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

Andrew did what he did because he is a deeply unpleasant man who abused his position of power. Imagine how much worse he could have been as heir.

They still do a very good cosplay of it though.

The British monarch is the only one left in Europe who is still has a coronation, in a highly religious ceremony.

The monarch’s official title is “Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God” - also on coins as “D.G. (Dei Gratia). This is on all official documents.

I don’t care, it’s all pomp and ceremony, and people like it for that.

Parliament effectively controls the royal prerogative and debate about whether to take it away.

The monarchy has no real effective power.

This country previously lopped a kings head off and then invited it to come back. They live because we allow it, they know where they stand

I'm not convinced in the slightest by the argument that Andrew would have been brought up better if he were 1st in line. Look at Charles: spoiled, helpless, incompetent, seems to be petty and spiteful towards staff, history of trying to interfere in politics and embroiled in recent scandals for taking suitcases stuffed with £millions. The Windsor children all seem very badly brought up.

As for the people singing a lyric that I will not post because the very idea of it makes me shudder, it was more about them imo. They can have bragging rights of being the first and in front of Charles, on the telly etc. Of course, if anyone felt genuine patriotic fervour and true subservience to the noble monarch then they need to give their head a wobble.

The Queens father George V1 was the second born wasn't he?

He was brought Up.in the same family ,untill Charles married Diana ,and continued the line of succession ,nothing was guaranteed
He could well of been King

Why do you think so many royals have died in gruesome manners through the ages? They get bumped off by politicians!

That presumably wouldn’t happen in modern Britain. Much as I’m not a fan of Liz Truss, I can’t see her ordering the monarch to be murdered. I was wondering what non violent mechanism exists for removing a bad king.

Two mechanisms:

1. Due to the UK being a representative democracy and the Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty settled long ago, Parliament could simply pass legislation to remove a Monarch if they either encroaches upon Parliament's power or refuses to abdicate when instructed to do so.

2. Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty - Parliament could call a referendum which would be decided by the people.

😂

I've seen loads of comments about how can Charles now be head of the Church of England because he was divorced/had an affair with no obvious awareness of how the Church of England came to be in the first place...

If Andrew were the first-born would he have acted as he has?

I'd rather have Anne or Edward than Charles tbh.

I don't doubt it. Stick the fantasy title 'His Majesty' in front of anyone's name and a want of self-respect will have some people kissing up to it.

If the murky stories swirling about certain establishment figures in recent years isn't evidence that the establishment is pretty much untouchable, I'm not sure what is. And Charles, whilst by no means as bad, doesn't exactly have an unchequered history himself. He was in the media for all the wrong reasons as recently as weeks ago. The outcome? It was, of course, quietly dropped (as ever).

What was he doing then?

Well said

Anne is, unfortunately, way down the batting order thanks to the old rules of primogeniture, her brothers, their children and grandchildren are all ahead of her.

The point of monarchy is that you get who you’re given

And that's its weakness OP which is the point I imagine you were trying to make.

Posters taking you very literally seem to be missing the point IMO

Parliament can change the rules of accession.
Parliament can abolish the monarchy should they so wish.

Also, you don't need to like the person to respect the role. (See also why teens should be respectful to teachers even if they don't like them.)

Your voting options are ridiculous.

So many ridiculous voting options on here nowadays.

I wonder if it would have been "hidden" better if he had been in line? However there is no way he would be on the throne with these allegations and pay offs around him!

Pointless question- if Andrew were first in line of succession he would have led a different life with different outcomes. I will support Charles whole-heartedly as I did the wonderful Queen

I find it amazing andrew’s so involved in all the proceedings.

Spare me the “it’s his mum”: it’s a show for the public at this stage.

I think there would have been a much greater interest by the royal family of covering up his behaviour. Whether he’d have acted differently is another matter. Charles was close with Jimmy Savile.