# What the heck is going on with the Royal Family ("Megxit") **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 10, 2020, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-heck-is-going-on-with-the-royal-family-megxit/846203 "2020-01-10T04:12:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2020, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-heck-is-going-on-with-the-royal-family-megxit/846203/141 "2020-01-19T19:37:30Z")
Next question [see post #136]: > [@](#): > > 'They will no longer receive public funds for royal duties. With the Queen’s blessing, the Sussexes will continue to maintain their private patronages and associations." This is said in in re [man, I do love me some Latin] “receiving funds.” How/what is remuneration from “patronage?” Hell, even a business with bespoke to the [real, back so many week ago] Royal Household increased its potential remuneration only by virtue of bragging rights. “Patronage” in the Queen’s Blessing for Harry is something like “he can be on a board of directors of corporations and get paid for it…unlike Charles, for example?” [ETA: Please, if responding to this post, favor the word “remuneration,” “remunerating,” “remunerative,” etc. Might as well give the word its day in the sun.] ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2020, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-heck-is-going-on-with-the-royal-family-megxit/846203/142 "2020-01-19T20:37:37Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > This is said in in re [man, I do love me some Latin] “receiving funds.” How/what is remuneration from “patronage?” Hell, even a business with bespoke to the [real, back so many week ago] Royal Household increased its potential remuneration only by virtue of bragging rights. Bespoke what? Are you missing a noun there? ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2020, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-heck-is-going-on-with-the-royal-family-megxit/846203/143 "2020-01-19T21:00:58Z")
Not a noun, I think, but a set of quotation marks…[retailer x, of girdles, eg, on their packaging or ads…I forget the exact words which invariably are used, but to the effect] "…the only girdles ordered by/used by HM.” I see it all over the place. Maybe “bespoke” is the wrong word. ☹ And remember, as you and so many Brit responders do, this is coming from an American 'ferner. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2020, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-heck-is-going-on-with-the-royal-family-megxit/846203/144 "2020-01-19T21:07:12Z")
ETA: Just like Mrs. Windsor, come to think of it. ETA to ETA: what is/is allowable/can she get away with, her name on Canadian or American legal documents? ---
**Author:** ![Banksiaman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banksiaman/32/3334_2.png) [@Banksiaman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banksiaman)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2020, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-heck-is-going-on-with-the-royal-family-megxit/846203/145 "2020-01-19T21:13:52Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > Not a noun, I think, but a set of quotation marks…[retailer x, of girdles, eg, on their packaging or ads…I forget the exact words which invariably are used, but to the effect] "…the only girdles ordered by/used by HM.” > > I see it all over the place. Maybe “bespoke” is the wrong word. ☹ > And remember, as you and so many Brit responders do, this is coming from an American 'ferner. I think you meant a [Warrant of Royal Appointment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Warrant_of_Appointment_(United_Kingdom)), as in ‘Messrs Bloom and Co, makers of Beta Video Cassettes, by Appointment to HRH Prince Phillip’ or something. Bespoke effectively means custom-made, as in a bespoke suit tailored for the customer rather than one off the rack. And as a foreigner we continue to encourage your attempts to come to grips with our somewhat confusing language. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2020, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-heck-is-going-on-with-the-royal-family-megxit/846203/146 "2020-01-19T21:43:09Z")
Yes, your correction is correct. So to return to the post before all the spin-off, what’s the Queen talking about when she talks about “private patronages and associations” as remunerative activities? The latter, I presume (but I know that makes a pre out of me) would cover any Harry Conhugeco Inc. he may develop. But the former I’m still at a loss. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-heck-is-going-on-with-the-royal-family-megxit/846203/147 "2020-01-20T00:43:44Z")
A question- I know genealogists etc have likely figured out the succession order for a 1000 or even more. But how many are in the official line of succession ? This > **[Succession to the British throne | Current line of succession](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_British_throne#Current_line_of_succession)** > > No official, complete version of the line of succession is maintained. The exact number, in more remote collateral lines, of the people who would be eligible is uncertain. In 2001, American genealogist William Addams Reitwiesner compiled a list of 4,973 living descendants of the Electress Sophia in order of succession without omitting Roman Catholics. When updated in January 2011, the list included 5,753. > The annotated list below covers the first part of this line of succession, being limited to... - goes down to 59, but it admits "No official, complete version of the line of succession is currently maintained. The exact number, in remoter collateral lines, of the people who would be eligible is uncertain.\* Oddly after #15, quite a few are what the British sometimes call “commoners” (altho they’d be considered gentleborn by most definitions) . Maybe even earlier since James, Viscount Severn altho a Viscount is not a Peer. (Archie is likely too young to have been granted anything yet). It looks liek the Monarchy lists down to #17 and Debretts to #48? ---
**Author:** ![ctnguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@ctnguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ctnguy)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-heck-is-going-on-with-the-royal-family-megxit/846203/148 "2020-01-20T01:05:28Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > A question- I know genealogists etc have likely figured out the succession order for a 1000 or even more. > > But how many are in the official line of succession ? The set of people eligible for the succession is relatively small, because it contains only those descended from the Electress Sophia of Hanover. According to [this WSJ article](https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704889404576276502793788310), there are about 5000 people total. As far as I can see, there is no “official” cutoff. As you point out the royal website only lists those who are descendants of the current queen. It would take a catastrophe of massive proportions for the Crown to pass beyond that set. ---
**Author:** ![Kiwi\_Fruit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kiwi_fruit/32/12_2.png) [@Kiwi\_Fruit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kiwi_Fruit)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-heck-is-going-on-with-the-royal-family-megxit/846203/149 "2020-01-20T01:24:04Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > Yes, your correction is correct. > > So to return to the post before all the spin-off, what’s the Queen talking about when she talks about “private patronages and associations” as remunerative activities? The latter, I presume (but I know that makes a pre out of me) would cover any Harry Conhugeco Inc. he may develop. But the former I’m still at a loss. The patronages I’m thinking of aren’t remunerative. Often a royal or other prominent citizen is asked to be the patron of a charity or society. I don’t know if the usage is common in US English, so herewith a definition: [Patron](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/patron) ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-heck-is-going-on-with-the-royal-family-megxit/846203/150 "2020-01-20T02:28:37Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > A question- I know genealogists etc have likely figured out the succession order for a 1000 or even more. > > But how many are in the official line of succession ? The “official line of succession” is just the people who are eligible according to British law, mostly the Act of Settlement 1701, the Royal Marriages Act 1772, and the Succession to the Crown Act 2013. There is no official list of exactly who that encompasses because there are some sticky situations, particularly farther down the list, that probably would require a court argument to settle. The palace doesn’t want to go to that trouble and expense for something that is going to remain theoretical unless there is a huge catastrophe, but some of the people affected might be willing to start legal proceedings if the palace produced an official list excluding them, so it’s just easier to let sleeping dogs lie. For example, British law excludes anyone who is or has ever been Catholic from the throne, but how does that apply to people who were baptized Catholic as infants but who were never confirmed or who have taken no actions as adults to adhere to the Roman Church? Then’s there’s the Albany problem: under the Royal Marriages Act, male-line descendants of a British monarch from George II onward were required to obtain the consent of the current monarch before marrying, but the Duke of Albany, a male-line grandson of Victoria, got in a snit over losing his British titles in the aftermath of the First World War (he also held a German title and served in the German army), and none of his children sought the necessary permission. Did that render their marriages void for purposes of succession? (Note that his daughter married into the Swedish royal family and his grandson is the current king, Carl XVI Gustaf, so officially declaring the king’s mother’s marriage was void could be diplomatically embarrassing.) Also, the Royal Marriages Act did not apply to “issue of princesses married, or who may marry into foreign families” [i.e., the King of Sweden wouldn’t have to ask the British monarch for permission to marry], but a court battle in the 1950s established that basically every descendant of the Electress Sophia (mother of George I) born before 1949 was a British subject by virtue of the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705. That might mean the King of Sweden was himself a subject of the British Crown and required to obtain his monarch’s consent to marry. Whether that interpretation of the law is correct has never been conclusively settled, and probably never will be. There are a few other of these sorts of issues lurking down the family tree, so it’s easier for the palace just to list the first few people that they’re sure about, the people who have some perhaps faint chance of succeeding, and not try to figure out the whole list. Meanwhile, the American genealogist William Addams Reitwiesner [published a series of lists](http://www.wargs.com/essays/succession/complete.html) giving the full line of people who might have some claim, as of various dates (every twenty years since 1701). He died in 2010; his literary executors updated the list to 1 January 2011 (at same link), listing 5723 people, but I know of no comprehensive listing since then, and obviously subsequent births and deaths render that list increasingly out of date. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-heck-is-going-on-with-the-royal-family-megxit/846203/151 "2020-01-20T02:29:17Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > Next question [see post #136]: > > This is said in in re [man, I do love me some Latin] “receiving funds.” How/what is remuneration from “patronage?” Hell, even a business with bespoke to the [real, back so many week ago] Royal Household increased its potential remuneration only by virtue of bragging rights. > > “Patronage” in the Queen’s Blessing for Harry is something like “he can be on a board of directors of corporations and get paid for it…unlike Charles, for example?” > > [ETA: Please, if responding to this post, favor the word “remuneration,” “remunerating,” “remunerative,” etc. Might as well give the word its day in the sun.] The way I read it > [@](#): > > 'They will no longer receive public funds for royal duties. With the Queen’s blessing, the Sussexes will continue to maintain their private patronages and associations. there is nothing in that quote about remuneration. Patrons are not paid- they provide financial and other support to an organization (especially one involved in the arts) or an individual ( one of Michelangelo’s patrons was Lorenzo de’ Medici) **Kiwi Fruit** , the usage isn’t unheard of in the US, but it’s not an everyday word. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-heck-is-going-on-with-the-royal-family-megxit/846203/152 "2020-01-20T02:48:36Z")
Realized too late to edit, my post above should read Under the Royal Marriages Act, [del]male-line[/del] _British_ descendants of a British monarch from George II onward were required to obtain the consent of the current monarch before marrying. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-heck-is-going-on-with-the-royal-family-megxit/846203/153 "2020-01-20T02:49:28Z")
Thanks **doreen**. Forest Hills boy here, BTW… ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-heck-is-going-on-with-the-royal-family-megxit/846203/154 "2020-01-20T12:07:23Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > The “official line of succession” is just the people who are eligible according to British law, mostly the Act of Settlement 1701, the Royal Marriages Act 1772, and the Succession to the Crown Act 2013. There is no official list of exactly who that encompasses because there are some sticky situations, particularly farther down the list, that probably would require a court argument to settle. The palace doesn’t want to go to that trouble and expense for something that is going to remain theoretical unless there is a huge catastrophe, but some of the people affected might be willing to start legal proceedings if the palace produced an official list excluding them, so it’s just easier to let sleeping dogs lie. > > For example, British law excludes anyone who is or has ever been Catholic from the throne, but how does that apply to people who were baptized Catholic as infants but who were never confirmed or who have taken no actions as adults to adhere to the Roman Church? > > Then’s there’s the Albany problem: under the Royal Marriages Act, male-line descendants of a British monarch from George II onward were required to obtain the consent of the current monarch before marrying, but the Duke of Albany, a male-line grandson of Victoria, got in a snit over losing his British titles in the aftermath of the First World War (he also held a German title and served in the German army), and none of his children sought the necessary permission. Did that render their marriages void for purposes of succession? (Note that his daughter married into the Swedish royal family and his grandson is the current king, Carl XVI Gustaf, so officially declaring the king’s mother’s marriage was void could be diplomatically embarrassing.) > > Also, the Royal Marriages Act did not apply to “issue of princesses married, or who may marry into foreign families” [i.e., the King of Sweden wouldn’t have to ask the British monarch for permission to marry], but a court battle in the 1950s established that basically every descendant of the Electress Sophia (mother of George I) born before 1949 was a British subject by virtue of the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705. That might mean the King of Sweden was himself a subject of the British Crown and required to obtain his monarch’s consent to marry. Whether that interpretation of the law is correct has never been conclusively settled, and probably never will be. > > There are a few other of these sorts of issues lurking down the family tree, so it’s easier for the palace just to list the first few people that they’re sure about, the people who have some perhaps faint chance of succeeding, and not try to figure out the whole list. > > Meanwhile, the American genealogist William Addams Reitwiesner [published a series of lists](http://www.wargs.com/essays/succession/complete.html) giving the full line of people who might have some claim, as of various dates (every twenty years since 1701). He died in 2010; his literary executors updated the list to 1 January 2011 (at same link), listing 5723 people, but I know of no comprehensive listing since then, and obviously subsequent births and deaths render that list increasingly out of date. Why were all the Lascelleses illegitimate? ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-heck-is-going-on-with-the-royal-family-megxit/846203/155 "2020-01-20T12:29:06Z")
Watching the press coverage this weekend has just further increased my loathing of the media across the board. 1. This has been the top story constantly in television, radio and print news sources. All the other crap going on, domestically and internationally, that will have or is having a real effect on people’s lives has been shoved far to the back over this nonsense. 2. Again, in all forms of media, the talking heads have basically been saying “Harry and Meghan have accused the media of harassment and abuse, but we’ve conducted a rigorous investigation into our own behaviour and have concluded that we didn’t do anything wrong and they’re just complaining because they’re pathetic whinging losers. Also, we were much nastier to Kate/Diana/Fergie and they were fine with it, so Meghan should just suck it up.” Camilla Long in the Sunday Times referred to Harry and Meghan and “oxygen thieves”. I guess now that they’re freed from royal duties they could go find jobs that make a genuine positive contribution to society such as, say, being newspaper columnists. ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-heck-is-going-on-with-the-royal-family-megxit/846203/156 "2020-01-20T13:21:57Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Watching the press coverage this weekend has just further increased my loathing of the media across the board. Worth reading - the ulterior motives of the media attacking Harry and Meghan: [There’s a reason why the royals are demonised. But you won’t read all about it](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/19/there-is-a-reason-why-royals-demonised-but-wont-read-all-about-it-prince-harry-meghan-markle) by Alan Rusbridger, former editor-in-chief of The Guardian > [@](#): > > All three of the major newspaper groups most obsessed with Harry and Meghan are themselves being sued by the couple for assorted breaches of privacy and copyright. There is, to any reasonable eyes, a glaring conflict of interest that, for the most part, goes undeclared. … > > Mirror Group (now Reach) had by July 2018 set aside more than £70m to settle phone-hacking claims without risking any of them getting to court. The BBC reported last year that the Murdoch titles had paid out an astonishing £400m in damages and calculated that the total bill for the two companies could eventually reach £1bn. > > Last October, Prince Harry added his own name to the list of people claiming they had been hacked by both the Sun and the Mirror. … > > Publicly available court documents detail the alleged involvement of Rupert Murdoch’s son James and the reinstated CEO of News UK, Rebekah Brooks, in suppressing or concealing the true extent of wrongdoing within the Murdoch titles. The Sun’s official position is to “not admit” any unlawful activity, while simultaneously shelling out enormous sums so that this position can never be tested. > > Over at the Mirror Group, there is a similar shyness about allowing daylight into the activities of past executives. Former Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan, one of the most vehement critics of the royal couple, does not find time or space to let his readers or viewers know that his name crops up very many times in the generic phone-hacking litigation particulars of claims … > > And then there is the further legal action by Meghan against Associated Newspapers claiming assorted breaches of copyright, privacy and data protection. … > > So, when reading about Harry and Meghan, it really does pay to keep your wits about you. There is a surface level to the story – not all of it untrue – and there are many anonymous sources of varying degrees of reliability to give colour and context. And, in the background, there are quite a lot of worried newspaper executives and former editors, who have absolutely zero interest in treating the couple kindly or even-handedly. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-heck-is-going-on-with-the-royal-family-megxit/846203/157 "2020-01-20T16:51:26Z")
It is perhaps telling that I’ve read all kinds of stuff about this brouhaha, and yet cannot think of a single example where the Sussexes did anything particularly WRONG. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-heck-is-going-on-with-the-royal-family-megxit/846203/158 "2020-01-20T16:55:59Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Watching the press coverage this weekend has just further increased my loathing of the media across the board. > > 1. This has been the top story constantly in television, radio and print news sources. All the other crap going on, domestically and internationally, that will have or is having a real effect on people’s lives has been shoved far to the back over this nonsense. For example, isn’t there still a January 31 deadline for Brexit? Isn’t that of much more importance for the UK (the economy, foreign trade, the relationship with Ireland and so forth)? And yet I’m not hearing much about the plans (at least not here in the US)? ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-heck-is-going-on-with-the-royal-family-megxit/846203/159 "2020-01-20T18:27:52Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Why were all the Lascelleses illegitimate? The various members of the Lascelles family have a history of unorthodox relationships, although you’d have to ask them why. For example, George Lascelles (the Queen’s first cousin and 7th Earl of Harewood) had four sons: the first three were with his first wife, and the last was born to his mistress while he was still married to Wife #1, a huge scandal in the mid-1960s. He subsequently divorced #1 and married his youngest son’s mother, but because Mark Lascelles was born out of wedlock, he and his descendants are or may be excluded from the succession to the Crown. (They’re definitely excluded from the succession to the Earldom of Harewood, because the creation charter specified it descends to the male heirs of the body “lawfully begotten.”) Similarly, George’s eldest son, the current 8th Earl of Harewood, also has four kids, all born to his first wife. The first two, however, were born before their marriage, so the third child (second son) is the heir to Harewood. The elder two sought and obtained consent to their marriages under the Royal Marriages Act, however, so the palace isn’t saying definitively whether they are in or out of the succession. The Act of Settlement has always been read in accordance with the common law of England, in which illegitimate children had no right to inherit, but it doesn’t actually include that language. (When William IV died in 1837, for example, he had eight surviving children, but they were all born to his long-time mistress; his legitimate children with Queen Adelaide died in infancy, so the throne went to his niece Victoria. Ironically enough, former Prime Minister David Cameron is a 5th-great-grandson of William IV.) English law has since changed rather substantially on the subject of inheritance rights of all of a person’s children, but the statutes (e.g., the Legitimacy Act 1926) explicitly declare that they do not affect the succession to the throne, so again it’s kind of murky. Reitwiesner followed the traditional interpretation that out of wedlock = out of the succession, but if the matter ever arose again, I’m not sure what Parliament and the courts would do. ---
**Author:** ![SanVito](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sanvito/32/2805_2.png) [@SanVito](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanVito)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-heck-is-going-on-with-the-royal-family-megxit/846203/160 "2020-01-20T18:33:13Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > For example, isn’t there still a January 31 deadline for Brexit? Isn’t that of much more importance for the UK (the economy, foreign trade, the relationship with Ireland and so forth)? And yet I’m not hearing much about the plans (at least not here in the US)? Yes, yes it is! It’s hugely frustrating but I’m sure of great solace to Johnson, who can fiddle away while the country burns, unremarked by the press. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-heck-is-going-on-with-the-royal-family-megxit/846203.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-heck-is-going-on-with-the-royal-family-megxit/846203.md?page=9)