[ SECRET POST #5310 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5310 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 20 secrets from Secret Submission Post #760.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah IF CHARLES BECOMES KING - THEN YES WILLIAM WOULD BE NEXT.

Look I'm talking about a hypothetical scenario that's probably never gonna happen unless the Queen outlives Charles - but if the Queen is still the Queen if Charles does die before being crowned, then it would be one of her other children next in line for the throne, not her grandchild.

[(Anonymous)]

You can repeat this all you like, but you're wrong.

[(Anonymous)]

hey quick question have you ever read a book on English/British history in your life

like ever

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt but LOL. I know that not everyone is into royal history, but it seems super weird to me that anyone could be so insistent that they understand how the line of succession works and yet... completely wrong? Wars have been fought over this stuff.

[(Anonymous)]

The current line of succession is quite clearly defined, so unless you think Andrew or someone else is going to start a war of succession in the rather unlikely event of Charles' dying before the Queen (though who knows maybe Lizzie is actually immortal) there's no question about who's next in line.

[(Anonymous)]

Perhaps you're thinking of the Saud'i Arabian laws of succession?

The British laws of succession are not the same, and have been established far longer. Eldest son's eldest son, basically. That's how we got Richard II, not John of Gaunt. Richard was only deposed because he was a total shit.

[(Anonymous)]

Anon...shut up and read a book. That's not how it works, the line of succession doesn't change if the current monarch dies.

[(Anonymous)]

Please stop talking about things you know nothing about. You look like an idiot.

[(Anonymous)]

I do genuinely wonder how many Americans are replying to this and if anyone actually from the UK is replying to this.

[(Anonymous)]

Hi, American with an MA in British history here. I've literally never heard anyone if any nationality come out with the insane concept that That Anon is spouting and I'm completely baffled as to where they even got that idea

[(Anonymous)]

Why would that matter? The facts are the same no matter who's speaking them.

[(Anonymous)]

Agreed with the anon above me that it doesn't really matter because facts are facts, but I am from the UK and can confirm that anon is an idiot. William is an heir; Anne, Edward and Andrew are all spares and will not take the throne unless a lot of other people kick the bucket.

[(Anonymous)]

You do know that there are more than two countries on this planet, right?

[(Anonymous)]

There’s two countries, Over Here and Over There.

[(Anonymous)]

tbh I just assumed mainly Americans get this batshit obsessed with the royal family other than UK royalists because every other part of the world usually hates the British.

But you're right, there's probably someone like from France who's a big fan and commenting here too.

[(Anonymous)]

There's a decent number of people in Commonwealth countries who get obsessed with the royals. Depending on the country and the specific people, it's a combination of Anglophilia and train wreck syndrome.

[(Anonymous)]

As someone who actually lives here in the UK - damn, it must suck to have bad taste. But I guess good for them for getting any enjoyment out of the royal's existence.