I'd be rather surprised if anyone is still reading this blog after my lengthy absence, though there's nothing to stop people re-reading my posts.
Anyway, it is rare indeed that we come across news that is at one and the same time awesome and exciting. I am referring of course to the latest addition to the Royal Family. Over here in France, people often ask me to explain the rules of succession. They go like this:
If anything were to happen to Her Majesty, her son Prince Charles would accede or ascend to the throne. If Charles were in a manner of speaking to pass away then Prince William, the present Duke of Cambridge, would get his chance. If he, too, were to be run over by the proverbial Clapham omnibus, then his son Nathan (code name 'George') would have next crack at the job.
But supposing there was an intimate family gathering which effectively wiped out the leading contenders? This is what Wikipedia has to say on the matter:
Anyway, it is rare indeed that we come across news that is at one and the same time awesome and exciting. I am referring of course to the latest addition to the Royal Family. Over here in France, people often ask me to explain the rules of succession. They go like this:
If anything were to happen to Her Majesty, her son Prince Charles would accede or ascend to the throne. If Charles were in a manner of speaking to pass away then Prince William, the present Duke of Cambridge, would get his chance. If he, too, were to be run over by the proverbial Clapham omnibus, then his son Nathan (code name 'George') would have next crack at the job.
But supposing there was an intimate family gathering which effectively wiped out the leading contenders? This is what Wikipedia has to say on the matter:
The first 18 individuals in the line of succession are all descended from Queen Elizabeth II:[
.jpg)
- Charles, Prince of Wales (b 1948), eldest son of Queen Elizabeth II
- Prince William, Duke of Cambridge (b 1982), elder son of Charles, Prince of Wales
- Prince George of Cambridge (b 2013), son of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge
- Prince Henry of Wales (b 1984), younger son of Charles, Prince of Wales
- Prince Andrew, Duke of York (b 1960), second son of Queen Elizabeth II
- Princess Beatrice of York (b 1988), elder daughter of Prince Andrew, Duke of York
- Princess Eugenie of York (b 1990), younger daughter of Prince Andrew, Duke of York
- Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex (b 1964), youngest son of Queen Elizabeth II
- James, Viscount Severn (b 2007), son of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex
- Lady Louise Windsor (b 2003), daughter of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex
- Anne, Princess Royal (b 1950), daughter of Queen Elizabeth II
- Peter Phillips (b 1977), son of Anne, Princess Royal
- Savannah Phillips (b 2010), daughter of Peter Phillips
- Isla Phillips (b 2012), daughter of Peter Phillips
- Zara Phillips (b 1981), daughter of Anne, Princess Royal
- Lady Jane Grey
- P.J. Proby
- The Everly Brothers
Interesting, but supposing there was an extended family meeting in which these and others were mown down, what would be required before Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, could assume his rightful place on the throne?
Code name 'George': +1.
ReplyDeleteThe carnage would need to be pretty damn substantial and very international for this to happen.
ReplyDeleteAs this is a public blog I would rather not name names................but you recall a good friend and client of mine at whose house in Vence you have troughed a couple of times? Well..........he is further up the list than Philip.
If that IS a Beaumont Union tie, with all that implies, isn't Prince Charles ruled out of the succession?
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested to know who would be Regent if all but Prince George were to "disappear". That could well be Prince Philip's big chance.
It would have been unthinkable to write or speak in such irreverent terms about the Monarchy 50 years ago, though curiously enough in the 18th and early 19th centuries an admittedly smaller section of the population was probably more outspoken than we are today. Our submissive attitude to the Royal Family when I was growing up in the 'fifties was, I feel, the result of a combination of World War 11 and two manifestly decent monarchs, George VI and Elizabeth II. Since then, a variety of factors have helped to ensure that we look upon most members of the Royal Family as nothing more or less than a branch of the celebrity industry.
ReplyDeleteDoes the Major not recall the carnage in Nepal? It happens .....
ReplyDeleteProbably not here, though, because I don't believe most people care enough to get whipped up into a frenzy. All this current fawning is entirely press-led and though the majority of the population must be happy to welcome a new baby into the world I doubt if the feelings run much deeper than that.
Some of those cartoons dating from the time of George IV are quite shocking to our 21st century eyes, though.