I do hope that all you compassionate people out there have bought and sent your Sympathy cards to the Royal Princesses, Beatrice and Eugenie.

They have been telling, in an interview in Vogue, of the dreadful suffering they encounter being princesses and how hard they have to work. I think we should all send them some money for a long holiday, providing they can fit another one in, that is.

Honestly!

Apples never fall far from the tree, do they!

What a nasty little post.

Oh, come on, Laurie .............. these two people lead a life of Riley, being both privileged and pampered and I don't think they know the meaning of hard work.

They do not perform any royal duties whatsoever, but simply have jobs like anyone else and, unlike the majority of those in work are able to jet off around the world several times a year.

Their father has been known as Airmiles Andy before them!

Monika wrote:Oh, come on, Laurie .............. these two people lead a life of Riley, being both privileged and pampered and I don't think they know the meaning of hard work.

They do not perform any royal duties whatsoever, but simply have jobs like anyone else and, unlike the majority of those in work are able to jet off around the world several times a year.

Don't get me wrong.

So far as I am concerned they are a pair of fluffy headed bimbos, but, like most young women, they don't have their problems to seek, not least, in their case, their parents!

Let us not forget that if Charles should go before his mother we will eventually end up with Queen Bea!

vannin wrote:Their father has been known as Airmiles Andy before them!

For a time he was a hero though.. Do you remember his return from the Falklands war?

What went wrong?

Laurie - it is highly unlikely that Princess Beatrice would ever become Queen; she is at present ninth in line and will continue to drop once Harry starts his family.

Monika wrote:Laurie - it is highly unlikely that Princess Beatrice would ever become Queen; she is at present ninth in line and will continue to drop once Harry starts his family.

The monarchy is inherited (for the present generation, it has already changed for the next generation) by the eldest son on the incumbent.

If Charles dies before his mother that will be Andrew. With the change in primogeniture already his heir will be Beatrice.

Hi Laurie, I'm sorry to say that you are wrong on this issue. The current pecking order for succession is 1 Charles, 2 William V, 3,4 and 5 are his children, 6 is Harry' Currently Andrew is 7th and Beatrice and Eugenie are 8 and 9.

That is set in stone and cannot be altered; Charles's line takes precedence over the rest of the Queen's children. So, Andrew is very, very unlikely to ever be King and with Harry becoming a father in the near future, Andrew and family will drop down even further.

Monika wrote:Hi Laurie, I'm sorry to say that you are wrong on this issue. The current pecking order for succession is 1 Charles, 2 William V, 3,4 and 5 are his children, 6 is Harry' Currently Andrew is 7th and Beatrice and Eugenie are 8 and 9.

That is set in stone and cannot be altered; Charles's line takes precedence over the rest of the Queen's children. So, Andrew is very, very unlikely to ever be King and with Harry becoming a father in the near future, Andrew and family will drop down even further.

No doubt that explains Andrew's boorishness .

Monika wrote:Hi Laurie, I'm sorry to say that you are wrong on this issue. The current pecking order for succession is 1 Charles, 2 William V, 3,4 and 5 are his children, 6 is Harry' Currently Andrew is 7th and Beatrice and Eugenie are 8 and 9.

That is set in stone and cannot be altered; Charles's line takes precedence over the rest of the Queen's children. So, Andrew is very, very unlikely to ever be King and with Harry becoming a father in the near future, Andrew and family will drop down even further.

Sorry, Monika, I must disagree.

The Constitution, while unwritten, is, as you say, set in stone. The monarch must be succeeded by the eldest son, where such exists.

William can only succeed his father as monarch. If Charles dies before the Queen William drops out of the queue, and Andrew becomes heir.

Charles is Heir Apparent, but William is only Heir Presumptive.

Here you go...

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_ ... ish_throne

I went on line, Laurie and found this which I cut and pasted below: It was written prior to the birth of Prince Louis but that makes not the slightest difference. If you cannot accept that you are wrong then we must beg to differ.

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF PRINCE CHARLES DIED BEFORE THE QUEEN?

If Prince Charles died before The Queen then Prince William would become heir to the throne. This would mean he would become the next Sovereign after The Queen died. Whilst heir in this situation, he may be made Prince of Wales (though perhaps unlikely) but would not qualify to become Duke of Cornwall because the Dukedom of Cornwall is only automatically assumed by the heir to the throne who is also the eldest son of the Monarch.

It is not true that Prince Andrew would become the next King – he is currently 6th in line to the throne. Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Harry would have to be Sovereign or die first.

Regardless of "expert" opinions, the law is the law.

There are precedents, which are the basis of English law.

Constitutional law can, and almost certainly would be by a constitutional court, but I'm talking about the Law as it stands, and has stood, for 1000 plus years.

The ramifications could be serious. I am sure I am not the only one in the country who would not bear allegiance to William.

To give a small example, every oath of allegiance in the country - peers, judges, MPs, police, armed forces and the like - would have to be resworn.

I swore allegiance to HM and her heirs, and William is not such, nor would I resear to him.

Laurie, Queen Victoria’s father died before she became Queen but she took precedence over his younger brother when William IV died. Richard II was the son of the Black Prince who died before his father, Edward III, but he took precedence over all of his uncles when Edward died. On another occasion, George III succeded his grandfather George II instead of a number of his uncles (and the Hanoverians were very prolific).

I think you will find that King John should not have become King because his nephew, Geoffrey, the grandson of Henry II’s second son was still alive when his grandfather passed on. Richard I succeded his father, Henry II but then Geoffrey mysteriously died when Henry’s successor, Richard I, was fighting on the Crusades leaving John behind to act as Regent.

I cannot think of a single instance when a younger son has taken precedence over the living son of a deceased elder brother although an exception may have been Robert, William The Conqueror’s eldest offspring who was considered by his father to have no sense or judgement whatsoever and was imprisoned by his father for many years, leaving the way open for William Rufus, also known as William the Red who was assassinated by who knows who !