The change in succession will not be retroactive.

Andrew's two daughters are too close for comfort as it is.

They were just taken down a notch.

If the change were retroactive, wouldn't that put them even further back? By putting Princess Anne and her descendants ahead of Prince Andrew and his descendants?

>>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.<<

No, it was genuine, i.e., he had been claiming British citizenship since, at the latest, 1933. And by marriage to Edward (not to mention the endless complaints over her not getting an HRH title and the fact of his being in military service, i.e., under oath of allegiance to his brother) she would have been considered a British citizen.

In any case, I'm not sure that citizenship as such is required: it could apply to anyone in the country - certainly that point was clarified in the Treason Act 1940 to enable enemy spies to be tried for treason.

Genuine in that it was not a forgery; but it was issued on the basis of a false application (since Joyce was not, in fact, a British citizen).

I think you're referring to the Treachery Act 1940, which created a new crime of treachery applicable to the conduct of aliens present in the UK. (Obviously it was necessary in Joyce's case to prove his duty of allegiance, since he wasn't in the UK when he made his broadcasts.)

My husband termed himself a British "subject" rather than "citizen". Is it still correct?

>>Is it still correct?<<

It's complicated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_law

Very interesting. Thank you Patrick.

who cares who is the legitimate monarch - IMO they are ALL illegitimate heads of state. Fussing over genealogy sums it all up - what IF - what If Cromwell's Republic or whatever it was took hold?

What if the Germans had conquered Britain - would the Windsors change there name back to Hapsburg or whatever German name it should be?

foolishness all

"IMO they are ALL illegitimate heads of state"

Why do you think they are illegitimate? Parliament is elected, Parliament approved the order of succession.

>>What if the Germans had conquered Britain - would the Windsors change there name back to Hapsburg or whatever German name it should be?<<

Mountbatten, I think. That might make Prince Philip happy.

Can we change the subject to the matter of the U.S. Government, and its predecessors, imprisoning indefinitely and without trial people captured in foreign countries and keeping them in a base in another country (Cuba) and torturing them there?

Questions about Wallis Simpson and Lord Haw-Haw pale in comparison with that intereference with human rights.

"Mountbatten, I think. That might make Prince Philip happy."

It would, I believe, be Battenberg (burg?), the pre-war form.

No. You're in the wrong place, chartley. You'd better leave.

But Prince Philip hadn't yet married the future Queen.

Saxe-Coburg-Gotha?

Can we change the subject to the matter of the U.S. Government, and its predecessors, imprisoning indefinitely and without trial people captured in foreign countries and keeping them in a base in another country (Cuba) and torturing them there?>

And ad to that the shameless internment in work camps of Japanese U S citizens in WW 2 in California lest they, after a presumed Japanese invasion, would go over to aid and abet the enemy - these were patriotic citizens whose families had been here generations - many served with honor in the miliatry (well not those in the camps!)

Yes chartley - shameful and a akin to what British governments did repeatedly during the Troubles in Northern Eire, right.

GITMO is a national disgrace that I and many other Americans are ashamed of and should be done away with - Obama wants to badly but Congress won't let him - afraid to bring those guys onto American soil where they would have due process of law.

The way the succession worked before the new law is that sons would "trump" daughters but daughters still had rights after sons. Queen Elizabeth II had no brothers--which is why as George VI's oldest daughter--she was the heir presumptive during his reign. That would have changed had King George VI and Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother had a son, but they didn't. The place of Prince Andrew's daughters in the line of succession did not change by the new law. I read somewhere that Princess Anne did not want to be moved up. The change was made only for after born children so as not to mess up what was already in place.

The problem with misbehavior in younger members of the royal family (or those farther down the line), is, I think, rooted in the lack of a real job. Only one of them in each generation gets to wear the crown.

So to correct my previous line of succession, I herein submit a new one:

Charles, Prince of Wales
Prince William, Duke of Cambridge
Prince George of Cambridge
Prince Henry aka "Harry" (perish the thought and likewise for many of them)
Prince Andrew, Duke of York
Princess Beatrice of York
Princess Eugenie of York
Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex (who will take Prince Philip's title of Duke of Edinburgh when Prince Philip dies)
His Children
Princess Anne
Her Children and grandchildren
The rest are too far down the line to be relevant unless there is a mass wipe out. In case of a mass wipe out, we might get King Ralph.

It's fiction, but Len Deighton wrote a novel called SS-GB, based on the hypothetical situation that Germany had invaded England, and won WWII. What happens with the monarchy, etc. Not a bad read, well researched. Deighton is a bit of a favourite of mine.

The UK was at its best under the reign of a woman. Long live Queen Elizabeth.

Why would Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice (and their hats)take precedence over Prince Edward? He would be next in line until the male succession law is changed.

No, under the old law it's Prince Andrew, then his descendants, then Prince Edward, then his descendants, and then Princess Anne and her descendants.

That's why Victoria took the throne in 1837. She was the daughter of the late Edward, Duke of Kent, the fourth son of George III. The throne did not go to her uncle, Ernest Augustus, the fifth son. (But he did become King of Hanover, which had different rules.)