The Dean

......... Charles dies before The Queen.

I had no idea, but apparently if Charles goes first, the entire line of succession is redrafted, and Andrew, Duke of York, becomes first in line........

........... and after him - "Arise, Queen Beatrice".........

[I am grateful to one of my Mum's friends who is a bit of a whizz on genealogy and hereditary matters, etc, for this little nugget]

commander

I was wondering why Andrew was gifting Charles birthday gifts of Bungy jumping, parachuting and diving lessons

It makes sense now.

mikelincs

Your friend is wrong I'm afraid, If Charles dies, then William becomes first in Line, if William dies then George becomes first in line, if all three die, then Harry becomes first in line, only if all 4 were to die before the Queen and William or Harry had no chidren, would it be Andrew.

Read the full list here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of...British_throne

commander

And if the whole lot of them got wiped out with some rare virus transmitted from Corgi's then I vote Katie Hopkins for the position of Queen. What a British role model.

Bahtatboy

Just what we need: kids named Poppy and India yet slags off people who give their kids "geographical names"; fired from the Met Office; failed to get through Sandhurst; arrogantly asserted that she'd have won The Apprentice if she hadn't quit, directly in contrast to Sugar's statement that he'd have fired her whoever the other contestant had been; drew only 0.6% of votes when standing for MEP.

I think Charles would be an excellent king. But if it was put to the popular vote to elect a commoner, I'd go for Mick Jagger. Long live Rock'n'Roll.

The Dean

I beg to differ - my contact was very sure of her sources, as well as her own background (retired member of the Royal Household). I will draw her attention to that Wiki jobby though, and get back to you.

My/her version certainly makes more sense - the whole point of having a line of succession is for when the reigning monarch dies - not before.

mikelincs

Well then the BBC must have got it all wrong as they were saying the same thing aout the sucession, it goes from Monarch to first born, if the firstborn dies with heirs, then it goes to the heirs, if the firstborn dies without heirs, then, and only then, does it go to the second born. Up till the current baby, the heir was always via the male line, so if the monarch had 3 daughters and then a son, the monarchy would pass to the son first, but now with the new rules in place, the heir is the first born, son or daughter. Differ all you will, but the WIKI is correct, and your contact wrong.
This is the line of sucession according to the official website of the British Monarchy, and they, of all people, should know.

THE LINE OF SUCCESSION
Line of Succession as at July 2013

SOVEREIGN
1. The Prince of Wales
2. The Duke of Cambridge
3. *
4. Prince Henry of Wales
5. The Duke of York
6. Princess Beatrice of York
7. Princess Eugenie of York
8. The Earl of Wessex
The asterix is bacuse it hasn't yet been updated for the new baby's name.

Full list here.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRo.../Overview.aspx

Andrew will drop further and further down the list as William and Harry have more children.

scot47

Bring back Cromwell is all I can say !

Millhouse

Dean - you've been done over son.

lostinthedust

I'm confused. Should Anne now be fifth in line, not Andrew? She is the Queen's second child, no?

mikelincs

No, at the time she was born sons had precedence, it was changed earlier this year, but was NOT retrospective, so only started with the birth of Williams child.

redShark

For a long time the British Royal family have posed two mysteries to me. The first mystery was actually solved last year, but the second one is still yet to be resolved. The one that was solved was to do with prince William; Why he always smiles whenever he sees a busty lady. Silvio Berlusconi solved that mystery for me when his magazines published photographs of princes Kate sun bathing.

Now the unresolved mystery, is to do with the Duke of Edinburgh. I just don’t know what to make of that chap. I mean think about it, a nice and vibrant looking guy (when he was younger off course) , with lots of wealth and fame, and with lots of pretty women dreaming to have him in bed. Yet there have never been rumours of affairs or infidelity registered against him. Is it really because his private life is a taboo in the British media as this might hurt the Queen! Or is he really as authentic as he appears to be (which defies all logic). I wish I knew!!!

The Dean

Are you sure? I found a letter in last Friday's Times that agrees with me, but that was written by a Scotsman........

I do remember reading somewhere that the whole line changes if an heir (as opposed to the monarch) dies, but couldn't quote chapter-and-verse now........ anyway, waiting for feedback from my 'contact'.

Millsyisland

redshark - you really do spout some sh1t sometimes. Actually, make that all the time.

scrubbedexpat141

I have always wondered how you managed to reproduce. Was it an arranged marriage or did you actually find a wife?

Do your children have more intelligence and a better understanding of the real world?

I ****ing hope so, you're beyond help.