beetle1 and other Brits, a question

[mietla]

a couple of days ago I've heard some news that one of the princesses fell of her horse or something. A silly incident, but what surprised me is that they've mentioned that she is 11-th in line for the throne.


1. How long is the line they maintain? What is the chance that they lose 10 first in line, and yet they seem to keep track of it.

2. Who or what decides on order?

3. Who is first in line? Seems that Charles should be, but I've heard  many times that the Queen wants to skip him and that William will be the next King.  Can Queen just do something like that?

[SOB]

Just watch King Ralph, it'll answer all of your questions!

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by mietla
3. Who is first in line? Seems that Charles should be, but I've heard  many times that the Queen wants to skip him and that William will be the next King.  Can Queen just do something like that?

Yes, if Charles agrees. (if the system is anything like ours)

[Pei]

1) As long as the number of candidates I'd imagine - potentially hundreds.

2) The Constitution (specifically the Act of Settlement and the Act of Succession) determines the succession. Succession passes through the eldest legimate male line, though Roman Catholics are excluded. The intent of the Act was to make sure the sovereign was always Anglican but I'm not sure if it specifically says anything apart from excluding Catholics. However since the sovereign is also the Head of the Church of England it's pretty much a given that they have to be at least nominally Anglican.
Due to a modification a few years ago after next sovereign primogeniture supersedes sex (i.e. the eldest heir, male or female succeeds, as long as they are not Catholic). I rather suspect that the final legal disabilities against other faiths in the succession will be removed in the near future, provided the monarchy remains around that long.

3) According to the current constitution Charles succeeds. Without a change in the consitution (i.e. a new Act of Parliament) this will not change, though Charles could succeed and then choose to abdicate, in which case the next in line will succeed (i.e. William).

[bikekil]

William is the one that looks like a girl in a pull-over? is so, why someone should abdicate to make him a king?

[Pei]

Originally posted by bikekil
William is the one that looks like a girl in a pull-over? is so, why someone should abdicate to make him a king?

A quick look through the portraits of British monarchs will show you that appearance has always been low on the priority list.

[bikekil]

well... to be honest it's not that important thing
Btw, would he gain any "powers" as a king?

[Pei]

Originally posted by bikekil
well... to be honest it's not that important thing
Btw, would he gain any "powers" as a king?

Nope.

[beet1e]

Pei pretty much said it - the line is pretty much top-down, left to right in the family tree, following the males. I think the current order is something like Charles, William, Harry, then back up to Andrew - he had no sons so then it's across to Edward, who also has no sons so then it would go back up and Princess Anne would be next up. After her it would probably be her son, Peter Phillips, but I'm not sure of this.

I don't think there is any limit to the line length. As far as I am aware, the princes Harry and William never ride in the same aircraft - a measure designed to reduce the chances of simultaneous multiple fatality at the top of the Royal tree.

Here's the Royal Family tree since George V & Queen Mary: http://www.begent.net/history/windsor.htm

[Curval]

I was taught history at Haileybury College by a Mr. Seymour.  He was a direct decendant of one of old Henry VIII's wives.  As such he was like 98th in line for the throne.  Soon after he strated to teach one of the Royal sired a child.  Mr. Seymour dropped to 99th.   I think he was like 102nd in line by the time I left.

Good guy, great teacher.  But according to Beet1e's list he also was liberal with the truth.  lol  

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Curval
I was taught history at Haileybury College by a Mr. Seymour.  He was a direct decendant of one of old Henry VIII's wives.  

Are you sure about this? Henry VIII married Jane Seymour - his third wife - and they had a son, Edward VI, but he died when he was about 10. I don't know if Jane Seymour had children from a previous marriage. If she did, your teacher might have been born to that line, but would not have been descended from Henry VIII.

House of Tudor family tree: http://www.royal.gov.uk/files/pdf/stuarts.pdf

Wasn't long before the Stuarts took over...

[Curval]

No Beet, I'm not sure....just parroting what he told us at the time.  Looks like it was b/s.  Maybe he was just joking around with us or something.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Curval
No Beet, I'm not sure....just parroting what he told us at the time.  Looks like it was b/s.  Maybe he was just joking around with us or something.

It's still possible - if Jane Seymour had a boy by a previous marriage. Seems unlikely though, as it was the rigours of giving birth to Edward VI which led to her own death. And that makes me think that he was her first.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by bikekil
well... to be honest it's not that important thing
Btw, would he gain any "powers" as a king?

Tons, he becomes the head of state for a bunch of countries.  Of course if he actually used any of those powers at his own descretion he would probably lose them.