It is, however, reasonably certain that Elizabeth was up in a tree at the moment she became Queen. (She was doing a State Visit to Kenya and staying in Treetop Lodge at the time.)
Also, she just spent a lot of time up trees. She was a bit weird that way.
Also, if it were discovered that the queen and Prince Philip were not legally married (perhaps because he never properly divorced his first wife Zsa Zsa) then all of their children and grandchildren would be excluded and the throne would pass to the heirs of her sister Princess Margaret. If one of Margaret’s sons or grandsons lived with a woman, had a child with her, then married her and had another, then the child born after the marriage would be eligible for the succession but not the child born before the marriage even though they’ve the same parents.
While one doesn’t watch the movie King Ralph for realism, this was the part I could never get past: in the first place there are about 18 million people in line to the throne (you could never get them all in one place) and in the second Ralph (grandson [or whatever] of a prince through a dalliance with a showgirl) would have been excluded due to his ancestor’s illegitimacy.
OTOH, my understanding is that if it were discovered Princess Diana and Charles never consummated their marriage and her two sons were actually the result of an affair with Billy Connolly, they would still be eligible for the succession so long as Charles did not have the marriage annulled. Due to laws that predate DNA testing by centuries any child born to a marriage is considered the child of the husband of that marriage however unlikely that may be, unless of course he wishes to press the matter. (There are many royal children in many dynasties whose paternity was gossiped about- Edward III of England [whose father seems to have been homosexual], George II (whose mother was locked away for adultery), Elizabeth I, etc., and others. There were lots of rumors about the father of Marie Antoinette’s children (due to Louis XVI’s known impotence) though most biographers accept they were her husband’s (his impotence was due to a foreskin abnormality that was surgically corrected years after their wedding), while in Russia there’s very little doubt that Catherine the Great’s son, Tsar Paul I, was illegitimate- she stopped just short of saying his father was not her husband but her lover, Sergei Saltykov. However, because all of these children were born of a legally and religiously married mother, the children were assumed automatically to be legitimate whatever the actual case.
Could the queen create a title for herself and then retire to it?
What TLD said. I can never understand it when people say that Charles will be a “disaster” or similar. What’s he going to do? Drop the scissors while cutting a ribbon? The shame. The monarchy are largely an irrelevancy. All they need to do is make sure they don’t do anything. And there isn’t much danger of them stuffing that up.
And this is where I fear Charles will fail miserably.
The Monarch doesn’t need to have political power to screw up badly. Edward VIII had no more political power than Charles would have, but within months of his accession the Baldwin Government were desperate to be rid of him. The problem is that the Monarch has automatic access to Cabinet papers - and an indiscreet king could leak Government secrets all over the place. Edward made no secret of his pro-German sympathies, and Mrs Simpson was a personal friend of the Nazi Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop. When Edward decided he wanted to marry Mrs Simpson it was a heaven-sent opportunity to force him off the throne. Even after he abdicated, when war broke out in Europe he was bundled off to the Bahamas to keep him as far out of the way as possible; not for his safety but because of the risk he still posed if he fell into German hands.
I’ve met Charlie several times and he’s a bloody good bloke.
He genuinlly cares intensely about the environment and all sorts of social issues and he isn’t playing at politics,he cant get voted out of office.
Hes very down to Earth(Though not as much as his dad)and doesn’t patronise people in conversation.
He isn’t overly keen to assume the crown,he could live without it.
Also as the Honorary Colonel of The Parachute Regiment he could have just worn the beret as a ceremonial thing but he went ahead against his mums extreme disapproval and completed the British Army Parachute Course,considered to be the hardest military jump course in the world(The reason being that the R.A.F. is so skint you all have to pedal like fuck to get the C130s props going fast enough to get the plane up in the air and once up there you have to jump wearing carpet slippers,a blindfold and have your rear foot velcroed to the boot of the bloke behind you.Apparently its character building but I digress)
On top of that he SEVERELY incurred his mums displeasure by doing an extra unauthorised water jump.
Its a bit of a doddle really but every so often someone drowns,usually Royal Marines who are too engrossed in trying to find the key to their wallet that they obviously haven’t seen for months judging by the number of rounds they buy just as they’re getting to the wet bit.
Hes also scuba dived under the Arctic ice cap and taught in a school in the outback.
If I sound like a member of his promotional staff I’m not,I’ve only ever met him on personal security(Not Close protection)jobs.
Its just that I think that hes a really decent bloke and hes received a lot of unfair press as a result of the evil bitch he was first married to.
What?
The peoples Princess evil?
Well I never 
Any changes to the Succession would, under the Statute of Westminster, require the unanimous consent of all the Commonwealth Realms which retain the Queen as Head of State.
The Brown government recently announced that they were abolishing male primogeniture - and then dropped it a week or so later, presumably when somebody pointed this and the gross discourtesy in taking the views of the Commonwealth governments for granted out to them
I think it would be great. The Queen of the UK would be different from the King of Canada
And it wasn’t even a hot issue - both Charles and William are eldest children and would still be first and second in line under equal primogeniture anyway. It takes real talent to screw up like that over a proposed policy that would have no practical effect for decades. 
Personally, I’d be okay with Canada severing all ties to the Windsors upon the death of Elizabeth II and becoming a proper republic, though perhaps retaining Commonwealth membership. One of these days, I’ll get around to writing my MP about it.
It’ll become a hot issue once William get’s married. It’s preferable that any new law be in place before the couple have children. Prince Carl of Sweden was born after his sister, Crown Princess Victoria, but before the new act of succesion was finalized resulting in him being Crown Prince for a few months before swapping places with his sister.
You mean the Swedish law was made retroactive? I’m surprised.
Well, it isn’t exactly “retroactive,” specially if Carl hadn’t been named heir officially but was only heir presumptive. The law changed the succesion order from the moment it came into bearing; it’s really not much different from, say, the changes in inheritance law that happened in Spain in the late 1970s which changed the amount that must be left to one’s not-disinherited children. The amount due the day before the law went into effect was different from the amount due the day after.
The only thing that changes is the specific object being inherited. But you don’t inherit it until you do… same as Grandma’s silver.
Well, they were stupid not to realise that HM is the monarch of other independent realms. However, I don’t think it would be that hard to convince most of them that royal princes and princesses should be treated equally. If they’d just said, “We plan to consult with other Commonwealth governments about making this change,” it would have been fine. The only practical problem is that some of those realms would really like to become republics, and might not want to make a change which would only be effective after William has children and then dies.
Under the Act of Settlement, the Crown descends to the issue of the Electress Sophia, granddaughter of James I. Adopting Ringo doesn’t make him the issue of the Electress, so he still wouldn’t be in the line of succession.
The Swedish constitution required that the Riksdag pass the same law twice with a general election in between. Carl was born after it passed the 1st time, but before the 2nd vote. Supposedly King Carl XVI Gustaf was not pleased about his son’s demotion. Sweden was the first country to introduce equal primogeniture and Victoria is the only heiress-apparent in the world (althought there are several heiresses-apparent of heirs-apparent).
And there’s a 50% chance it wouldn’t be effective even then - William’s first child might be another boy. But I don’t think that, say, Australia would want to be seen as being obstructive and sexist, even if they chose to become a republic before the change became effective.