Please read here on how to use images on RoyalDish. - Please read the RoyalDish message on board purpose and rules.
Images containing full nudity or sexual activities are strongly forbidden on RoyalDish.


Poll
Question: Should William step down and let Harry be the next Prince of Wales after Charles?
Yes, William is clearly not a good choice to be a future king. - 90 (59.2%)
Yes, but someone other than Harry should be PoW, who ______________? - 7 (4.6%)
No, William will grow into his future role. - 20 (13.2%)
No, the whole monarchy will collapse anyway before he becomes one. - 31 (20.4%)
Other, what? - 4 (2.6%)
Total Voters: 151

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Should Willy remove himself from the line of succession?  (Read 77963 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Princess BlueEyes

Warned
Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 582

Offline Offline

Posts: 3139


New money SHOUTS -> -> old money whispers




Ignore
« Reply #345 on: March 17, 2017, 05:09:16 PM »


TBH I don't think so. He was raised believing that it is his birthright. You don't have to work for your birthright because it will always be yours (in theory). I also doubt he sees these scandals as his mistake. It's the paps or his office or his RPOs or the kiss-and-tell girls or the stupid public with their phones or the media but never the great Prince William. So if he doesn't think they are mistakes, he doesn't do them on purpose to get out (not to mention that I doubt he is clever enough to do it this way). He just does what he wants and seems always surprised and probably feels unfairly judged when the media or public don't share his views.

I agree with you on the bit I bolded.

He's just "living his life" the way he wants to, and is sublimely unaware and/or doesn't give a sh*t how that might be perceived.

IMO, although I'm aware many don't agree (& that's fine), it's because he knows he's not going anywhere near the throne in the future.


I truly believe he has no forethought and it just doesn't occur to him that something might be viewed negatively.  I also think he is easy to lead/manipulate (come on just stay a little longer/just one more drink won't hurt anyone).
I also believe he is a procrastinator, he assumes it will be years before he will moves closer to throne, so he thinks he has plenty of time to prepare. So why bother now? 
Add in that someone has always picked up the slack for him and that means (in his mind) that someone always will.
Problem is, no one knows what will happen tomorrow and the ones who do clean-up for him won't always be around.
Logged

    
MidnightDiamond

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 444

Offline Offline

Posts: 4424





Ignore
« Reply #346 on: May 31, 2017, 11:13:28 AM »

http://www.gq-magazine.co...tal-health-heads-together

He is still complaining about royal life, he seriously needs to go it is so disrespectful to the taxpayer that pays for him. Real mad
Logged
KimmySue

Mini Member
***

Reputation: 81

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 312





Ignore
« Reply #347 on: May 31, 2017, 05:34:45 PM »

http://www.gq-magazine.co...tal-health-heads-together

He is still complaining about royal life, he seriously needs to go it is so disrespectful to the taxpayer that pays for him. Real mad

I wish the taxpayers would grant his wish and make him "Normal Bill". Of course, then he would complain that the mean old taxpayers took away his birthright.
Logged
Principessa

Most Exalted Member
*

Reputation: 1079

Offline Offline

Netherlands Netherlands

Posts: 15955


I am the Queen




Ignore
« Reply #348 on: May 31, 2017, 05:41:18 PM »

Recently I was reading about the wedding of Pippa somewhere in a Dutch magazine or so.....the writers even added the subscript to a picture of Wills "Kroonprins William" (= crown prince William). I could do nothing about it, but it really irritated me / got on my nerves. Come Wills is the heir of the heir.........
Logged
MidnightDiamond

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 444

Offline Offline

Posts: 4424





Ignore
« Reply #349 on: June 01, 2017, 07:10:43 AM »

http://www.gq-magazine.co...tal-health-heads-together

He is still complaining about royal life, he seriously needs to go it is so disrespectful to the taxpayer that pays for him. Real mad

I wish the taxpayers would grant his wish and make him "Normal Bill". Of course, then he would complain that the mean old taxpayers took away his birthright.

The media would probably release all that they have held back on out of respect for the Queen if he does leave and become Normal Bill. So he can/will always complain about press.
Logged
Alice

Micro Member
**

Reputation: 61

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 170





Ignore
« Reply #350 on: June 09, 2017, 08:11:22 PM »

If William converted to Catholicism and had his children baptised as Catholics they would be excluded from the succession automatically.

That would be a good test case for whether a parent's actions of having a child baptized can actually make that child Catholic in the eyes of the British government in 2017. It doesn't seem like something that is done to a minor should be able to have such a serious effect on that child's life.
Logged
luvcharles

Warned
Big Member
*******

Reputation: 536

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 1719





Ignore
« Reply #351 on: June 10, 2017, 03:16:16 AM »

There is already a clear indication that baptism itself doesn't remove a child from the line of succession.

The children of Lord Nicholas Windsor, younger son of the Duke of Kent, have all been baptised as Roman Catholics but all are still in the line of succession to the Crown. They will only be removed from that line, if and when, they decide for themselves to be confirmed as Roman Catholics. The most recent of these children was born and baptised in 2014.

The elder two children of the Earl of St Andrew's have removed themselves by being confirmed Roman Catholics although they were actually baptised as Anglicans. Their younger sister hasn't followed their example.

Baptism isn't enough as that is a decision by the parents and not the person themselves.

If William were to convert to Roman Catholicism and thus remove himself from the line of succession all that would happen is that George would move from 3rd to 2nd, Charlotte from 4th to 3rd etc.

If he were going to do that I suspect he would already have done so as he has known for decades that was a way out without needing legislation in the UK and the other realms as any other way out of the line of succession will require. Not even the religion of the spouse now affects the line of succession.
Logged
MidnightDiamond

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 444

Offline Offline

Posts: 4424





Ignore
« Reply #352 on: June 10, 2017, 03:20:40 AM »

If William converted to Catholicism and had his children baptised as Catholics they would be excluded from the succession automatically.

That would be a good test case for whether a parent's actions of having a child baptized can actually make that child Catholic in the eyes of the British government in 2017. It doesn't seem like something that is done to a minor should be able to have such a serious effect on that child's life.

I don't think William is that religious, so I don't see him converting. I think he would either ask to be removed or the people will demand it.
Logged
getafix
Board Helper
Most Exalted Member
************

Reputation: 2924

Offline Offline

Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, British

Posts: 16892


Bye-Bye MEDiana Who!!!!




Ignore
« Reply #353 on: June 10, 2017, 03:22:33 AM »

There is already a clear indication that baptism itself doesn't remove a child from the line of succession.

The children of Lord Nicholas Windsor, younger son of the Duke of Kent, have all been baptised as Roman Catholics but all are still in the line of succession to the Crown. They will only be removed from that line, if and when, they decide for themselves to be confirmed as Roman Catholics. The most recent of these children was born and baptised in 2014.

The elder two children of the Earl of St Andrew's have removed themselves by being confirmed Roman Catholics although they were actually baptised as Anglicans. Their younger sister hasn't followed their example.

Baptism isn't enough as that is a decision by the parents and not the person themselves.

If William were to convert to Roman Catholicism and thus remove himself from the line of succession all that would happen is that George would move from 3rd to 2nd, Charlotte from 4th to 3rd etc.


If he were going to do that I suspect he would already have done so as he has known for decades that was a way out without needing legislation in the UK and the other realms as any other way out of the line of succession will require. Not even the religion of the spouse now affects the line of succession.

Nope. If Billy the plumber converted enmass his whole family including his missus, they would be out of the loop altogher  Banana Yes Thumb up making a way for Henry IX (is the number he would be?? )

G
 Smiley
Logged

ANDREW DENTON: Yes. What did... When you first met, what did you see in each other? CROWN PRINCE FREDERIK: What did we see in each other? We saw... Well, it's a bit hard. It's a bit blurry, in a way, because it was just after the Olympics had started and it was one of those evenings where...
luvcharles

Warned
Big Member
*******

Reputation: 536

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 1719





Ignore
« Reply #354 on: June 10, 2017, 04:08:13 AM »

Sorry but you are incorrect.

The precedent is very clear.

A conversion to Roman Catholicism by a parent does not remove their children from the line of succession.

This is clear from the Kent's where there have been conversions e.g. Lord Nicholas Windsor. His children have even been baptised Roman Catholic and yet they are still in the line of succession because the children haven't been confirmed yet. Lord Nicholas converted before they were born but that conversion didn't remove the rights of his children to be in the line of succession to the throne.

With that clear precedent any conversion by William would not affect the rights of his children. They would have to convert themselves to be removed.


Logged
MidnightDiamond

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 444

Offline Offline

Posts: 4424





Ignore
« Reply #355 on: June 10, 2017, 04:38:11 AM »

So someone on twitter asked this: Do you all think W would ever give up the throne & it go to H? Sometimes it has that feel with the things H does compared to W.

 and someone replied with:

If he gave it up it would be George with a regent until he was of age

and so I was wondering if it's true that George will be made regent because I'm sure I read somewhere on here or maybe on the RGF that if W abdicated before G&C are 18 then they will never be able to become King or Queen  Thinking

George is the heir and that's why he will not be made regent. A senior royal will be (probably Harry) until George is old enough to be king. But this is only the case if something happens to Will while George is still a child. Like MidnightDiamond said there is no protocol for Will wanting to renounce his place or even abdicate and what will happen with his kids because it hasn't happened before. Personally I think if Will leaves he has to take the kids with him because if his reason is that this is too much for him and he cannot live this life how will he explain that he leaves such a burden to his child? How could a hands-on father who loves his children run away from the top job to be "free" without helping his son and daughter to do the same? I also don't think the government and the palace wants years of uncertainty of not knowing if George will finally take the job or leave just like his father and then it will start all over again with Charlotte. This is not what monarchy stands for. It's rather rules, protocol, consistency and knowing who will be next. But this is just my opinion.  Wink
(we do have a thread on William leaving the line if mods want to move it if they don't think it fits)
yea, if William leaves it would be the 'smart' choice to take the kids out, only choice that really makes sense but Mr. & Mrs Narcissist probably won't so it'd be a republic.

Moved from William's thread.
Logged
rosella

Warned
Huge Member
********

Reputation: 582

Online Online

Australia Australia

Posts: 2536





Ignore
« Reply #356 on: June 10, 2017, 06:45:51 AM »

William would not be able to remove his children from the line of succession as that is a decision that they and they alone would have to make when they reach the age of 18. Suppose William removed them both and then George, when he reached 18, complained that his father had removed his birthright as a young child and he wanted it back thanks, as he was the rightful heir to the throne or monarch, depending on whether Charles was then deceased? It just wouldn't be allowed to happen.

 If William chose to leave that decision would be for himself alone. I know that Edward VIII abdicated on behalf of himself, his heirs and successors but he didn't have any, and considering Wallis's age and childlessness up to that point in spite of two marriages, that scenario was very unlikely. However, George and Char are here and any decisions made about their future matter, to the BRF, Parliament and the country.
Logged
MidnightDiamond

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 444

Offline Offline

Posts: 4424





Ignore
« Reply #357 on: June 10, 2017, 07:39:54 AM »

William would not be able to remove his children from the line of succession as that is a decision that they and they alone would have to make when they reach the age of 18. Suppose William removed them both and then George, when he reached 18, complained that his father had removed his birthright as a young child and he wanted it back thanks, as he was the rightful heir to the throne or monarch, depending on whether Charles was then deceased? It just wouldn't be allowed to happen.

 If William chose to leave that decision would be for himself alone. I know that Edward VIII abdicated on behalf of himself, his heirs and successors but he didn't have any, and considering Wallis's age and childlessness up to that point in spite of two marriages, that scenario was very unlikely. However, George and Char are here and any decisions made about their future matter, to the BRF, Parliament and the country.

That will be for parliament to decide. We will just have to agree to disagree.  The day will never come though. I mean when Edward abdicated there was chaos on what to do. Makes no sense for William to leave but raise the future, he would have to give up custody and that would cause problems.
Logged
getafix
Board Helper
Most Exalted Member
************

Reputation: 2924

Offline Offline

Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, British

Posts: 16892


Bye-Bye MEDiana Who!!!!




Ignore
« Reply #358 on: June 10, 2017, 07:45:20 AM »

Sorry but you are incorrect.

The precedent is very clear.

A conversion to Roman Catholicism by a parent does not remove their children from the line of succession.

This is clear from the Kent's where there have been conversions e.g. Lord Nicholas Windsor. His children have even been baptised Roman Catholic and yet they are still in the line of succession because the children haven't been confirmed yet. Lord Nicholas converted before they were born but that conversion didn't remove the rights of his children to be in the line of succession to the throne.

With that clear precedent any conversion by William would not affect the rights of his children. They would have to convert themselves to be removed.

excellent Like I said. Once George and Lotty convert along with IAMDiana and Billy the plumber...the stage is set for Henry Banana

G Smiley
Logged

ANDREW DENTON: Yes. What did... When you first met, what did you see in each other? CROWN PRINCE FREDERIK: What did we see in each other? We saw... Well, it's a bit hard. It's a bit blurry, in a way, because it was just after the Olympics had started and it was one of those evenings where...
Suzy

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1310

Offline Offline

Posts: 3649





Ignore
« Reply #359 on: June 10, 2017, 09:48:50 AM »

William would not be able to remove his children from the line of succession as that is a decision that they and they alone would have to make when they reach the age of 18. Suppose William removed them both and then George, when he reached 18, complained that his father had removed his birthright as a young child and he wanted it back thanks, as he was the rightful heir to the throne or monarch, depending on whether Charles was then deceased? It just wouldn't be allowed to happen.

 If William chose to leave that decision would be for himself alone. I know that Edward VIII abdicated on behalf of himself, his heirs and successors but he didn't have any, and considering Wallis's age and childlessness up to that point in spite of two marriages, that scenario was very unlikely. However, George and Char are here and any decisions made about their future matter, to the BRF, Parliament and the country.

That will be for parliament to decide. We will just have to agree to disagree.  The day will never come though. I mean when Edward abdicated there was chaos on what to do. Makes no sense for William to leave but raise the future, he would have to give up custody and that would cause problems.

I agree. The parliament will have to decide in this case. They had to make it happen for David and they will have to make it happen for Will as well. It has to be something that cannot be undone and Will's line has to lose the right to the throne forever. There are cases where the son went to court and got his birthright title and inheritance after his father renounced it for himself and his children while still under 18 but while it probably was a chaotic situation for the family it didn't have any impact on the country or was of importance for the Head of State position. Regarding the royal family this has to be made of stone to prevent such a chaos and an ongoing institutional crisis. No country can afford such a situation especially in times of financial crisis or post Brexit problems and changes.

If this will ever happen it will be a big challenge for the government and palace to find a solution but just like you I doubt Will will ever do it. He would not be able to pull rank, he would not be the important brother anymore, he would have to bow to every family member who has to bow to him now and he would not have the media protection of the future king. He will be dad of the year for some time and sell sob stories about his horrible life but in the end he will be of no interest anymore and even if he repeats it time and again I doubt he can cope with normal life of Will and Kate Middleton. I also doubt he could cope with realizing that he is not as smart and great as he was raised to believe he is, not to mention that his in-laws might be out of cheese toast the moment he signs the papers.
Logged

Witchell: Clearly a greater share of royal burden will fall on you and as that happens you will grasp it willingly?
Will: Absolutely willingly. And as that time comes I'll be the first person to put my hand up and take it on. But [] my grandfather is so active [] and unwilling to slow down.
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: