At least no-one tried to cast Stallone as George.

Josser: Really just one eejit. And by the constant posting and claims of universal knowledge you can assume he is one of the millions of unemployed 'murcans.

If it's the eejit I'm thinking of, actually he's Canadian. ;-)

And, no, I don't mean you. :-)

Yeah, I left prince Harry off my list. He's after the infant Prince George and before Prince Andrew. My apologies.

Heimdall: I believe he is from Michigan.

Somewhere, I'm sure I've seen a site where some obsessive person has listed the line of succession (according to them) - or at least descent, since it includes all the ineligibles: up to about 2000 people, IIRC.

Thursdaysd, thank for the link to the article about succession - informative.

I once heard a talk by a librarian at the National Library of Scotland. She said that in the summer they have a steady stream of Stuart pretenders. If they are told that there are no papers proving their claims, they say that the librarians are part of the Hanoverian conspiracy.
I still like the man who wrote to the College of Heralds for assistance with his family tree. "It might help you to know that I am descended from Norman the Conqueror"

I like that too, MissPrism! Perhaps he was descended from this not so royal gentleman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_...st_(footballer) :-))

where in the succesion of eejits do the corgis fit in - they are certainly as fit as most royals it would seem - doing only excatly as told or trained to do and have not one iota of free will in anything - their whole lives being orchestrated by protocol - Princess Di was the main exception and she was killed off by the M-% if Harrods owner is to be believed.

Poor old former Harrods owner — he tried so hard to be accepted by the establishment. Bought Harrods, Punch magazine (which failed), a Scottish castle, Fulham Football Club, and even thought he might one day be step-grandad to the future king. He still couldn't get a British passport.

That pesky good character requirement...

Lauren,

Is the change to males-first being made retroactive to include Prince Andrews's daughters? Otherwise, how do they figure up high in the line of succession?

TorontoSteven on Aug 14, 13 at 6:34am
..."millions of....'murcans."

Not to be confused with merkins.

Apparently there is some doubt as to whether or not Queen Elizabeth is the rightful monarch:

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/06/...h-throne-dies/

I watched a 40 minute you tube link a few days ago outlining the theory and interviewing "Lord Michael" but mysteriously, I can't get it to play now. I'm thinking something hinkey is going on.

Trophywife007 - interesting story. Who knows?

I finally got the link to work, I hope. The idea is that Edward IV had to have been illegitimate because his father, according to letters at that time, was off at war and was not around for the conception. Therefore, everyone from Henry VII onward is a usurper and Michael I, who moved to Australia in the 1960's should have been king.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5fIwLo1Trs

>> The idea is that Edward IV had to have been illegitimate because his father, according to letters at that time, was off at war and was not around for the conception. Therefore, everyone from Henry VII onward is a usurper and Michael I, who moved to Australia in the 1960's should have been king.<<

Tony Robinson's underlying point was the absurdity of the hereditary principle when "it's a wise child that knows its own father". But the overt assumptions of the programme are irrelevant anyway. Even at the time, precise heredity was less important than winning battles (why else was Henry VII accepted? Not because marrying Elizabeth of York gave him some greater heredity, but because it removed any risk of alternative claimants from that side).

And in any case, all that was superseded by the events of the 17th century, which comprehensively settled that, in the end, Parliament decides. The Act of Settlement trumps any proof of hanky-panky in the 1440s.

<i> >>Wallis claims American citizenship?<< Irrelevant in the law of the time, I suspect.</i>

If she were not a British citizen, I don't think she could be tried for treason against Britain. (But I imagine she was a British citizen.)

Lord Haw-Haw, as I recall, was tried and hanged for treason even though he was not a British subject, on the basis that he had availed himself of a fake British passport.