Royals

Page 5 of 19 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 12 ... 19  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Royals

Post  bookworm on Wed May 30, 2012 11:20 pm

And of course there's always Harry...
avatar
bookworm

Posts : 1083
Join date : 2011-10-22
Age : 37
Location : Georgia

Back to top Go down

Re: Royals

Post  Red Wolf on Thu May 31, 2012 12:49 am

Worst comes to worst, both William and Harry die childless, the line of succession would head back up a generation, wouldn't it? That would make, in theory, David Armstrong-Jones, Margaret's son, the future king, right?

Red Wolf

Posts : 707
Join date : 2011-11-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Royals

Post  Jordan Baker on Thu May 31, 2012 1:20 am

Red Wolf wrote:Worst comes to worst, both William and Harry die childless, the line of succession would head back up a generation, wouldn't it? That would make, in theory, David Armstrong-Jones, Margaret's son, the future king, right?

I believe that for it to go to David Armstrong-Jones all of the Queen's grandchildren would have to die childless (and Peter Phillips already has two kids), not just William and Harry. Plus, David Armstrong-Jones would have to outlive both William and Harry.

Jordan Baker

Posts : 48
Join date : 2012-01-16

Back to top Go down

Re: Royals

Post  big chicken on Thu May 31, 2012 1:21 am

No, I think it would go to the Yorks. William and Harry die. Andrew, if alive, becomes King. Then his daughters.

big chicken

Posts : 683
Join date : 2011-10-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Royals

Post  Ji Xiang on Thu May 31, 2012 1:42 am

Hmm, so with the new law would Anne and her children jump ahead, or does that only apply to Will & Kate's heirs? Also, I guess Anne gave up her children's rights to inherit, so maybe it wouldn't even matter.

Ji Xiang

Posts : 219
Join date : 2011-10-23

Back to top Go down

Re: Royals

Post  maxell131313 on Thu May 31, 2012 1:43 am

I believe if something happens to Charles, William (if he has no children), and Harry, the Queen's second son Andrew would become King and then Beatrice would be the next in line. I don't believe Anne's children would be in succession as she did not give them royal titles when they were born, thus taking them out of consideration. At least I think I have that right.
avatar
maxell131313

Posts : 597
Join date : 2011-10-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Royals

Post  Red Wolf on Thu May 31, 2012 2:08 am

I forgot about Andrew. But the same thing applies. It would just go to the closest elegible male, no need for a succession crisis. How boring. But on the subject of Andrew, now that is one unfortunate photo.

Red Wolf

Posts : 707
Join date : 2011-11-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Royals

Post  MLIS on Thu May 31, 2012 7:45 am

Anne's children are still in the line of succession. I think they sit at 11th for Peter, and 14th for Zara (after Peter's two daughters). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_succession#Current_line_of_succession

MLIS

Posts : 159
Join date : 2011-10-24

Back to top Go down

Re: Royals

Post  Poubelle on Thu May 31, 2012 7:11 pm

Red Wolf wrote:But on the subject of Andrew, now that is one unfortunate photo.
I'm sorry, you seem to be in the wrong thread. The promo pic of the nerdy principal from that new teen comedy belongs in Upcoming Films.
avatar
Poubelle

Posts : 691
Join date : 2011-10-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Royals

Post  maxell131313 on Thu May 31, 2012 9:16 pm

For people like me who are rather fascinated by all the pomp and ceremony going on this weekend and the Thanksgiving Ceremony on Tuesday, there's a TV schedule listing who in the US is airing what when:

Jubilee Schedule


Last edited by maxell131313 on Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:51 am; edited 1 time in total
avatar
maxell131313

Posts : 597
Join date : 2011-10-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Royals

Post  19uses on Thu May 31, 2012 11:45 pm

any time there's a group royal gathering like Trooping the Color (or Colour) she is *always* either near the Queen or whoever's gotten the most press of late.

That was one of my favorite parts of the media coverage last year, looking for the Princess Michael royal photobomb.

ETA: I keep forgetting that clicking into a thread takes you to the first page. So ... here's my reply to posts from October. *Slinks out redfaced.*

19uses

Posts : 15
Join date : 2011-10-24

Back to top Go down

Re: Royals

Post  big chicken on Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:12 pm

The Queen has a dog named Gryffindor. I now have this image of some royal lackey standing in line at midnight for the Queen's copy of DH.

big chicken

Posts : 683
Join date : 2011-10-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Royals

Post  Coneycat on Tue Jun 05, 2012 3:01 pm

I hope this photo link works because this is adorable:

The Queen and Prince Philip -- then and now.


Coneycat

Posts : 545
Join date : 2011-10-24

Back to top Go down

Re: Royals

Post  TiffanyNichelle on Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:25 pm

Aw!!
avatar
TiffanyNichelle

Posts : 606
Join date : 2011-10-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Royals

Post  Cheetara on Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:12 pm

I guess it's probably staged since she even has on the same brooch, but I don't care - that is adorable! Hope he makes it out of the hospital and home to her soon.

Cheetara

Posts : 7
Join date : 2011-11-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Royals

Post  Gallifrey Girl on Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:34 pm

Aww, that's a sweet picture.

Gallifrey Girl

Posts : 546
Join date : 2011-10-28

Back to top Go down

Re: Royals

Post  MLIS on Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:18 pm

It was "staged" in that it was a deliberate recreation, yes. If I am remembering correctly, the first photo was taken on their honeymoon, and then they recreated it for their 60th wedding anniversary. It is adorbs, for sure. I am so sad for her that he had to miss the Jubilee stuff. She's such a trooper, but she looked so alone coming down the aisle of St. Paul's by herself this morning.

MLIS

Posts : 159
Join date : 2011-10-24

Back to top Go down

Re: Royals

Post  Tabby on Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:31 am

I heard, probably on the BBC, that they changed the carriage procession yesterday so that the Queen wouldn't be alone. She was supposed to ride with Philip, but they eliminated one of the carriages, and Charles and Camilla rode with the Queen.
avatar
Tabby

Posts : 731
Join date : 2011-10-25
Age : 57
Location : Minneapolis, Minnesota

Back to top Go down

Re: Royals

Post  QueenSix on Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:51 am

I saw the procession yesterday and I watched a bit of the beginning of the Thames barge pageant thingie. Camilla was front and centre at both, naturally, as Charles' wife. (I did keep an eye out for Princess Michael of Kent to see if she'd appear by the Queen's side to get her photo taken after reading it on the thread here! Heh.)
Anyway, the whole Camilla thing got me thinking how much things have changed over the years, how accepted she is with no bother. She chats easily to the Queen who chats easily with her. And I find myself wondering, would things have been THAT easy if Diana were still alive and people were thinking maybe 'oh you two had an affair behind your poor young wife's back, who I saw on Hello magazine the other day at an event or other and even though they never said anything about her not being invited to this jubilee but you could totally tell she'd love to be there, even though she's now married to so-and-so'. Because you just know the tabloids would be bringing it up every time the Royal family got together to even open an envelope. Somehow I don't think that Diana would have gone away as quietly as Sarah Ferguson, and why would she when she'd be the mother of the heir to the throne.

I just wonder if, having been privy to our own family dramas over lesser occasions when it has come to broken marriages and the people involved in that, that someone somewhere in the Palace breathes a bit of a sigh of relief that whatever else they have to worry about, it's not micromanaging a get-together so Camilla and Diana don't meet or if they do meet, making sure that everyone stays friendly and the lads from the papers don't get a chance to publish a photo of either of them side-eyeing one another.

QueenSix

Posts : 1314
Join date : 2011-10-22
Location : City of the Tribes, West of Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Royals

Post  MLIS on Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:28 pm

I think Diana's death has definitely eased Camilla's acceptance into the family, and by the public. I saw an interesting photo a couple of weeks ago of the concert from the Queen's golden jubilee ten years ago, and it was one of Camilla's first appearances with the family (before she and Charles were married). She was Charles's acknowledged partner, but she was seated several rows back (it was in this post: http://orderofsplendor.blogspot.ca/2012/05/flashback-friday-elizabeths-golden.html -- that's a great blog that you should definitely read if you're interested in the royals, by the way. I love it!). So to see her front and centre at all events this weekend was just a real sign of how far she's come and how much things have changed in a decade. I do think now there's no question that when Charles becomes king she will be crowned queen with him, instead of princess consort or whatever it was they were claiming at the time they married.

I honestly am not sure he would ever have been allowed to marry her if Diana was still alive -- the public backlash would have been enormous. I agree that Diana would not have gone away quietly -- the press wouldn't have let her (they still don't, and she's been dead for fifteen years), and I thought several times during William's wedding last year how different it would have been if Diana had been there, pulling the focus, making everyone whisper behind their orders of service about where she was seated related to Camilla and so on.

And Princess Michael doesn't stand next to the Queen anymore, silly! She stands next to Kate! :-)

MLIS

Posts : 159
Join date : 2011-10-24

Back to top Go down

Re: Royals

Post  year of the cat on Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:07 pm

Well I for one enjoyed all the barging about. Thanks H&J for the coverage- I love how the Ventians sent a gondola, just so you would know they have been doing the regatta MUCH LONGER that this Winsor bunch. Hee. Although its easy to see how party barges fell out of favor since the Tower Gate is the last stop and all...awkward. Probably how Kim K. went so quickly, nobody told her!
avatar
year of the cat

Posts : 390
Join date : 2011-10-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Royals

Post  katesti on Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:07 am

Did anyone else watch The Diamond Queen? There are not enough ways to explain how much The Best Harry is.

katesti

Posts : 559
Join date : 2011-10-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Royals

Post  Tabby on Fri Jun 08, 2012 9:39 am

Did anyone else watch The Diamond Queen?
I did! That is one hard-working lady. It's really astonishing to think how much the world has changed since she ascended to the throne.

Harry's going to be an awesome uncle to Will and Kate's kids, don't you think?
avatar
Tabby

Posts : 731
Join date : 2011-10-25
Age : 57
Location : Minneapolis, Minnesota

Back to top Go down

Re: Royals

Post  BreezyK on Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:37 am

In the pictures of the family on the balcony in this post, is that Princess Margaret behind the Queen done up in what looks like military drag? I'm so confused! Also, Philip is not looking too great there - it seems this Diamond celebration is really taking it out of him. Will he last for the Olympics?

BreezyK

Posts : 209
Join date : 2011-10-24

Back to top Go down

Re: Royals

Post  Renny Sue on Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:50 am

Isn't Princess Margaret dead?

Renny Sue

Posts : 38
Join date : 2011-10-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Royals

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 19 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 12 ... 19  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum