Lovely little piece

So we all know who is next in line to the throne. But who is last in line?

If a few thousand people would just disappear, Ms. Vogel would be leading a far more enchanting life. She would be the queen of England.

Everyone knows that should 85-year-old Queen Elizabeth II die, her son Charles, if living, would succeed her. Second in line is Charles’s son Prince William, whose wedding to Kate Middleton Friday will be a global media event. William’s little brother, Prince Harry, is No. 3.

Ms. Vogel, 38, holds a different distinction: By the account of some genealogists, she is the last person in line to the throne.

And she’s rather got one English bit down pat, understatement:

“I can lean back and relax,” she said in an interview, pleased at the very remote prospect of having to preside over 16 sovereign states anytime soon. “It is really very comforting that one doesn’t have to worry about Great Britain.”

30 comments on “Lovely little piece

  1. I assume that this lineage is the one being a descent from Sophia of Hanover as from the 1701 Act of Settlement. But if that Act were amended or a new Act passed and descent permitted say from King Edward I or King Henry III then this would slightly alter things, say by a million or few.

  2. “William’s little brother, Prince Harry, is No. 3”

    Nope, Harry’s number five now, William having had two sprogs.

  3. Demetrius, I would guess so. But it’s not unreasonable to calculate it following the current succession law. If the law were to change, it could be all sorts of things depending on what it’s changed to.

    And the current system, by requiring a relatively recent (in royal dynastic terms) common ancestor, does limit things nicely and enable the “last in line” to be calculated.

    If we’re changing it, I’d like to bring the Jacobites back in so that we can form an alliance with Liechtenstein; could be useful for tax planning.

  4. Ah, that’s good. It is indeed a nice little piece, so pleased to see it wasn’t spoiled by an inaccuracy.

  5. At the prospect of HMtQ being poorly and potentially popping her clogs I calculated this morning that at the time of her accession there was probably a subject of hers who was born in 1850 and at the time of her death there will be one born who might live until 2140. Meaning the Elizabethan era will in some sense span 290 years.

  6. I was going to say please, for the live of God, Anne next. But then a thought hit me. If the subjects of Victoria are Victorians and the subjects of Elisabeth are Elizabethans, what are the subects of Anne called?

  7. I dread the death of HMtQ. After a less than decent interval, the republican scum will be out in force in The Guardian, screaming for the abolition of our constitutional monarchy. Yet, for anyone not obsessed by abolishing the hereditary principle, it is clear that having a head of state above politics is the best form of government – as Aristotle concluded in his Politics some 2500 years ago.

  8. “pleased to see it wasn’t spoiled by an inaccuracy”: ‘course it was. There ain’t no “Queen of England”.

    As everyone says, the Monarch is appointed by statute law. The current law defines an algorithm rather than a person.

    Of course, the algorithm was de facto varied (but not de jure) when the government of the day, plus the Dominion governments, pressed Edward VIII into abdicating. I suppose one act of pressure in about three centuries is a reasonably modest rate.

  9. @Theophrastus: I dread the death of HMtQ as well (even though I am not a subject of the crown), but for a different reason. As things presently stand, Prince Charles would become King, and nothing he has done gives me confidence that he is up to the job.

  10. I dread the death of HMtQ. After a less than decent interval, the republican scum will be out in force in The Guardian

    Given the burn rate at the grauniad, and that HMQ’s mother lived to 101 years old, there’s a good chance that HMQ will outlast the graun. Here’s hoping!

  11. @Hedgehog, January 4, 2017 at 8:50 pm

    +1

    William needs some more time to mature before taking on the role of “King Billy” IV

    In the meantime, I’d prefer Charles’ younger brother to be Prince Regent Andrew. Charles can then continue happily talking to his plants.

  12. I read an actuarial calc once which concluded Charles is about 45% likely to go before his Mam, or Ma’am.
    This was before he remarried.

  13. @ Bongo
    That seems a bit high to me. GlenDorran may have some modern data which will include male and female non-smokers as separate categories (annuitant data which cover those with incomes sufficient to fund a confortable retirement are likely to be more appropriate although her nibs does not believe in retirement as it affects herself).

  14. Everyone knows that should 85-year-old Queen Elizabeth II die, her son Charles, if living, would succeed her.

    I thought her oldest grandson was the current official heir-designate nowadays?

  15. @ Agammamon
    Mr Philips is low-profile and wants to stay that way – the last time he got in the papers was when he invited his cousin and his (fairly new wife) to holiday on his estate and some **** took a long-lens photo of the Duchess of Cambridge sunbathing.

  16. Aren’t we all last in line to the throne? I mean, don’t they mean that they have stopped looking at this woman? Suppose she was suddenly crowned the Defender of the Faith etc etc. She would have children, nephews, cousins and so on. They would then be next in line to her. Isn’t it like in the Army where someone is always senior to you until everyone else is junior, but that there is always someone next in line no matter how many officers you shoot in the back?

  17. SMFS, no, because they all have to be descendants of the Electress Sophie of Hanover (died 1714), so there is a finite number of legitimate claimants under the current law. If she is indeed the last in line then she wouldn’t inherit unless her cousins and so on had already died without issue. And presumably she doesn’t have children of her own so until and unless she does she can indeed be last in line.

    But as there are several thousand descendants of Sophie, presumably the law would be changed long before it got to Ms Vogel.

  18. I’m not sure that an 85-year-old lady would take kindly to being called a lovely little piece, but each to his own.

  19. I’ve always regretted that events overtook Peter Cook’s, “I think it would help to heal the breach if Prince Charles married the Duchess of Windsor.’

  20. Custard Cream – “I’m not sure that an 85-year-old lady would take kindly to being called a lovely little piece, but each to his own.”

    I don’t know. I think it was Jessica Valenti who wrote an article on her soul-crushing disappointment she was no longer hot enough for men to care about.

    Given her type, I think if some rough sailor type (SE? Willing to take one for the team?) was to express the view that she was a toasty piece of crumpet, she might well be best pleased.

  21. Surely it would be the last person on the planet? If I was the only one alive then I’d be the queen of England… or is that Milo. I get confused with these womanly things.

  22. The Queen is 85?

    If the rest of their facts are as accurate as that, hardly worth the effort of reading it, imho.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.