HoratioCuthbert
Deep seated inconsequence
.
Prince Andrew, Duke of York, named in underage 'sex slave' lawsuit
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
HoratioCuthbert
Deep seated inconsequence
Lol I didn't even mean to send that, I was just meandering in my head
HoratioCuthbert
Deep seated inconsequence
Glad to see you are still functioning on some level HumbertoI'm pissed too (getting there)
I'm not actually drunk today, so no excuse
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
He could, but he is not obliged to.
Peston is wrong, in that Chuck hasn’t actively appointed anyone (& there is no such post as ‘deputy king’). The five under consideration for a regency are determined by act of parliament (Regency Act 1937). Saying you want to step back or being a paedophile makes no difference. And camilla is first in line.
The current members of the royal family eligible to serve as Counsellors of State are:
HM Queen Camilla, The Queen Consort
1. HRH The Prince of Wales
2. HRH The Duke of Sussex
3. The Duke of York
4. HRH The Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi
Puddy_Tat
naturally fluffy
i'm no expert on this sort of thing, but not sure there's any recent (as in the last few hundred years) precedent of anyone declining to become monarch, or renouncing their place in the line of succession.
edward 8 was king for nearly a year - he didn't get as far as a coronation ceremony, but was still king, and he then abdicated, so they made up the 'duke of windsor' title for him.
i'm sure that the establishment could come up with something (or re-create the duke of windsor title?) if someone near enough to the throne to be seriously likely to get it really didn't want to - or could that person still get out of it by converting to being a roman catholic? (or marrying a catholic?)
if it's all subject to an act of parliament, then a new act could get shoved through if there was an emergency - presume the 1937 act was because elizabeth and margaret were very young when their dad got the job, and presume they rigged it so edward wouldn't have got to be regent if anything had happened to king george...
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Not sure about the whys & wherefores of the 1937 Act, but a bit further googling (ie looking at the wiki page) says the current order of precedence is due to the 1953 Act. And there had been another inbetween. So it is all subject to Act of Parliament and there has been a new one for each new monarch for a century. So the current government could legislate to remove the paedo.
Although Other Liz would probably put herself into his place.
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
As a divorcee of Paedo, irrelevant.
Tho that does make me think.....
If Charles, Camilla and all their offspring die, and Harry is incapacitated. Megan becomes Queen.
We have just under 9 years to make it happen.
Dom Traynor
Tino Pai
Yas kween let's do it
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
Why nine years?
Me-gain will never be queen.
If something happens to Harry, Archie is next in line.
Boris Sprinkler
Dont be scared
I really hope this happens. Because maybe then people will figure out they don't need to accept a royal family.
Unfortunately. People will just accept it. There might be a couple that say not my king or something. But the majority will always do what their "betters" tell them. Thats why I feel sorry for the UK.
Last edited:
ElizabethofYork
Old Crone
Depressing seeing so many people being told how to feel about the whole stinking rotten institution by the media. Even more depressing seeing people happily going along with it.
moochedit
I'm not feeding seagulls
I think i read somewhere that Fergie got back together with the sweaty nonce a few years back and lives with him again although they haven't remarried.
dessiato
🇪🇸 españa te quiero
That rings a bell, it’d also fit in with HWCS getting a couple of the dogs.
Cid
Proper break this time
The newer acts mostly tidy up odd discrepancies and attempt to bring the monarchy into the modern world (e.g 2013 ends male primogeniture). Notable in the 1953 act is that it brings the Queen Mother in as a counsellor of state, so there is precedent for varying the cos, albeit by act of parliament. The second point is that, far as I can tell, the cos isn't actually compulsory (it may be appointed by letters patent). How that would play out in the real world I don't really know, but it's there. The final point is that it's fairly clear (from 1953) that there are methods for removal from the cos (Queen mother must have displaced someone after all), and that that request can come from the sovereign. Would it be awkward? yeah... But Charles absolutely has a hand in his brother's position.
Cid
Proper break this time
She would be queen regent I think... Archie is too young to be king, so she would act as the monarch until he was of age. Queen is an odd one, not quite the same as king (yet), e.g you can be queen consort but not king consort; you can be queen regent, but e.g the old racist would be prince regent if acting for Brenda.
Also 'me-gain' what kind of weird shit is that?
Lord Camomile
Yipchaa!
(Never said he was obliged to, simply saying that you can, in fact, resign from the line of succession)
moochedit
I'm not feeding seagulls
Sorry HWCS??? ( I assume it means sweaty nonce and/or fergie but i can't figure it out
)bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
He who cannot sweatSorry HWCS??? ( I assume it means sweaty nonce and/or fergie but i can't figure it out
moochedit
I'm not feeding seagulls
Cheers
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
What I don't understand is why Anne isn't higher up the succession list (she's 16 and the beast is 8). Isn't she older than Paedipus Rex?
moochedit
I'm not feeding seagulls
Used to be that men outranked women. Law changed a few years ago but only for new births.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Ah, cheers. I knew about the change, just hadn't twigged it was new births only.
Similar threads
