questionswho could be the second to next british monarch?

vote-for14vote-against
vote-for5vote-against

Um. If Charles dies before the Queen, then Prince William becomes Prince of Wales - and next in line to the throne. Harry is his heir until he produces a son or daughter who will take the spot below William and above Harry. Andrew only inherits if Charles, William, Harry and their offspring are dead,disinherited, or abdicate.

vote-for11vote-against

With Names:

The first 20 individuals in the line of succession are:
1. HRH The Prince of Wales (Prince Charles; b 1948)
2. HRH The Duke of Cambridge (Prince William; b 1982)
3. HRH Prince Harry of Wales (b 1984)
4. HRH The Duke of York (Prince Andrew; b 1960)
5. HRH Princess Beatrice of York (b 1988)
6. HRH Princess Eugenie of York (b 1990)
7. HRH The Earl of Wessex (Prince Edward; b 1964)
8. James, Viscount Severn (b 2007)
9. The Lady Louise Windsor (b 2003)
10. HRH The Princess Royal (Princess Anne; b 1950)
11. Peter Phillips (b 1977)
12. Savannah Phillips (b 2010)
13. Isla Elizabeth Phillips (b 2012)
14. Zara Phillips (b 1981)
15. David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley (b 1961)
16. The Honourable Charles Armstrong-Jones (b 1999)
17. The Honourable Margarita Armstrong-Jones (b 2002)
18. The Lady Sarah Chatto (b 1964)
19. Samuel Chatto (b 1996)
20. Arthur Chatto (b 1999)

vote-for12vote-against

Didn't we start a revolution so that we didn't have to figure stuff like this out? ;-)

vote-for7vote-against

@90mcg112: The revolution started because we refused to let the British rule us from overseas without representation. Each of our colonies created their own governmental system and the British responded by sending troops to enforce a direct rule. We fought back.

Today, the British queen has little to no power. The power is now with the Parliament to give them somewhat of a democracy instead of a dictatorship/monarchy.

vote-for7vote-against

@adadavis: So what we're learning here is if you're the first son or on that line, all good. If not, you're pretty much at no point wearing a crown on your head.

vote-for8vote-against

@inkycatz: It means that the line of succession doesn't change. If someone in the line dies, everyone below that person moves up one. Parliament has changed the (future) line to be gender-neutral. So if William and Kate have a daughter, then a son, the daughter will be ahead of the son in the line of succession. It's not retroactive, so the Queen's daughter Anne still follows her younger brothers.

And we do have something similar - the line of succession to the Presidency, should the President die in office. As a military officer, I'm actually in that line. Exactly where doesn't matter, because if it ever came down that far, there wouldn't be a country left to run!

vote-for5vote-against

@cengland0: And here I thought the revolution started because we didn't want to pay tax on our tea... Now I have a mental image of Californians throwing amazon boxes into the Pacific Ocean because they don't want to pay taxes!

(Just kidding about the cause of the American Revolution; I do have a more nuanced understanding of it than "tax on tea is bad!")

@inkycatz: These days, yes, but only because of modern medicine/nutrition/sanitation. It wasn't that long ago that folks - even royals - could have five kids and none of them would live long enough to produce an heir.

vote-for6vote-against

@cengland0: Actually, I have the top 5 reasons for the American Revolution in my notes:

1. Stupid monarchy BS
2. Wanted to drive on the other side of the road
3. Tired of wooden teeth/bad personal hygiene
4. Too many extraneous vowels added to words
5. Taxation without representation

Of course my history book was published in Texas, so let's all take that with a grain of salt.

vote-for4vote-against

@90mcg112:
Add:
6. Lawmakers were tired of wearing those silly white wigs.
7. To simplify money so we could count it on our fingers. Pounds and shillings and pence, begone!

vote-for4vote-against

@inkycatz: Currently you are correct; However the current British prime minister, David Cameron, says he is working on changes to the order of succession that will ignore gender.

Expect it to be passed sometime in 2193.

vote-for2vote-against

Thanks for the info. All this time I thought it was the surving spouse then the oldest child then lather rinse repeat.

vote-for3vote-against

@90mcg112: actually, the teeth weren't wooden, the "gums" part of the dentures were.

vote-for1vote-against

I love the line in Mary Poppins where the father explains the previous run on the bank when the bank supplied the money for the shipment of tea destroyed in the Boston Tea Party, during which “the colonists tossed the tea into Boston Harbor, rendering it unfit for drinking, even by Americans". As an English immigrant to America, I now pay taxes to the US government, but have no vote, thus reversing the “taxation without representation” complaint.
Anyway I think I’ve got it now, even though I can’t find a definitive statement, but I found many comments that the succession line is modified every time a new member is born, so that William and Harry bumped their uncles downwards, and now are only behind Charles.