    Posts
    24,835
    Post Thanks / Like
    Correct me if I am wrong, but Albert was the brother of the abdicating King and he was in the reigning monarchs line of succession. Or are we talking about a different monarch that abdicated. I can only think of one that abdicated because he wanted to marry his American honey. And Elizabeth was also of that line. Not a direct descendant of the abdicator but certainly related by the fact that her father, Albert, was the abdicators brother.
    We have met the enemy and he is us... POGO

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,178
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by sojourner truth View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Correct me if I am wrong, but Albert was the brother of the abdicating King and he was in the reigning monarchs line of succession. Or are we talking about a different monarch that abdicated. I can only think of one that abdicated because he wanted to marry his American honey. And Elizabeth was also of that line. Not a direct descendant of the abdicator but certainly related by the fact that her father, Albert, was the abdicators brother.
    George VI was the son of George V, and the brother of Edward VIII. Edward VIII and George VI were in the line of succession to George V. Thus, when Edward VIII abdicated, any spawn of his would lose their rights of succession, and Albert would have taken the throne, anyway. I don't even know if the Duke of Windsor kept his HRH status. I think maybe, but he was definitely the black sheep.

    We'll never know who would be on the throne had David (Edward VIII) not been naughty, had married some royal, and produced a family. Albert (George VI) had Liz and Margaret. Had Liz not survived Albert, Margaret would be Queen.

    Remember, the only reason that Edward abdicated was because of his desire to marry a two timed divorced woman. Neither the CofE, nor Parliament, would allow the marriage. Had Edward married a royal, had kids, and then abdicated because of his health, his kids may have been entitled to succession. If William were to renounce his throne, he could also renounce his childrens' titles. Then Harry would be King, then Archie.

    The rules of succession change from time to time. Now, the firstborn of the King (or Queen) is always the first to take the throne - male or female.

    Liz won't abdicate, but she may allow Charles to have a Regency if she becomes too feeble. She may just outlast him, though. Tough old bird.
    Last edited by txswimmer; May 16th, 2019 at 9:23 AM.

  5. Thanks sojourner truth, fchafey thanked this post
  6. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Precinct 205, District 3, Killeen
    Posts
    15,530
    Post Thanks / Like
    My mind is boggled by the amount of energy being expended about the "royals" of England. I guess we still have Tories living among us.



    Le mot catholique n’est pas un gros mot.

  7. Thanks Night Owl thanked this post
  8. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Harker Heights
    Posts
    24,835
    Post Thanks / Like
    Royals have always fascinated many Americans, and why that is is a mystery.

    Why a people who fought a revolutionary war to rid themselves of such nonsense as inherited position is beyond most folks, but it is interesting for those who like trivia.

    Sort of like watching a car race just to see if anyone crashes. The Royals are irrelevant in Englands national policy, and serve as figureheads that represent... I am not sure what, but they do a lot of handshaking and "appearing: at events of interest around the commonwealth.

    Sort of like a very expensive chamber of commerce.
    We have met the enemy and he is us... POGO

  9. Thanks txswimmer thanked this post
    Likes txswimmer, fchafey liked this post
  10. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,178
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Royals make billions for the UK, and are paid handsomely for it. Believe it or not, the Queen has a lot of power that she doesn't exercise, like dissolving Parliament. She could, if she wished, keep dissolving Parliament until she got one that did her direct bidding.

    It is interesting trivia.

  11. Thanks just2cents thanked this post
  12. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Hymesa Estates, Killeen
    Posts
    29,484
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by txswimmer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    George VI was the son of George V, and the brother of Edward VIII. Edward VIII and George VI were in the line of succession to George V. Thus, when Edward VIII abdicated, any spawn of his would lose their rights of succession, and Albert would have taken the throne, anyway. I don't even know if the Duke of Windsor kept his HRH status. I think maybe, but he was definitely the black sheep.

    We'll never know who would be on the throne had David (Edward VIII) not been naughty, had married some royal, and produced a family. Albert (George VI) had Liz and Margaret. Had Liz not survived Albert, Margaret would be Queen.

    Remember, the only reason that Edward abdicated was because of his desire to marry a two timed divorced woman. Neither the CofE, nor Parliament, would allow the marriage. Had Edward married a royal, had kids, and then abdicated because of his health, his kids may have been entitled to succession. If William were to renounce his throne, he could also renounce his childrens' titles. Then Harry would be King, then Archie.

    The rules of succession change from time to time. Now, the firstborn of the King (or Queen) is always the first to take the throne - male or female.

    Liz won't abdicate, but she may allow Charles to have a Regency if she becomes too feeble. She may just outlast him, though. Tough old bird.
    for me, the worst part of it is, i can remember when she was a young girl!
    Don't ask f'r rights. Take thim. An' don't let anny wan give thim to ye. A right that is handed to ye f'r nawthin' has somethin' the matter with it. It's more than likely on'y a wrong turned inside out.

  13. LOL txswimmer, just2cents, sojourner truth LOL'd at this post
  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Precinct 205, District 3, Killeen
    Posts
    15,530
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by sojourner truth View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Royals have always fascinated many Americans, and why that is is a mystery.

    Why a people who fought a revolutionary war to rid themselves of such nonsense as inherited position is beyond most folks, but it is interesting for those who like trivia.

    Sort of like watching a car race just to see if anyone crashes. The Royals are irrelevant in Englands national policy, and serve as figureheads that represent... I am not sure what, but they do a lot of handshaking and "appearing: at events of interest around the commonwealth.

    Sort of like a very expensive chamber of commerce.
    And they serve as the papacy for the Anglican and Episcopalian churches, no?



    Le mot catholique n’est pas un gros mot.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Killeen
    Posts
    6,409
    Post Thanks / Like
    Think not. Think the Anglican Church has its own leadership section--the royal family has no role in church doctrine. Possibly the same for the Episcopal Church, which I understand is the "American" branch of the Anglican Church. I might be wrong...
    "Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says." 'Argument Clinic', Monty Python's Flying Circus

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •