Thoughts on Monarchism?

[SanAndreasX]

Wman1996 said:

SanAndreasX said:

Also unfair on their relatives, especially the younger siblings of the heir apparent. Harry gets a lot of crap for not wanting to be a working royal. Meghan likewise gets a lot of crap for allegedly pressuring Harry out of the royal family. Once George was born, Harry had only slightly better odds of being the King than I do, which are mathematically insignificant. He's fourth in line behind his nephews and niece. Once George marries and has kids, not only are Harry and his issue pretty much a non-issue in the order of succession, but Archie and Lilibet are out as well.  What incentive does Harry have to take part in the royal family?

I think the British line of succession (and similar ones) are pretty stupid. Why do the children of a first-born child get preference over the second-born child and such. Why are William's kids heirs before Harry?

Zazu: As the king's brother, you should have been first in line.

Scar: Well, I was first in line, until the little hairball was born.

Mufasa: That hairball is my son and your future king.

Even if something were to somehow happen to where both Charles and William were no longer able to fulfill their duties before George came of age, the laws and traditions of the royal family would dictate an interregnum period. A regent would be appointed to exercise royal prerogative on George’s behalf until he came of age. 

And until 2011, the Royal Family was patrilineal. It was the first born prince that got priority rather than the first born child. If a first-born princess got a younger brother, she was automatically. The only reasons that Elizabeth became queen Regnant were that her uncle, Edward VIII, abdicated with no issue, and her father had three daughters and no sons. 

Last edited by SanAndreasX - on 14 April 2025