A question for monarchists

[David Banks]

As I see it, the queen is just "getting her second wind."

Since women tend to live longer than men, in general, what would happen if the queen were pre-deceased by Prince Charles?

Would this mean that Princess Anne would become first in line to the throne, and be followed by her children up at the top of the list?

I was just thinking that all the careful PR work, not to mention the gushing that has been going on for decades over Princess Diana, her children and now a grandchild would all be wasted.

Really!

[Flynn]

No, it would pass to Charlie's heir or his spare, whichever is still living.

[Beat Bug]

That's right, the new rule would only apply from William and Kate's off springs.

[golach]

The current line of succession is The Queen - Prince Charles - Prince William -William First Child - Prince Harry - Prince Andrew - Princess Beatrice.

[Errogie]

Well I'm so glad that has been resolved and I can banish the sleepless nights!

[David Banks]

Well I'm so glad that has been resolved and I can banish the sleepless nights!

I did not start the thread because of sleepless nights, but I do have questions and hoped that those better schooled in the 'niceties' of monarchy could provide insights.

Given that there has been, within recent memory, queens Victoria and Elizabeth II, then I assume monarchy did not declare itself extinct due to the inconvenience of a lack of male heirs. Hopefully, women and men will now be treated as equals. We cannot stop there.

2. Disability:
Although many of their tasks are *ceremonial in nature, some do require a certain level of judgement and intelligence such as dealing with minority parliaments.
I wonder how they would they handle it in the unfortunate circumstance of a birth defect or subsequent brain injury which would make such decisions difficult if not impossible?

3. Diversity:
When will they allow their younger ones to choose their own mates from within the diversity of the current population of England rather than rigidly adhering to the rank of wasps?

4. Beliefs:
When will they drop the requirement (as I understand it) that any potential monarch be “ìn communion with the church of England“ and allow the person to express their own beliefs - be it atheist, Muslim, or even catholic?

5. Colonialism:
When will they give up acting like emperors, believing they have a right to select vice-regals for countries such as Canada?

6. Equality:
When will they look in the mirror and realize that the power, wealth and privilege they perpetuate for themselves lacks any semblance of fairness, even in an evolutionary sense?
Interesting article:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/2012/12/06/gospel-of-wealth-fails/


*They even use ceremonial occasions such as opening a new wing on a hospital to attach their name to it, rather than use the name of some worthy (commoner) citizen of the country! (but that is another rant for another day)

[cptdodger]

2) A Regent would be put in place.

3) The younger generation of the Royals have done just that.

4) There are Catholics in the Royal Family (The Duchess of Kent)

5) When Australia and Canada decide they do'nt want them.

6) There are a lot more people out there that are more powerful, wealthier and privileged than our Royal Family. Yet, you have no problem with them.

They do not approach hospitals to have their names attached to it. It is them that are approached.

[piratelassie]

Monarchists, I genuinely dont understand why you support this outdated privilaged bunch of people. On second thoughts I dont really want to.

[Slickly]

I wonder how they would they handle it in the unfortunate circumstance of a birth defect....

The current incumbents seem to manage quite well with their's.