Last night my mom and dad and my mom's friend Donna and I tried to figure out who would be next in line for the British throne if Charles died before he was king. You would think there would be a simple and quick "just look it up" kind of answer to this question, but YOU WOULD BE MISTAKEN. We even had Donna call in a lifeline, phoning her trivia-knowledgeable husband to ask him. (To his credit and our amusement, he didn't act at all surprised about being called at 9:00 at night with a question about British rules of succession. Donna says this kind of thing happens to him all the time.)
To ME, it makes sense that if one of Queen Elizabeth's children dies before she hands over the crown, she would instead hand it to another of her children. Instead, after about an hour of poring over various sites (none of which agreed with each other), it appears that even though Charles hasn't yet been crowned, his descendants (I will never spell that word right the first time) are already lined up JUST AS IF HE WERE crowned---so if Charles died, Queen Elizabeth would give the crown to William. (This assumes the verb "give" will ever apply to her relationship to the crown, which I doubt.)
But...why skip the generation? Why not have someone of the exact same "rank" (child of the queen) fill that slot of queen's heir, instead of skipping over those same-rank people and going a rank lower? It seems like the rule is something like "preference is given to the firstborn AND to the firstborn's line, over any otherborn or otherborn's line"---but that doesn't explain the WHY to me, and also there were spots in the lines of succession we were looking at that didn't seem to follow this rule. Finally we had to agree that we would just have to wait and see what happened: if Charles DOES die before his mother, THEN we will find out for sure. Until then, it doesn't matter anyway.
Are you going to watch the royal wedding a week from tomorrow? I'm already aware that huge swaths of the population couldn't care less about it, and a list of who's NOT watching would be hard to file, so it's more that I'm wondering who among us has a "yes" reply to this question, and I will assume the rest are "no, this is not among my personal set of interests, just as some of my personal interests are not among yours---and that doesn't mean that either set of interests is superior to the other."
I'm hoping to figure out a way to watch it on television AND be on Twitter, because I think that kind of thing is fun. Maybe I'll see if I can borrow my dad's laptop. Or...can it be watched on the computer? I don't know about these things, and it seems boring to research it. Oh! It looks like we can watch it on YouTube? That's probably what I'll do, unless it ends up being reallllllllly slow on my computer. Or....I don't know, how are YOU doing it? And are you having snacks? Because I'm having snacks.
Life-improving products, part 4 - (Continued from part 1, part 2, and part 3.) Stearns Youth Life Vest (photo from Amazon.com). I’d been too scared to take the kids to any body of water oth...