The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Royalty Past, Present, and Future (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f164/)
-   -   In line to the throne (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f164/in-line-to-the-throne-35535.html)

king melvin IX 07-24-2013 09:11 AM

In line to the throne
 
On TV last evening, a 'commentator' noted that Charles, William and the baby had been all together in one place, and added that having so many in line to the throne in one place at one time must be unusual. Phrased in this way, what he said was incorrect (he was actually trotting out the now-well-aired point that these are of successive generations); but it set me to thinking that, comparatively recently, one could have found Charles, Andrew, Edward, Anne (and possibly William and Harry) in the same room (not to mention Her Majesty) so quite a few in line, in one place, although I accept that other births/deaths could affect the successive nature of the series. What do we think is the biggest possible gathering of royals in line to the throne, running consecutively? Melvin Rex

Jacknch 07-24-2013 09:19 AM

I think the commentator was suggesting that having three direct line heirs in one place was unusual, as indeed it was - having the son of the monarch plus the son of the son and the son of the son of the son of the monarch all in one place or rather all alive at the same time hasn't occurred for decades and decades!

The largest royal gathering of heirs including indirect heirs will have been at Christmas.

Admiral Horthy 07-29-2013 09:17 PM

I thought that the Queen and Prince Charles weren't allowed to travel together.

NGalitzine 07-29-2013 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by king melvin IX (Post 1581177)
On TV last evening, a 'commentator' noted that Charles, William and the baby had been all together in one place, and added that having so many in line to the throne in one place at one time must be unusual. Phrased in this way, what he said was incorrect (he was actually trotting out the now-well-aired point that these are of successive generations); but it set me to thinking that, comparatively recently, one could have found Charles, Andrew, Edward, Anne (and possibly William and Harry) in the same room (not to mention Her Majesty) so quite a few in line, in one place, although I accept that other births/deaths could affect the successive nature of the series. What do we think is the biggest possible gathering of royals in line to the throne, running consecutively? Melvin Rex

Probably either Williams wedding or last Christmas at Sandringham. The wedding would have been a larger gathering of those with succession rights, but Sandringham would be the gathering of those closest to the throne.

Iluvbertie 07-29-2013 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Admiral Horthy (Post 1583631)
I thought that the Queen and Prince Charles weren't allowed to travel together.


The Queen and Charles, The Queen and William and Charles and William aren't allowed to travel together and William will only be allowed to travel with George until George turns 12. This only applies to AIR travel by the way.

An exception was made in 2002 to allow Charles, William and Harry to travel back from their skiing holiday after the death of The Queen Mum, otherwise William would have had to travel alone (or Charles who was devastated at the death of his beloved Grandmother).

Iluvbertie 07-29-2013 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGalitzine (Post 1583647)
Probably either Williams wedding or last Christmas at Sandringham. The wedding would have been a larger gathering of those with succession rights, but Sandringham would be the gathering of those closest to the throne.

Last Christmas neither the 2nd or 3rd in line were there as William was at Bucklebury and Harry was in Afghanistan.

The Christmas the year before,which Philip missed, saw the first 18 plus the monarch there.

The Christmas lunch probably had more in 2011 as in 2012 again Harry wasn't there but in 2011 Beatrice wasn't.

vkrish 07-30-2013 02:08 AM

Actually William and Charles were not supposed to travel together, but wasnt this relaxed, when Diana wanted to take him to Australia with them.. I think since then its pretty much not insisted upon..

vkrish 07-30-2013 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacknch (Post 1581179)
I think the commentator was suggesting that having three direct line heirs in one place was unusual, as indeed it was - having the son of the monarch plus the son of the son and the son of the son of the son of the monarch all in one place or rather all alive at the same time hasn't occurred for decades and decades!

The largest royal gathering of heirs including indirect heirs will have been at Christmas.

Yes even I think so. Its about three direct heirs. Because "three direct heirs" didnt exist in the last 100+ years, leave alone in the same room.
And technically, I dont think we can call everyone in Line of Succession an heir.. Not even William and George.
There is always only one heir.. Others are heir's heir and heir's heir's heir....

Ish 07-30-2013 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vkrish (Post 1583725)

Yes even I think so. Its about three direct heirs. Because "three direct heirs" didnt exist in the last 100+ years, leave alone in the same room.
And technically, I dont think we can call everyone in Line of Succession an heir.. Not even William and George.
There is always only one heir.. Others are heir's heir and heir's heir's heir....

Actually, if we're being technical about it there is only one heir and that is the Queen.

A heir is a person who inherits property and/or titles from a deceased person. The Queen is the heir to George VI; she is the only one who has inherited the throne.

Charles is her heir apparent - as in it is apparent that he will be her heir when she dies. Everyone else simply has a place in the line of succession. There is, however, the direct line and the indirect line. William is in the direct line - it is apparent that he will be Charles' heir - while Harry (and everyone in the line after him) is in the indirect line.

king melvin IX 07-31-2013 03:51 AM

Thanks, folks - but let's not split heirs - ha haaaa! Melvin

Iluvbertie 07-31-2013 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vkrish (Post 1583724)
Actually William and Charles were not supposed to travel together, but wasnt this relaxed, when Diana wanted to take him to Australia with them.. I think since then its pretty much not insisted upon..


It was changed from 'never' to they could travel together up until the child turns 12.

Charles and William didn't travel together - by air only - after William turned 12, except for the trip back from Switzerland after The Queen Mum's death but that was a one-off as none of the three of them wanted to make that trip alone.

As the situation currently exists William will be able to fly with George until George turns 12 but after that separate planes for them, although they can travel by all other means together forever.

vkrish 07-31-2013 04:13 AM

Hey didnt William and Charles fly for a while in Will's helicopter, when Charles visited RAF Valley..
So technically its travelling together by air right..with equal risk of "something" as when they travel by plane to somewhere..:lol:

Lumutqueen 07-31-2013 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vkrish (Post 1584042)
Hey didnt William and Charles fly for a while in Will's helicopter, when Charles visited RAF Valley..
So technically its travelling together by air right..with equal risk of "something" as when they travel by plane to somewhere..:lol:

Charles and William saw the inside of a Sea King, but they never flew in it.
Prince William misses rescue mission to show Charles around RAF Valley - Mirror Online

vkrish 07-31-2013 04:43 AM

Ok thanks for the correction..I thought they flew..

Skippyboo 08-18-2013 11:25 PM

The whole heirs can't fly on the same plane seems a bit outdated with modern airplanes. You can't have Charles and William on the same plane but it is okay to have the queen, Charles, William and Harry on the same boat during the Diamond Jubilee or almost the whole royal family in Westminster Abbey during a church service.

Lumutqueen 08-19-2013 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skippyboo (Post 1589968)
The whole heirs can't fly on the same plane seems a bit outdated with modern airplanes. You can't have Charles and William on the same plane but it is okay to have the queen, Charles, William and Harry on the same boat during the Diamond Jubilee or almost the whole royal family in Westminster Abbey during a church service.

Easier to target a plane than a boat or a church service frankly.

Ladyelena 08-19-2013 10:39 AM

:previous: So true.

BritishRoyalist 08-19-2013 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1584040)
It was changed from 'never' to they could travel together up until the child turns 12.

Charles and William didn't travel together - by air only - after William turned 12, except for the trip back from Switzerland after The Queen Mum's death but that was a one-off as none of the three of them wanted to make that trip alone.

As the situation currently exists William will be able to fly with George until George turns 12 but after that separate planes for them, although they can travel by all other means together forever.

Also after Diana died in 1997 Charles, William and Harry returned to London from Balmoral together that Friday before before the Funeral. That was another exception although William and Harry were younger in 97 then in 2002 (15 vs 19, 12 vs 17 is a big difference) and Charles needed to be there for his Sons in their time of grief.

CyrilVladisla 12-26-2013 06:13 PM

Other than Great Britain, what countries do not have the monarch and the heir to the throne travel on the same plane or in the same automobile or on the same train?

Kit 12-26-2013 06:19 PM

Denmark! Fred and Christian always take different planes.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises