Louis Epstein
2020-03-12 21:38:36 UTC
The recent situations in the royal family of the United Kingdom (etc) are
perhaps related to the anomalous situation created by the Queen's longevity.
It's a settled principle that only one person in each generation of the RF
(the one who is or will be Sovereign) gets to have royally titled grandchildren.
The nebulous concept of "senior members of the Royal Family" generally
resolves to the Sovereign,the Consort,and their children.
It has been the norm,both for a century after the death of Queen Victoria
and from 1817 into the 1880s before that,and almost always before the 1810s,
that the grandchildren of the Sovereign relevant to the succession are...
children.
The Duke of York and Duke of Sussex were each born "spares" no longer
realistic prospects for the throne once their elder brothers produced
heirs.George V and George VI both succeeded because their elder brothers
did NOT produce heirs and in the former case died young.Princess
Margaret was similarly off the realistic-prospect list by the time
her sister acceded.
"Spares" once superseded have been left to their own devices and not always
made wise choices.The Duke of Sussex is the first-ever younger son of a
Prince of Wales to reach adulthood as such,and his son the first-ever child
born to a younger son of a serving Prince of Wales.People in the Duke's
genealogical position have in the past been moved out of it well before
reaching his age by deaths that now have not happened.
How will the future adapt to multiple generations of adult descendants
in the direct line whose status as presumptively "senior" is affected
by their displacement as "spares" before it would normally start?
Will longer spaces between generations foreclose the effects of
increased longevity?
Prince George is already the oldest-ever son,and Princess Charlotte
the oldest-ever daughter,of a son of a Prince of Wales.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
perhaps related to the anomalous situation created by the Queen's longevity.
It's a settled principle that only one person in each generation of the RF
(the one who is or will be Sovereign) gets to have royally titled grandchildren.
The nebulous concept of "senior members of the Royal Family" generally
resolves to the Sovereign,the Consort,and their children.
It has been the norm,both for a century after the death of Queen Victoria
and from 1817 into the 1880s before that,and almost always before the 1810s,
that the grandchildren of the Sovereign relevant to the succession are...
children.
The Duke of York and Duke of Sussex were each born "spares" no longer
realistic prospects for the throne once their elder brothers produced
heirs.George V and George VI both succeeded because their elder brothers
did NOT produce heirs and in the former case died young.Princess
Margaret was similarly off the realistic-prospect list by the time
her sister acceded.
"Spares" once superseded have been left to their own devices and not always
made wise choices.The Duke of Sussex is the first-ever younger son of a
Prince of Wales to reach adulthood as such,and his son the first-ever child
born to a younger son of a serving Prince of Wales.People in the Duke's
genealogical position have in the past been moved out of it well before
reaching his age by deaths that now have not happened.
How will the future adapt to multiple generations of adult descendants
in the direct line whose status as presumptively "senior" is affected
by their displacement as "spares" before it would normally start?
Will longer spaces between generations foreclose the effects of
increased longevity?
Prince George is already the oldest-ever son,and Princess Charlotte
the oldest-ever daughter,of a son of a Prince of Wales.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.