Andrew, (I think)

For General Chat about anything and everything.

Will anyone Believe Andrew?

Poll ended at Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:32 pm

1. Who is he
0
No votes
2 Do I care.
5
63%
3.I am bored now.
3
38%
 
Total votes: 8

Lighthouse
Posts: 7284
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2014 8:31 pm

Re: Andrew, (I think)

Post by Lighthouse »

:shock: NO! :D

User avatar
aardvaark
Posts: 1764
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Andrew, (I think)

Post by aardvaark »

Yes, I agree with HER! :whathesaid:

NO!
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Attr. Edmund Burke

http://www.aardisden.co.uk/

User avatar
aardvaark
Posts: 1764
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Andrew, (I think)

Post by aardvaark »

Anya wrote:Sky - Her Maj has been the most dutiful monarch, within her perceptions. At least she had some of her own childhood away from the glare of the great unwashed, with no life of their own.
Anya. Do you consider yourself one of 'the great unwashed' you keep thrusting in our faces?
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Attr. Edmund Burke

http://www.aardisden.co.uk/

laurie 53
Posts: 2266
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 7:31 am
Location: Kingdom of Fife

Re: Andrew, (I think)

Post by laurie 53 »

Lighthouse wrote:
laurie 53 wrote:But that isn't the case - the line is fixed and Andrew is 8th now.

But it is. As you say, the line is fixed.
So why is Andrew currently 8th in the line of succession and not 2nd?
Because Charles is Heir Apparent and William is Heir Presumptive, in other words, if nothing changes he will succeed. George is also an Heir Presumptive.

The Queen was Heir Presumptive until the day she acceded , because, however unlikely, a male heir could have been born.

The confusion is caused by sloppy, unchallenged, reporting.

Lighthouse
Posts: 7284
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2014 8:31 pm

Re: Andrew, (I think)

Post by Lighthouse »

But you didn't answer the question.

If Charles died, the current line of succession has Andrew in 8th position.

If he's next in line as of today, why isn't he second?

laurie 53
Posts: 2266
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 7:31 am
Location: Kingdom of Fife

Re: Andrew, (I think)

Post by laurie 53 »

Lighthouse wrote:But you didn't answer the question.

If Charles died, the current line of succession has Andrew in 8th position.

If he's next in line as of today, why isn't he second?
Because, following the normal line of succession he isn't.

Only if circumstances change will this change, but change it will.

Lighthouse
Posts: 7284
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2014 8:31 pm

Re: Andrew, (I think)

Post by Lighthouse »

There is only one line of succession. You can look it up.

As of today, Andrew is 8th and William is 2nd. If Charles died today, it passes to William.

If it would be Andrew, then Andrew would be 2nd today. He isn't.

Fortunately! :)

Skyrunner
Site Admin
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 4:27 pm
Location: The Surrey Hills
Contact:

Re: Andrew, (I think)

Post by Skyrunner »

The line of succession comes from the Queen, not Charles. If he snuffs it before she does, it's still with her, and will pass to her next eldest son, breaking the current line. Succession is the immediate descendant. It cannot skip a generation.
Image Don't stop doing things because you are getting old.... as you will only get old if you stop doing things.

Lighthouse
Posts: 7284
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2014 8:31 pm

Re: Andrew, (I think)

Post by Lighthouse »

Hmmmm but the line of succession as it stands today, is based on the current state of play with Charles not yet King...so why isn't Andrew second in line. With Anne and Edward coming next?

Anya
Posts: 3526
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 6:34 am

Re: Andrew, (I think)

Post by Anya »

// Do you consider yourself one of 'the great unwashed' you keep thrusting in our faces? //

People who seem to exist by proxy only, gawping at every singer, filum 'star', telly 'personality', vague royalty .... anything on a screen or a magazine. Forgivable perhaps at age fifteen. Unforgivable at age thirty.

A washed me face an' 'ands afore a came.
:smiles:

Skyrunner
Site Admin
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 4:27 pm
Location: The Surrey Hills
Contact:

Re: Andrew, (I think)

Post by Skyrunner »

Lighthouse wrote:Hmmmm but the line of succession as it stands today, is based on the current state of play with Charles not yet King...so why isn't Andrew second in line. With Anne and Edward coming next?
Because Charles is alive. And when he becomes king, he can then pass it to his direct successor which is Wills. But if Wills dies before Charles, it goes to Harry. Not George.
Image Don't stop doing things because you are getting old.... as you will only get old if you stop doing things.

laurie 53
Posts: 2266
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 7:31 am
Location: Kingdom of Fife

Re: Andrew, (I think)

Post by laurie 53 »

Skyrunner wrote:
Lighthouse wrote:Hmmmm but the line of succession as it stands today, is based on the current state of play with Charles not yet King...so why isn't Andrew second in line. With Anne and Edward coming next?
Because Charles is alive. And when he becomes king, he can then pass it to his direct successor which is Wills. But if Wills dies before Charles, it goes to Harry. Not George.

Exactly so, Sky.

The operative words are "the line of succession as it stands".

If William dies before Harry, then Harry will become heir, not George.

Lighthouse
Posts: 7284
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2014 8:31 pm

Re: Andrew, (I think)

Post by Lighthouse »

The line of succession as it stands today is the only one there is. There aren't alternatives depending on Charles being alive or not.

If what you say is correct, the line would be Charles, Andrew, Edward, Anne, then William...

But it's not that. It's Charles, William, George, Charlotte, Louis...

Even Archie is ahead of Andrew, because the line passes down through the eldest child, then their eldest and so on, under the principle of primogeniture. When William was born, Andrew was pushed down the line...he has dropped further since with other births, to eighth place. He isn't hovering like a spectral second in case his elder brother dies. William is the one groomed for that. He's the eldest child.

Plenty of articles discussing this, none refuting it. The line speaks for itself though.

https://www.ibtimes.com/what-happens-if ... th-2767975

laurie 53
Posts: 2266
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 7:31 am
Location: Kingdom of Fife

Re: Andrew, (I think)

Post by laurie 53 »

None so blind as those who won't see!

Skyrunner
Site Admin
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 4:27 pm
Location: The Surrey Hills
Contact:

Re: Andrew, (I think)

Post by Skyrunner »

Primogeniture is eldest CHILD - not grandchild. So if Charlie dies first, the Queen's eldest child is then Andrew.

That would change the line completely.

Thankfully, Charles seems quite healthy.....
Image Don't stop doing things because you are getting old.... as you will only get old if you stop doing things.

User avatar
John o Wirral
Posts: 443
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:36 pm

Re: Andrew, (I think)

Post by John o Wirral »

Does that mean. Charles couldn't abdicate in favour of William?

The foregoing tells me he could, but it's above my pay grade.

king edward
Posts: 2255
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 6:46 am
Location: Mid Devon

Re: Andrew, (I think)

Post by king edward »

That is wrong. If Charles dies first, William becomes the heir and so on. Short of a Kind Hearts and Coronets type scenario no way will the disgraced duke become king.
“All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.”

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

Lighthouse
Posts: 7284
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2014 8:31 pm

Re: Andrew, (I think)

Post by Lighthouse »

John o Wirral wrote:Does that mean. Charles couldn't abdicate in favour of William?

The foregoing tells me he could, but it's above my pay grade.
He could technically abdicate in favour of William (not Andrew!) but I would guess it's unthinkable to him unless he was seriously incapacitated.

Lighthouse
Posts: 7284
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2014 8:31 pm

Re: Andrew, (I think)

Post by Lighthouse »

Skyrunner wrote:Primogeniture is eldest CHILD - not grandchild. So if Charlie dies first, the Queen's eldest child is then Andrew.

That would change the line completely.

Thankfully, Charles seems quite healthy.....
Charles is the eldest child, whether he is alive or not. That happened at birth. Andrew will always be the second child.

Primogeniture means the eldest child of Charles inherits (William), in preference to his younger brother Andrew.

Then the firstborn of that person. George.

That's the line of succession today. Charles, William, George. The line goes down through Charles.

laurie 53
Posts: 2266
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 7:31 am
Location: Kingdom of Fife

Re: Andrew, (I think)

Post by laurie 53 »

unlike the Dutch, where it is a normal method of succession, our constitution, though unwritten, does not support routine abdication. The last time it happened it nearly brought the monarchy down, and would have done had the Windsors had issue (and without the character and charm of Elizabeth of Glamis).

Even where the monarch is patently unfit to rule, we appoint Regent.

tuesdays child
Posts: 808
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 10:46 am

Re: Andrew, (I think)

Post by tuesdays child »

Sorry to have to resort to Wiki, but someone has decided how it goes!

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

laurie 53
Posts: 2266
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 7:31 am
Location: Kingdom of Fife

Re: Andrew, (I think)

Post by laurie 53 »

Unable to read your link, but Wiki is not a definite source.

It is written by people like us. Anyone can contribute to Wiki, In fact I am actually a contributor to Wiki on such diverse subjects as Welsh rarebit and WWII air weapons!

I could just as easily contribute on the Constitution.

Anya
Posts: 3526
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 6:34 am

Re: Andrew, (I think)

Post by Anya »

All these endless arguments about who must be forced into a position for life, from the moment they are born. Whether or not they want it. Whether or not they are suited to it.

EVERY OTHER human being has the 'right' of choice. But the monarch must be a slave. And for what?

So that people, with no lives of their own, can gawp at artificial figures, on screens and magazines? Stale, left over, fairy tales of palaces, kings, queens, princesses.

king edward
Posts: 2255
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 6:46 am
Location: Mid Devon

Re: Andrew, (I think)

Post by king edward »

Anya wrote:All these endless arguments about who must be forced into a position for life, from the moment they are born. Whether or not they want it. Whether or not they are suited to it.

EVERY OTHER human being has the 'right' of choice. But the monarch must be a slave. And for what?

So that people, with no lives of their own, can gawp at artificial figures, on screens and magazines? Stale, left over, fairy tales of palaces, kings, queens, princesses.
The queen is deeply strange anyway. What other adult human has taken exactly the same Summer and Winter holidays for the past 60+ years with no variation or novelty whatsoever?
“All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.”

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

laurie 53
Posts: 2266
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 7:31 am
Location: Kingdom of Fife

Re: Andrew, (I think)

Post by laurie 53 »

EVERY OTHER human being has the 'right' of choice

Dream on!

Post Reply