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

Not necessarily - in George V's case, it was his firstborn who was the twat, the second born was fine.

This is such a stupid question. If Prince Andrew had been first born his life would have been very different. He would not have had the freedom he had. Surely it's not too difficult for people to understand this.

As a pp said, it's going to be a very long week.

I said YANBU but if you're dealing in hypothetical then they could have changed the succession law or forced him to abdicate.

also hypothetical: Andrew as future monarch would have been much more tightly controlled. The problem with Andrew is being a hanger on able to weald power and obtain money only by his connections. Led him into the orbit of Jeff and Ghislaine As he liked their lifestyle. As future monarch the institution would have sat on him a lot more forcefully.

That said I'm not naive, all the RF have had their sex life made public at least rumours of affairs etc. I think others managed to be a bit more discrete.

I don't think having sex with a 17yo in the 90s makes him a paedophile. I also think he turned a blind eye to grooming behaviour but didn't see the harm to the girls or himself until it was too late.

I think its likely he did sleep with someone underage and that was why he tried to maintain the ties to protect himself. Buy he's not monarch so we are not in constitutional crisis.

As soon as Charles had children the order of succession changed, so from William’s birth it moved to him being 3rd in line rather than Andrew. Harry’s birth pushed the late Queen’s children each down one. Andrew’s children would have been higher up than Edward or Anne.

Wouldn’t Anne be next? Queen Anne would have been cool as fuck.

@Fluffygreenslippers addressed up thread already, no, she is behind Andrew and Edward and their children.

BTW Anne would make a terrific Queen, didn't Prince Philip call her the son he never had ?

Good old Prince P - patronising jerk.
Anne is definitely the best of that bunch.

I can't feel enthusiasm about Charles as king.

Although you “get who you are given”, that person (Charles, William etc) has generally been trained for the job their whole life. If Andrew had been the eldest, this would have been taken care of because he is clearly unsuitable.

If the electorate wanted it and the monarch refused then yeah. I don't think any elected government would just one day decide to remove the monarchy as you say it would be put to the public. But a meddling king/queen would almost certainly bring about a swift referendum on their existence.

It's not a stupid question. The point is we don't choose the monarch.

We were lucky with the Queen. Charles and William seem alright.

But what about George? We know nothing yet of his personality, his intellect, his future flaws, his ability to reign. He could grow up to be completely unsuitable. But that's who'll we get like it or not.

I can’t get as worked up about Andrew as some. Yes he’s a sleaze, but people painting him as a paedophile are will fully ignorant. And tbh referring to him as a paedophile when he had sex with a girl who in this country was of the age of consent is an insult to all genuine victims of paedophilia.

No, Parliament could since we have the Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty whereby Parliament is Supreme in the UK.

That was settled before the Restoration of the Monarchy. Blair's Government set up the UK Supreme Court who interpret the laws Parliament passes without affecting the Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty. The SC is a check and balance. Parliament still has the power to change a law to its liking and the SC will interpret that according to Parliament's intentions.

Monarchs know it is Parliament as a representative democracy that keeps them on the throne. Hence, the Monarch is not allowed to set foot in the Commons and the door is slammed in Black Rod's face to symbolise the independence of the Commons. Black Rod is a Crown appointment.

The House Of Lords can only block legislation a maximum of three times before they have to let it pass.

So, the only way Parliament doesn't pass a Bill is by the Bill being defeated in the House Of Commons at particular stages of the process.

Hence, Parliament is Sovereign and Supreme.

Not true - this has been changed so an older daughter would be priority over her younger brother.

Sorry might be wrong just read Anne was born before this was brought in

Disagree, the op raises a fair point. If you ‘believe’ in the monarchy then, in this hypothetical, you’d believe Andrew was chosen by god.

Of course, even most royalists don’t really believe in all that. It’s a cherrypicking arrangement.

Doesn't matter. At the time of her birth she wasn't eligible to be next in line.

The royal family certainly counted on this dubious assessment being prevalent.

The Queen did pay off his settlement money after all.

The succession was changed to abolish male primogeniture in an Act of 2013.

It came into full force a bit later than that, as it had to be ratified by all countries for which the monarch is head of state. But the date of the Act in 2013 is the date when it changed, for everyone born after that date (but with no change to those born before)

So the first people this has made a difference to are Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis, as they do not swop places.

No, it's that the divine right od kings was abolished centuries ago (and even then no-one believed God did the picking)

I think you may have come across some erm unusual pages online which peddle misinformation

O11 - Of course it's a stupid question. The OP has only started this thread because of all the controversy involving Andrew and Epstein and the case brought against him.

It's obvious his life would have been very different. He would have been trained from an early age, gone to a different school, not married Sarah Ferguson etc.

So are you saying that if Charles had been second born he'd have been the one who had sex with 17 year olds and enabled rapists?

For clarity, I didn’t call Andrew a paedophile, I said he was a paedophile enabler. This is indisputable as he continued to be friends with Epstein after he was convicted. That’s the nicest possible interpretation.

Please know that I wish to vote YABU for your stupid tasteless thread and it's premise rather than your prescribed options.

It's obvious his life would have been very different.

Most non-royals still manage to not consort with sex traffickers and use their victims.

The apologism on this thread is startling. It’s who he is. Why pretend otherwise?