Change of Accession

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:07 pm

The recent change of accession, so that a girl born of Kate and William is next in line, so cutting out Harry ?

Is this confirming the scurrilous rumours that have been going around for years ?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:19 pm

Bruv;1411884 wrote: The recent change of accession, so that a girl born of Kate and William is next in line, so cutting out Harry ?

Is this confirming the scurrilous rumours that have been going around for years ?

Not at all.

The change of law so female offspring can Inherit the throne has been an Issue debated long before Harry was born.

The government will soon introduce the Succession to the Crown Bill, which will make our old-fashioned rules fit for the 21st century. Cameron Is also debating gay marraige by the church.... It's just a sign of the times.

If Charles was to die and something happened to Wills and the baby, Harry would still then Inherit the throne....

If Kate Middleton Has a Girl, Then Yes, She Can Inherit the Throne - The Daily Beast

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:33 pm

oscar;1411886 wrote: Not at all.

The change of law so female offspring can Inherit the throne has been an Issue debated long before Harry was born.

Sorry not convinced.

Been spoken about for years, rushed through as the pregnancy is announced, cannot be a coincidence............can it ?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:35 pm

Bruv;1411888 wrote: Sorry not convinced.

Been spoken about for years, rushed through as the pregnancy is announced, cannot be a coincidence............can it ? So what are you saying ?

Come on

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:40 pm

So, if this law was not passed, who would theoretically succeed Charles, at his demise (assuming William and Kate only had female children)?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:46 pm

LarsMac;1411891 wrote: So, if this law was not passed, who would theoretically succeed Charles, at his demise (assuming William and Kate only had female children)?

Charles Inherits after the Queen. 2nd In line Is William, then 3rd after William Is Harry... as It stands now.

After the change In law, Charles 1st after the Queen, William after Charles and then 3rd, William's first offspring.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:53 pm

LarsMac;1411891 wrote: So, if this law was not passed, who would theoretically succeed Charles, at his demise (assuming William and Kate only had female children)?

They have affectively sidelined Harry.......who's parentage has been subject to humourous conjecture.......allegedly

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:57 pm

Bruv;1411898 wrote: They have affectively sidelined Harry.......who's parentage has been subject to humourous conjecture.......allegedly

If you look at Harry and then look at Princess Diana's cousins, the offspring of her sister, Lady Jane Fellows and Earl Spencer, Harry and them are very similar and you can see the likeness.... but the press never want you to see that.... questioning his parentage sells more newspapers.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 4:03 pm

No comment

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 4:12 pm

No comment

Attached files

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 4:20 pm

That's wicked

along-for-the-ride · Post by **along-for-the-ride** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 4:59 pm

"The heir and the spare"

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Dec 08, 2012 3:59 am

Bruv;1411888 wrote: Sorry not convinced.

Been spoken about for years, rushed through as the pregnancy is announced, cannot be a coincidence............can it ?

Of course it's not a coincidence the matter has gone from something we should really do something about to we have nine months or less to sort it.

posted by larsmac

So, if this law was not passed, who would theoretically succeed Charles, at his demise (assuming William and Kate only had female children)?

The eldest female child of william would become queen - as did the current incumbent on the throne. As indeed did the first queen elizabeth - had she married her husband would have become king and she would have been forced in to a subsidiary role which is why she never married The current queen would have had to do the same formerly but philip is her consort not the king and let's not forget queen Victoria who also had a consort albert was never king. Boudicca rose in rebellion because the romans did not recognise her right to rule.

Harry could only become king if William dies without issue.

The UK actually has a tradition of strong female rulers the salic law prohibiting inheritance through the female line is a foreign import - franco german as it happens.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:41 am

Bruv;1411898 wrote: They have affectively sidelined Harry.......who's parentage has been subject to humourous conjecture.......allegedly

Well, it seems Harry is sidelined, unless William does not produce an heir, anyway.

not really much of a change.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:46 am

oscar;1411906 wrote: No comment
Hilarious! :yh_rotfl

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:51 am

Doesn't Charles have siblings?

Post by **Peter Lake** » Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:00 am

LarsMac;1411948 wrote: Doesn't Charles have siblings? He does but they come under the banner of "drain on the British tax payer".

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:26 am

Peter Lake;1411950 wrote: He does but they come under the banner of "drain on the British tax payer".

So, obviously, they have been sidelined in the whole accession discussion as well.

Harry is in good company.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:11 pm

LarsMac;1411948 wrote: Doesn't Charles have siblings?

He does but as the eldest son he inherits and his children after him. Primogeniture is a well established legal principle - it is the right, by law or custom, of the first-born to inherit the entire estate, to the exclusion of younger siblings it also excluded females. In the absence of any male children, inheritance passed to collateral relatives. If you've ever seen pride and prejudice the problem the bennets had was that with no male heir the property would pass to a male cousin - Women could not inherit or own property.

It's not simply being sidelined the intention was to make clear who inherited or became king and prevent civil wars.

Salic Law

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think your founding fathers started out not allowing primogeniture which is why you may find the debate about inheritance through the female line rather quaint.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Dec 08, 2012 3:53 pm

gmc;1411982 wrote: He does but as the eldest son he inherits and his children after him. Primogeniture is a well established legal principle - it is the right, by law or custom, of the first-born to inherit the entire estate, to the exclusion of younger siblings it also excluded females. In the absence of any male children, inheritance passed to collateral relatives. If you've ever seen pride and prejudice the problem the bennets had was that with no male heir the property would pass to a male cousin - Women could not inherit or own property.

It's not simply being sidelined the intention was to make clear who inherited or became king and prevent civil wars.

Salic Law

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think your founding fathers started out not allowing primogeniture which is why you may find the debate about inheritance through the female line rather quaint.

Yes, there was a faction here who wanted to declare George Washington King, and begin our own line of royalty.

I am sure that one argument against it was that none of the Monarchies of the Old World would have given George much credit as his lineage would have come to question rather quickly.

But, on the whole it was a bad idea whose time was short.

But, yes, I understand the process and have studied up on the European monarchy a bit.

My main comment was just towards the notion that Harry was somehow short-changed by the new law.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:08 pm

LarsMac;1411996 wrote:

My main comment was just towards the notion that Harry was somehow short-changed by the new law.

They can now graft saplings on their familiy tree.

And the lineage need no longer be through thoroughbred seed stock, any old random seed can do, the male bloodline which was paramount since time begun ceases forthwith.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:10 pm

Bruv;1412000 wrote: They can now graft saplings on their familiy tree.

And the lineage need no longer be through thoroughbred seed stock, any old random seed can do, the male bloodline which was paramount since time begun ceases forthwith.

Thank Goodness the gene pool has been thinned out. Scraping the bottom of the Royal gene pool means future heirs end up talking to plants.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:13 pm

Bruv;1412000 wrote: They can now graft saplings on their familiy tree.

And the lineage need no longer be through thoroughbred seed stock, any old random seed can do, the male bloodline which was paramount since time begun ceases forthwith.

Well, I reckon there will be some care to find proper seed stock.

I don't see them just dragging any old tom, Dick or Harry off the street.

Science has shown that the mitochondrial DNA from the mother's line might be far more important than the male contribution in the long run, anyway.

So soon the British Monarchy will be more of a "matriachy"?

Something from Frank Herbert comes to mind.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:17 pm

oscar;1412002 wrote: Thank Goodness the gene pool has been thinned out. Scraping the bottom of the Royal gene pool means future heirs end up talking to plants.

Not yet as far as I know it hasn't. I thought the Royals were traceable way back.

I am not agreeing with the system only that this new adaptation goes against the basic principle of the Royal line running through the male bloodline.

When Kate has her Princess Kylie, it will soon be Queen Kylie impregnated by any tom dick or harry......the opening thread wondered what prompted this about face ?

It's not women's rights.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:19 pm

LarsMac;1412003 wrote: Well, I reckon there will be some care to find proper seed stock.

I don't see them just dragging any old tom, Dick or Harry off the street.

Science has shown that the mitochondrial DNA from the mother's line might be far more important than the male contribution in the long run, anyway.

So soon the British Monarchy will be more of a "matriachy"?

Something from Frank Herbert comes to mind.

Funny that tom dick and harry bit.......great minds and stuff?

Our posts crossed but I think I covered everything

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:33 pm

Bruv;1412006 wrote: Funny that tom dick and harry bit.......great minds and stuff?

Our posts crossed but I think I covered everything Does Lars know that In Britain, a ' Tom' Is a prostitute ?

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:11 pm

:-2 :-3 Actually, no. That was news to Lars.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:36 pm

LarsMac;1412011 wrote: :-2 :-3 Actually, no. That was news to Lars.

News to me too!

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:44 pm

Bryn Mawr;1412143 wrote: News to me too!

Slags and toms, me old china.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:57 pm

oscar;1412153 wrote: Slags and toms, me old china.

"Tom" meaning a prostitute is a slang term used in London UK, and, if TV shows are to be believed, its usage is particularly prevalent in the Police Force.

I never believe TV shows and I've never heard it used in all the years I've lived and worked in London.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:59 pm

Bryn Mawr;1412168 wrote: I never believe TV shows and I've never heard it used in all the years I've lived and worked in London.

I have.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 5:01 pm

I recognise it as such, as it happens.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:12 am

oscar;1412009 wrote: Does Lars know that In Britain, a ' Tom' Is a prostitute ?

In America a 'Tom' is A Turkey. Oh right same thing..

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:16 pm

oscar;1412009 wrote: Does Lars know that In Britain, a ' Tom' Is a prostitute ?

What about dick and harry? I hate to hink.

Post by **Peter Lake** » Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:34 pm

gmc;1412430 wrote: What about dick and harry? I hate to hink.
Harry means heroin

Heroin Slang Names | Reference.com Answers

Dick is army for penis

Online Etymology Dictionary

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:48 pm

Bryn Mawr;1412168 wrote: I never believe TV shows and I've never heard it used in all the years I've lived and worked in London.

I've heard the term often. It must be the company I keep

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:10 pm

Snowfire;1412439 wrote: I've heard the term often. It must be the company I keep

Hm! I must get out more