dead Queen Elizabeth II

[Book 3,348]

By the way, the Queen is now ranked 48th on the ladder of longest-reigning monarchs:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-reigning_monarchs

 

What position do we think she will climb to before she dies?

 

48. Enough is enough

[Deathray 2,933]

By the way, the Queen is now ranked 48th on the ladder of longest-reigning monarchs:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-reigning_monarchs

 

What position do we think she will climb to before she dies?

 

Between 10 and 14, she'll want a platinum jubilee.

[Bibliogryphon 8,660]

 

By the way, the Queen is now ranked 48th on the ladder of longest-reigning monarchs:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-reigning_monarchs

 

What position do we think she will climb to before she dies?

 

Between 10 and 14, she'll want a platinum jubilee.

 

 

That list is a bit spurious as it counts almost anyone who has ruled anything.

 

I think that the Platinum Jubilee is a real possibility but whether Phil would see it is doubtful.

[gcreptile 10,234]

I guess she'd really like to beat the reign of Louis XIV. And she might want to go for the longest "independent" reign, i.e. not having a regent rule for her. Many of those long-time monarchs were children when they ascended to the throne. For example, Wikipedia says that Sobhuza's independent reign "only" lasted 61 years. I guess once the Queen becomes a centennarian, she'll consider that mission accomplished.

[Toast 14,844]

 

 

Becomes our longest reigning monarch on Wednesday. If you don't count James Stuart.

 

I wonder how much extra mileage she'll add on to it, and whether we'll see the person to break the record in our lifetimesl

Unlikely as William is already older than she was when she took the throne. It would probably take for William to die tragically young and for George to live as long as Philip for us to have any chance. The better chance will lie with George's children's generation.

 

I thought it might be interesting to extend this idea with a hypothetical timeframe:

 

The Queen is currentlly 89 and her mum lived to 101.

 

Let's assume she lives for a slightly less long time than her Mum and say she dies in six years' time at 95.

 

In 2021, when she goes, Charles will be 72. Let's assume he also has enough in his tank to reach 95, given the longevity of both his parents (assuming he doesn't abdicate at any point).

 

That takes us to the year 2044, meaning that Prince William will be 62.

 

Asssuming this run of very good luck continues and William also reaches 95 (aided by the advances in medicine we will see by then), George will take the throne in 2077 at the age of 64.

 

Assuming our boy George doesn't turn out to be like Boy George and has children of his own one day, they will presumably also be middle aged by the time they take the throne. Hence, we will really need an untimely death or a scandal to force William or George to abdicate early for a youthful monarch to take the throne again and have any chance of breaking Lizzie's record. The only other very slim possibility would be for George to have a child later in life but the pressure on him to marry and produce "an heir and a spare" early on means this is extremely unlikely too. (The variant on this would be if Prince George was gay or impotent and Charlotte had a child later in life as there would be, initially, less pressure on her to reproduce until George's problem was discovered, leading to a younger niece or nephew taking the throne.)

 

Otherwise, the pattern will just keep repeating of the next in line taking the throne sometime in their 60s or 70s, meaning Lizzie's record will remain unassailable until something calamitous happens leading to the early death or abdication of a monarch to push a younger person onto the throne.

 

 

The Queen will never abdicate, but that doesn't mean her successors will take the same view. I could easily imagine our future monarchs following the example of the Dutch and allowing the monarch to enjoy retirement.

[Deathray 2,933]

 

 

 

Becomes our longest reigning monarch on Wednesday. If you don't count James Stuart.

 

I wonder how much extra mileage she'll add on to it, and whether we'll see the person to break the record in our lifetimesl

Unlikely as William is already older than she was when she took the throne. It would probably take for William to die tragically young and for George to live as long as Philip for us to have any chance. The better chance will lie with George's children's generation.

 

I thought it might be interesting to extend this idea with a hypothetical timeframe:

 

The Queen is currentlly 89 and her mum lived to 101.

 

Let's assume she lives for a slightly less long time than her Mum and say she dies in six years' time at 95.

 

In 2021, when she goes, Charles will be 72. Let's assume he also has enough in his tank to reach 95, given the longevity of both his parents (assuming he doesn't abdicate at any point).

 

That takes us to the year 2044, meaning that Prince William will be 62.

 

Asssuming this run of very good luck continues and William also reaches 95 (aided by the advances in medicine we will see by then), George will take the throne in 2077 at the age of 64.

 

Assuming our boy George doesn't turn out to be like Boy George and has children of his own one day, they will presumably also be middle aged by the time they take the throne. Hence, we will really need an untimely death or a scandal to force William or George to abdicate early for a youthful monarch to take the throne again and have any chance of breaking Lizzie's record. The only other very slim possibility would be for George to have a child later in life but the pressure on him to marry and produce "an heir and a spare" early on means this is extremely unlikely too. (The variant on this would be if Prince George was gay or impotent and Charlotte had a child later in life as there would be, initially, less pressure on her to reproduce until George's problem was discovered, leading to a younger niece or nephew taking the throne.)

 

Otherwise, the pattern will just keep repeating of the next in line taking the throne sometime in their 60s or 70s, meaning Lizzie's record will remain unassailable until something calamitous happens leading to the early death or abdication of a monarch to push a younger person onto the throne.

 

 

The Queen will never abdicate, but that doesn't mean her successors will take the same view. I could easily imagine our future monarchs following the example of the Dutch and allowing the monarch to enjoy retirement.

 

 

Charles won't abdicate, he's waited too long to inherit the throne. William might provided George doesn't turn out to be a nutter.

[Davey Jones' Locker 1,324]

 

 

 

 

Becomes our longest reigning monarch on Wednesday. If you don't count James Stuart.

 

I wonder how much extra mileage she'll add on to it, and whether we'll see the person to break the record in our lifetimesl

Unlikely as William is already older than she was when she took the throne. It would probably take for William to die tragically young and for George to live as long as Philip for us to have any chance. The better chance will lie with George's children's generation.

 

I thought it might be interesting to extend this idea with a hypothetical timeframe:

 

The Queen is currentlly 89 and her mum lived to 101.

 

Let's assume she lives for a slightly less long time than her Mum and say she dies in six years' time at 95.

 

In 2021, when she goes, Charles will be 72. Let's assume he also has enough in his tank to reach 95, given the longevity of both his parents (assuming he doesn't abdicate at any point).

 

That takes us to the year 2044, meaning that Prince William will be 62.

 

Asssuming this run of very good luck continues and William also reaches 95 (aided by the advances in medicine we will see by then), George will take the throne in 2077 at the age of 64.

 

Assuming our boy George doesn't turn out to be like Boy George and has children of his own one day, they will presumably also be middle aged by the time they take the throne. Hence, we will really need an untimely death or a scandal to force William or George to abdicate early for a youthful monarch to take the throne again and have any chance of breaking Lizzie's record. The only other very slim possibility would be for George to have a child later in life but the pressure on him to marry and produce "an heir and a spare" early on means this is extremely unlikely too. (The variant on this would be if Prince George was gay or impotent and Charlotte had a child later in life as there would be, initially, less pressure on her to reproduce until George's problem was discovered, leading to a younger niece or nephew taking the throne.)

 

Otherwise, the pattern will just keep repeating of the next in line taking the throne sometime in their 60s or 70s, meaning Lizzie's record will remain unassailable until something calamitous happens leading to the early death or abdication of a monarch to push a younger person onto the throne.

 

 

The Queen will never abdicate, but that doesn't mean her successors will take the same view. I could easily imagine our future monarchs following the example of the Dutch and allowing the monarch to enjoy retirement.

 

 

Charles won't abdicate, he's waited too long to inherit the throne. William might provided George doesn't turn out to be a nutter.

 

Depends how much influence Uncle Harry has on him.

[Davey Jones' Locker 1,324]

 

By the way, the Queen is now ranked 48th on the ladder of longest-reigning monarchs:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-reigning_monarchs

 

What position do we think she will climb to before she dies?

 

Between 10 and 14, she'll want a platinum jubilee.

 

I am still sticking to the theory that she will throw in the towel after Prince Philip dies and depart not long after him. Therefore, I predict she will slot in at around 39 on the table, just beating Byzantine Emperor Basil II.

[RoverAndOut 3,471]

 

 

Becomes our longest reigning monarch on Wednesday. If you don't count James Stuart.

 

I wonder how much extra mileage she'll add on to it, and whether we'll see the person to break the record in our lifetimesl

Unlikely as William is already older than she was when she took the throne. It would probably take for William to die tragically young and for George to live as long as Philip for us to have any chance. The better chance will lie with George's children's generation.

 

I thought it might be interesting to extend this idea with a hypothetical timeframe:

 

The Queen is currentlly 89 and her mum lived to 101.

 

Let's assume she lives for a slightly less long time than her Mum and say she dies in six years' time at 95.

 

In 2021, when she goes, Charles will be 72. Let's assume he also has enough in his tank to reach 95, given the longevity of both his parents (assuming he doesn't abdicate at any point).

 

That takes us to the year 2044, meaning that Prince William will be 62.

 

Asssuming this run of very good luck continues and William also reaches 95 (aided by the advances in medicine we will see by then), George will take the throne in 2077 at the age of 64.

 

Assuming our boy George doesn't turn out to be like Boy George and has children of his own one day, they will presumably also be middle aged by the time they take the throne. Hence, we will really need an untimely death or a scandal to force William or George to abdicate early for a youthful monarch to take the throne again and have any chance of breaking Lizzie's record. The only other very slim possibility would be for George to have a child later in life but the pressure on him to marry and produce "an heir and a spare" early on means this is extremely unlikely too. (The variant on this would be if Prince George was gay or impotent and Charlotte had a child later in life as there would be, initially, less pressure on her to reproduce until George's problem was discovered, leading to a younger niece or nephew taking the throne.)

 

Otherwise, the pattern will just keep repeating of the next in line taking the throne sometime in their 60s or 70s, meaning Lizzie's record will remain unassailable until something calamitous happens leading to the early death or abdication of a monarch to push a younger person onto the throne.

 

 

There's no guarantees what will happen. After Victoria's record-breaking reign, Edward VII (who had been Prince of Wales for 60 years, so only a couple less than Chuck) only lasted 10 years on the throne. George V then celebrated a Silver Jubilee in 1935 but died not long after aged 70 (10 years younger than his dad). Edward VIII abdicated and George VI died in his mid 50s which brings us to Liz. Admittedly, modern medicine, cleaner living and good genes being passed down mean Charles and William both look like having good innings left in them but who can say.

 

An interesting note at this time of great record-breaking is what the situation would be if history had taken a different course: had Edward VIII not abdicated and kept his throne (aside from all the cosying up to Hitler that might have happened) he didn't die until 1972. Assuming he didn't have any children as King (just as he didn't as Duke of Windsor), then Princess Elizabeth would have remained first in line to the throne into her mid-30s and come to the throne 5 years before what in actual fact was her Silver Jubilee. Had this happened, she would now be in her 44th year on the throne and quite considerably short of Victoria's record.

 

Realistically: Elizabeth could get somewhere close to 75 years on the throne, though what state she'd be in by then is impossible to tell. Phil's got 5 years on her and is in worse health so he's got maybe 5 left in him optimistically. If she did get close to 75 years on the throne, then Charles would be pushing 80 when he came to the throne and there'd be all sorts of questions about his suitability, especially if he was to suffer some sort of ill health in the next 10 years. William would be pushing 50 by the time he became Prince of Wales and Georgie Boy would be 20-odd. 10 more years before George gets married and has a bambino and we're looking at a new heir around 2037. Regardless of when he gets the throne, lets say George, with the benefits of 21st century medicine also lives into his 90s, he would be alive past 2100, when his son/daughter would be 63 - and they haven't necessarily come to the throne yet. For the Victoria-Elizabeth pattern to repeat again, it would require George's child to come to the throne before the age of 25 and I'm not sure how that can happen unless something happens to William. Charles' health is fairly unimportant, because so-long as William's fighting fit for a while, the record won't be broken by George or likely by his child.

 

Regarding what she's set her sights on in terms of length of reign, I don't think she cares in the slightest really: she's seemed thoroughly disgruntled by all the fuss about her beating Victoria and has practically been dragged kicking and screaming by her courtiers to acknowledge it publicly.

[Davey Jones' Locker 1,324]

 

 

 

Becomes our longest reigning monarch on Wednesday. If you don't count James Stuart.

 

I wonder how much extra mileage she'll add on to it, and whether we'll see the person to break the record in our lifetimesl

Unlikely as William is already older than she was when she took the throne. It would probably take for William to die tragically young and for George to live as long as Philip for us to have any chance. The better chance will lie with George's children's generation.

 

I thought it might be interesting to extend this idea with a hypothetical timeframe:

 

The Queen is currentlly 89 and her mum lived to 101.

 

Let's assume she lives for a slightly less long time than her Mum and say she dies in six years' time at 95.

 

In 2021, when she goes, Charles will be 72. Let's assume he also has enough in his tank to reach 95, given the longevity of both his parents (assuming he doesn't abdicate at any point).

 

That takes us to the year 2044, meaning that Prince William will be 62.

 

Asssuming this run of very good luck continues and William also reaches 95 (aided by the advances in medicine we will see by then), George will take the throne in 2077 at the age of 64.

 

Assuming our boy George doesn't turn out to be like Boy George and has children of his own one day, they will presumably also be middle aged by the time they take the throne. Hence, we will really need an untimely death or a scandal to force William or George to abdicate early for a youthful monarch to take the throne again and have any chance of breaking Lizzie's record. The only other very slim possibility would be for George to have a child later in life but the pressure on him to marry and produce "an heir and a spare" early on means this is extremely unlikely too. (The variant on this would be if Prince George was gay or impotent and Charlotte had a child later in life as there would be, initially, less pressure on her to reproduce until George's problem was discovered, leading to a younger niece or nephew taking the throne.)

 

Otherwise, the pattern will just keep repeating of the next in line taking the throne sometime in their 60s or 70s, meaning Lizzie's record will remain unassailable until something calamitous happens leading to the early death or abdication of a monarch to push a younger person onto the throne.

 

 

There's no guarantees what will happen. After Victoria's record-breaking reign, Edward VII (who had been Prince of Wales for 60 years, so only a couple less than Chuck) only lasted 10 years on the throne. George V then celebrated a Silver Jubilee in 1935 but died not long after aged 70 (10 years younger than his dad). Edward VIII abdicated and George VI died in his mid 50s which brings us to Liz. Admittedly, modern medicine, cleaner living and good genes being passed down mean Charles and William both look like having good innings left in them but who can say.

Yes, that's the thing. Edward the VII lived a very hedonistic life and the two Georges were heavy smokers. By all accounts, Charles' only vice has been the odd touch of adultery. Given his focus on health and organic foods, it is likely he will stick around for a bit longer than either of them.

 

I agree with all your other points and it would have been a very interesting alternative history if Eddie VIII hadn't abdicated. Yes, William's longevity is the key to all of this.

[Deathray 2,933]

Reckon Edward VIII would have had children if he hadn't abdicated to be honest.

[Toast 14,844]

I've just been enjoying this bit of delusional fantasy.

 

http://we3.org

 

n Christmas eve, 1995, in Maryville, Tennessee U.S.A., God revealed a secret that had been hidden for sixty-one years. He gave to a woman named Elizabeth Kelman her true identity, which had been stolen from her at birth, and was never intended to be returned. Evidently, Elizabeth had been born in England in June of 1934. Her true parents were later to be known as the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.

 

 

In one of the "news articles":

 

Because of some of the subterfuge which royal power and its supporters often exercise, (Elizabeth) feels that even if DNA comparisons were made it might not be accurate because there is the expressed possibility that opposition to Wallis might have led to another body being buried in her grave in England.

 

 

Yeah, right.

[Spade_Cooley 9,022]

I'll defer to the historians on this board, but surely Edward VIII refusing to abdicate would mean either:

 

1) The UK at best remains fully neutral during WWII (which would rapidly decrease the chances of the US entering), at worst becomes a full-fledged partner of the Axis. Assuming the former, you'd have to assume that between Germany and Japan and no second front Russia would have been defeated (and thus no Eastern bloc)

2) A popular uprising against the British monarch endorsing the Nazis would see people storm the palace in 1940 and the UK becoming a republic, possibly led by someone like Baron Keyes as an interim dictator.

[Bibliogryphon 8,660]

Reckon Edward VIII would have had children if he hadn't abdicated to be honest.

 

Wallis was nearly 40 when Edward abdicated she had not had children with her two earlier husbands.

 

The important thing to note that if Edward had not abdicated and other events had taken their course when George VI died in 1952 Elaizabeth would not have been the heir presumptive as the daughter of a brother the throne would have passed to Richard, Duke of Gloucester but he died in an air crash which would have restored Elizabeth to the throne but much later than actually happend.

[Toast 14,844]

 

Reckon Edward VIII would have had children if he hadn't abdicated to be honest.

 

Wallis was nearly 40 when Edward abdicated she had not had children with her two earlier husbands.

 

The important thing to note that if Edward had not abdicated and other events had taken their course when George VI died in 1952 Elaizabeth would not have been the heir presumptive as the daughter of a brother the throne would have passed to Richard, Duke of Gloucester but he died in an air crash which would have restored Elizabeth to the throne but much later than actually happend.

 

 

No that's not correct. Elizabeth would not have lost her place if her father had predeceased Edward.

And it was the Duke of Kent who was killed in the air crash, not the Duke of Gloucester.

 

The current line of succession

 

1. The Prince of Wales

2. The Duke of Cambridge

3. Prince George of Cambridge

4. Princess Charlotte of Cambridge

5. Prince Henry of Wales

6. The Duke of York

7. Princess Beatrice of York

8. Princess Eugenie of York

9. The Earl of Wessex

10. Viscount Severn

11. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor

12. The Princess Royal

13. Mr. Peter Phillips

14. Miss Savannah Phillips

15. Miss Isla Phillips

16. Mrs. Michael Tindall

 

Note that Prince Andrew's daughters are before Prince Edward. If Andrew had died, that wouldn't have changed. The death of anyone has never bumped their children downwards

[Cat O'Falk 3,287]

 

Elizabeth would not have lost her place if her father had predeceased Edward.

And it was the Duke of Kent who was killed in the air crash, not the Duke of Gloucester.

 

It was Prince William Duke of Gloucester (William of Gloucester) who died in a plane crash. His plane was registered G-AWOG - a registration the CAA wasn't going to issue because of the last three letters but relented when pressured.

[Toast 14,844]

 

 

Elizabeth would not have lost her place if her father had predeceased Edward.

And it was the Duke of Kent who was killed in the air crash, not the Duke of Gloucester.

 

It was Prince William Duke of Gloucester (William of Gloucester) who died in a plane crash. His plane was registered G-AWOG - a registration the CAA wasn't going to issue because of the last three letters but relented when pressured.

 

 

I assumed that Bibliogryphon had confused Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester with Prince George, Duke of Kent. They were the Queen's uncles, the younger brothers of Edward VIII and George VI. The Duke of Kent was killed in a plane crash in 1942.

 

Prince William of Gloucester was the son of Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, and as you say was also killed in a plane crash, in 1972. He was never the Duke though, as his father did not die until 1974.

[Cat O'Falk 3,287]

 

 

 

Elizabeth would not have lost her place if her father had predeceased Edward.

And it was the Duke of Kent who was killed in the air crash, not the Duke of Gloucester.

 

It was Prince William Duke of Gloucester (William of Gloucester) who died in a plane crash. His plane was registered G-AWOG - a registration the CAA wasn't going to issue because of the last three letters but relented when pressured.

 

 

I assumed that Bibliogryphon had confused Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester with Prince George, Duke of Kent. They were the Queen's uncles, the younger brothers of Edward VIII and George VI. The Duke of Kent was killed in a plane crash in 1942.

 

Prince William of Gloucester was the son of Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, and as you say was also killed in a plane crash, in 1972. He was never the Duke though, as his father did not die until 1974.

 

I bow to your superior knowledge, Toastie. I could have sworn Richard got it from William when the latter croaked it but hey, I'm getting on a bit now and you know what that does to the Falk mind.

[Toast 14,844]

 

 

 

 

Elizabeth would not have lost her place if her father had predeceased Edward.

And it was the Duke of Kent who was killed in the air crash, not the Duke of Gloucester.

 

It was Prince William Duke of Gloucester (William of Gloucester) who died in a plane crash. His plane was registered G-AWOG - a registration the CAA wasn't going to issue because of the last three letters but relented when pressured.

 

 

I assumed that Bibliogryphon had confused Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester with Prince George, Duke of Kent. They were the Queen's uncles, the younger brothers of Edward VIII and George VI. The Duke of Kent was killed in a plane crash in 1942.

 

Prince William of Gloucester was the son of Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, and as you say was also killed in a plane crash, in 1972. He was never the Duke though, as his father did not die until 1974.

 

I bow to your superior knowledge, Toastie. I could have sworn Richard got it from William when the latter croaked it but hey, I'm getting on a bit now and you know what that does to the Falk mind.

 

 

I blame my mum, she followed the Royals avidly and went on about such things rather a lot. I seem to have absorbed a lot of her knowledge like a sponge. I remember she was very upset when William of Gloucester bought it, she had a bit of a thing about him.

[themaninblack 2,112]

 

 

By the way, the Queen is now ranked 48th on the ladder of longest-reigning monarchs:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-reigning_monarchs

 

What position do we think she will climb to before she dies?

 

Between 10 and 14, she'll want a platinum jubilee.

 

I am still sticking to the theory that she will throw in the towel after Prince Philip dies and depart not long after him. Therefore, I predict she will slot in at around 39 on the table, just beating Byzantine Emperor Basil II.

 

 

I had no idea...

 

[Bibliogryphon 8,660]

 

 

 

 

 

Elizabeth would not have lost her place if her father had predeceased Edward.

And it was the Duke of Kent who was killed in the air crash, not the Duke of Gloucester.

 

It was Prince William Duke of Gloucester (William of Gloucester) who died in a plane crash. His plane was registered G-AWOG - a registration the CAA wasn't going to issue because of the last three letters but relented when pressured.

 

 

I assumed that Bibliogryphon had confused Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester with Prince George, Duke of Kent. They were the Queen's uncles, the younger brothers of Edward VIII and George VI. The Duke of Kent was killed in a plane crash in 1942.

 

Prince William of Gloucester was the son of Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, and as you say was also killed in a plane crash, in 1972. He was never the Duke though, as his father did not die until 1974.

 

I bow to your superior knowledge, Toastie. I could have sworn Richard got it from William when the latter croaked it but hey, I'm getting on a bit now and you know what that does to the Falk mind.

 

 

I blame my mum, she followed the Royals avidly and went on about such things rather a lot. I seem to have absorbed a lot of her knowledge like a sponge. I remember she was very upset when William of Gloucester bought it, she had a bit of a thing about him.

 

 

I was going off the top of my head earlier but I remember reading something about The Duke of Gloucester. The article suggested that The DoG would have taken precedent as a male brother over a female niece and because Prince William died as heir apparent the throne would have gone to back to Elizabeth.

 

Until the law was changed a few years ago I had assumed that if Prince Andrew had died Prince Edward and Viscount Seven would have taken precedence over Beatrice and Eugenie.

 

We need a constitutional expert. do we think Dr David Starkey posts on this site?

[Toast 14,844]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Elizabeth would not have lost her place if her father had predeceased Edward.

And it was the Duke of Kent who was killed in the air crash, not the Duke of Gloucester.

 

It was Prince William Duke of Gloucester (William of Gloucester) who died in a plane crash. His plane was registered G-AWOG - a registration the CAA wasn't going to issue because of the last three letters but relented when pressured.

 

 

I assumed that Bibliogryphon had confused Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester with Prince George, Duke of Kent. They were the Queen's uncles, the younger brothers of Edward VIII and George VI. The Duke of Kent was killed in a plane crash in 1942.

 

Prince William of Gloucester was the son of Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, and as you say was also killed in a plane crash, in 1972. He was never the Duke though, as his father did not die until 1974.

 

I bow to your superior knowledge, Toastie. I could have sworn Richard got it from William when the latter croaked it but hey, I'm getting on a bit now and you know what that does to the Falk mind.

 

 

I blame my mum, she followed the Royals avidly and went on about such things rather a lot. I seem to have absorbed a lot of her knowledge like a sponge. I remember she was very upset when William of Gloucester bought it, she had a bit of a thing about him.

 

 

I was going off the top of my head earlier but I remember reading something about The Duke of Gloucester. The article suggested that The DoG would have taken precedent as a male brother over a female niece and because Prince William died as heir apparent the throne would have gone to back to Elizabeth.

 

Until the law was changed a few years ago I had assumed that if Prince Andrew had died Prince Edward and Viscount Seven would have taken precedence over Beatrice and Eugenie.

 

We need a constitutional expert. do we think Dr David Starkey posts on this site?

 

 

I think the Duke of Gloucester would have been Regent if Elizabeth had come to the throne as a minor. Maybe that was it.

 

But no, the law has never excluded females in the way that you suggest, not in modern times anyway. Until the recent change, daughters of the monarch had to go to the back of the queue behind their brothers, but once someone was heir apparent it was a fresh start with their family. So Elizabeth could only have been displaced by her own younger brother. Not by an uncle or male cousin. If she had died without issue, Princess Margaret would have been next in line, then her son David Linley.

 

Put another way - the line of succession stays in the same branch of the family. It only skips to another branch when there is nobody left.

[RoverAndOut 3,471]

 

Reckon Edward VIII would have had children if he hadn't abdicated to be honest.

 

Wallis was nearly 40 when Edward abdicated she had not had children with her two earlier husbands.

 

The important thing to note that if Edward had not abdicated and other events had taken their course when George VI died in 1952 Elaizabeth would not have been the heir presumptive as the daughter of a brother the throne would have passed to Richard, Duke of Gloucester but he died in an air crash which would have restored Elizabeth to the throne but much later than actually happend.

 

 

Yes, my thinking was that Wallis was probably past it. Not to mention the spurious rumours (that I'm sure are easily disprovable) that Wallis was not....all woman. But regarding the other points, as has been said several times in different ways, my understanding was that you can't move around once in the order of succession, just move down if new people enter above you. But on this point, since I'm feeling mischievous, anybody know if Prince Andrew married a dollybird and got her up the duff whether that child would enter above Beatrice and Eugenie or not? I assume any new children of his would be subject to the new anti-primogeniture law?

 

I'll defer to the historians on this board, but surely Edward VIII refusing to abdicate would mean either:

 

1) The UK at best remains fully neutral during WWII (which would rapidly decrease the chances of the US entering), at worst becomes a full-fledged partner of the Axis. Assuming the former, you'd have to assume that between Germany and Japan and no second front Russia would have been defeated (and thus no Eastern bloc)

2) A popular uprising against the British monarch endorsing the Nazis would see people storm the palace in 1940 and the UK becoming a republic, possibly led by someone like Baron Keyes as an interim dictator.

 

One of those 'what if' questions eh? Well, there are various possibilities of course. With Edward still on the throne, it would all depend on what view he took and to what view the King in the 1940s was still able to make command decisions. If Edward had still insisted on going to Germany (as he did in 1937 against government advice) and remained on friendly terms with Hitler and co, then undoubtedly people would have been uncomfortable. The Germans clearly saw him as an ally and said that his abdication was a huge blow to the Nazi efforts at a peaceful relationship with Britain. The government were very suspicious of Hitler and of Edward's relationships with Nazis but whether they'd have been brave enough to consider treason then I'm not sure.

 

That said, there are examples in other countries of revolutions not looking to get rid of the monarchy, just the monarch. And Britain has always been abit iffy about removing the monarchy altogether. So perhaps the solution would have been a coup to remove the King and replace him with his far more upstanding and far more wholesome family-man brother Prince Albert, Duke of York. In other words, maybe our history would have a colourful chapter where the King was deposed by force but after that, history remains pretty similar: Prince Albert becomes George VI, Britain enters the war against Hitler, the war ends with the Allies victorious, the now-Prince Edward, having been exiled to the Bahamas for the course of the war, would then be allowed to live his life in exile in France (if the new French republic would take a former Nazi-supporting King). Simplistic to say, because you could argue that a lack of militarisation in the run-up to war caused by having a Nazi King may leave us more vulnerable during the Battle of Britain etc, and if the Nazis had successfully invaded, they'd have installed Edward as a puppet King anyway, but I suppose it's take what you choose to take from the endless possibilities.

[Toast 14,844]

But on this point, since I'm feeling mischievous, anybody know if Prince Andrew married a dollybird and got her up the duff whether that child would enter above Beatrice and Eugenie or not? I assume any new children of his would be subject to the new anti-primogeniture law?

If Andrew had another legitimate child, he or she would come into the line of succession after Beatrice and Eugenie. Edward, Anne and their families would all be bumped down one place.

Before the recent legislation, a boy would have been placed before Beatrice and bumped both girls down a place, and a girl would have come after them.

 

[DevonDeathTrip 2,288]

Royal Family/North Korea mash-up.