Royals who are raised and/or resident overseas cannot be in the line of succession. Births must be witnessed and attested to by appointed doctors in order for those children to be in the line of succession (this rule has been broken with the births of Prince Archie and Princess Lili).
Reasoning:
Considering Prince Harry’s antics, attitudes, wasting taxpayers’ money in court and involvement with the Aspen Institute it would be wise to stop him ever acceding to the throne. His children are being raised in the US and are culturally American, so they are unlikely to share the UK’s interests or perspectives. Prince William has been known to travel with his entire family which increases the possibility of Harry or his children acceding to the throne, which I think could trigger the end of the monarchy.
The births of Prince Harry’s children are mysterious and unknown. There are rumours and evidence that Prince Archie was born by surrogate and if that is indeed the case according to some people (I can’t find the written document) he should not be able to be in the LoS because he wasn’t “born of body” (i.e. of the Duchess of Sussex). If the law states this then maybe it should be changed to include surrogacy but with DNA confirmation. It is my personal view that the monarch should be of royal blood and so I would be against adoptive children inheriting.
My bibliographic friend says:
Accountability and Visibility
A monarch is the Head of State — arguably, they should live in the country they represent. Living abroad might make it harder to:
Connect with the public.
Fulfill ceremonial and constitutional duties.
Represent national values effectively.
Public Perception and Trust
The monarchy relies heavily on public support. A non-resident royal high in the line of succession might be seen as “out of touch” or less committed, especially when taxpayer funds or privileges are involved.
Modernization and Slimming Down
Other monarchies (like Sweden, Denmark, or the Netherlands) are actively streamlining to fit 21st-century sensibilities.
A lot of this is exactly why in my constitution proposal, I suggested that we only go to the aunts and uncles of the current king, and after that, we elect a new king if there is no one left. The worst thing that could happen to the monarchy would be some 7th cousin inheriting because all of the lines died out accidentally.
The Monarchy has tried, tested and traditional rules governing these issues and I would be the first person to hesitate in changing any part of our laws of succession. If a none citizen inherits a stately home in the UK are you going to prevent them from inheriting that which is rightly theirs? Monarchy is a hereditry position. If someone is in line for the thrown nothing should be permitted to stand in that way. Don’t forget, our current Windsor family are German. Nobody has a problem with Queen Elizabeth II having been queen and nobody is questioning King Charles.
We haven’t had a British monarch since Harold, who was himself of saxon and nordic decent so how far are we to go back? The only way to make this right according to your policy would be to make The UK a republic?
Talking about Monarchy, I would say that we should look into getting our king to abdicate and to remove the Windsor family, and then we get the descendant of a previous line, of which is a man in the Australian outback to be King instead. He is technically hereditary of a past line before the Windsors took over.
I would prefer we have English bloodline, and not a German, Charles has shown that he is fine shrugging off core fundamentals, even allowing a foreign doctrine to be praised over our Christian heritage. His son William is also not that magical, choosing to sit out on things that you would expect the Royals to be a part of normally, and isn’t even Christian himself. Their bloodline has strayed from God, and they are allowing labour to attack us indigenous of the UK for the rights of those who are not from here by blood. I want an English Christian King, not some undeserving posh rejects who have rejected us.
We the people should have pick of one of our own to be the new King, and if it means that the person would have to sign an oath that they must be held account to. If this new King would be one to harm the people or severely wrong them, a referendum should be held to decide the fate of that king. Mercy, abdication, or various outcomes depending on judgement.
I know that I would personally take that oath, because I know I only want Britain to flourish, for the English/Welsh/Scottish/Irish to be recognised, invested into, celebrated and uplifted out of the poverty, to have their rights set in stone in a modern Magna Carta of which their British rights will be unbreakable by no future sinister entity. Our culture must be appreciated and built upon, and we have a lot of the British Empire’s ways within our nation still, and it can be given a new path of where it can provide benefits for us, focusing inwards instead of outwards, and that alone would then become another source of revenue by increased tourism.
There is a lot I would do, and I tick the boxes for being English, Christian and willing to sign a strict oath, so much so that I would gladly die for our people, but I know I would never make those mistakes, and would seek to only do good.
Forgive me for my tangent, it took a hold of me, but I dream of better days for the UK, and my love for the land and people is greater than my own life.
