To ask if all those singing “god save the king” outdoor be as enthusiastic if Andrew were acceding

[HermioneWeasley]

The point of monarchy is that you get who you’re given. If there had been a small twist of fate - Andrew born first or Charles killed before he had kids, how would you feel about Andrew being our next head of state?

YABU - I embrace everything and everyone that comes with monarchy and would loudly sign for Andrew’s long reign

YANBU - I’m less keen on a paedophile enabling alleged rapist as my head of state, and that makes me think monarchy might be a bad way of choosing our head of state

You’re still not telling me anything specific.

Order of precedence of the Queen’s children is Charles, Andrew, Edward, Anne. Anne is below her younger brothers. In 2013 they removed the male primogeniture, so Charlotte is above Louis in succession, but it doesn’t backdate, so Anne is still below her younger brothers, as is Lady Louise.

I think Andrew shows the benefits of the Anglo-Saxon system where the accession council picked the best bet from the available adult royal family members, before male primogeniture took over.

Pressed post by accident

If a bad king/queen wouldn’t go, what actual power exists to get them out? It sounds like none at all.

It's irrelevant really. If he had been first born or risen to Heir before Charles had children he would have been raised differently and expected to behave very differently. He wouldn't have had the freedom he did have.

Threaten a referendum on abolishing the monarchy, and watch the rest of the family persuade them to go quietly like a good chap.

Well if that happened and parliament/ the palace didn’t stop it…. Then that would be the end of the monarchy. They only remain in power because they have the support of the people.

So your scenario would not happen.

The monarchy only exists because Parliament permits it to do so. It's within their power to abolish it if they so wished.

Using what law?

It does backdate slightly to October 2011.

I read the OP as saying Andrew enabled a paedophile, not that he was one. ie Epstein.

However, it's not clear that Epstein was an actual paedophile either. Or did I miss something?

Either way, @BuffaloCauliflower is correc and this always bugs me too.

Being the 'spare' is a tough gig. You have all the restrictions without the career progression. In fact as time goes on and the heir has children you become further from the throne.
Harry had to stop his army career which he seemed to love, because his presence in active zones put units at risk.

Parliament makes the law doesn't it. If a really awfully flawed person became Monarch and refused to abdicate a law could be created to enforce abdication (if one doesn't already exist).

Or they may die in their sleep tragically. There are many ways to kill a cat.

Yes, the possibilities are endless. It's going to be a long week on here I think!

Don’t bills need royal assent to become laws? So the bad king/queen would need to approve the law to remove them before it became law?

This is outside my area of expertise so I could be wrong.

What about the ones singing "indoor".
Why should the singing "outdoor" ones be given an opinion?

Goady Idiot.

If a monarch ever refused royal assent that would be the end of them.

No, they couldn't, without causing a major constitutional crisis. All laws currently need monarch's assent. Parliament cannot (and in my opinion should not) be able to force things through without the checks and balances that have grown up over centuries. The time of Cromwell was not one of the finest ones in British history, though of course it was formative of those checks and balances of our current type of constitutional monarchy.

I don't think the situation would arise though. The monarch was assiduous in training the heir, and that system looks set to endure

Queen Elizabeth II changed the rule from Male Preference Primogeniture to Absolute Primogeniture ahead of the birth of William's first child with Kate.

The UK will eventually have a Sovereign Queen in future. If Prince George's first-born is a girl, it'll be her as Queen Regnant.

The second born is always a bit of a twat

Yes, if it was a clearly constituted law, based on a referendum, for a republic, they would sign.

But a law just giving parliament say over the succession or ability to remove the monarch? I think that might be outwith Parliament's powers.

The end of them by what mechanism?

Sorry, I feel like a dog with a bone here but if a dodgy monarch was determined to carry on, I don’t think a mechanism to remove them exists.

Maybe that’s the point at which the subjects rise up and revolt.

The second born Royal son is always a bit of a twat.

If Andrew had been first in line, he would have been persuaded to remove himself from the succession a long time ago, probably as a condition of bailing him out.

It does seem to follow this

I said yabu for the question rather than how it was offered as a choice