sharke
On my social media feeds today: "oooh look at the way she was looking at him during the ceremony, that's pure love"
 
SHE'S A TRAINED ACTRESS

Hah!

I was a little surprised at all the wedding hoopla; mentions of a new royal age and such things...But Harry is, like, sixth in line to the throne, and so will never really be a factor in world doings other than royal scandals and royal good deeds and the like. Not like the Charles and Diana wedding, with Charles begin next in line to the throne. I know Harry is very popular, but it just seemed that the size of the marriage did not fit the size of the position.
 
I guess I just don't get into the whole "Royal" thing. Too much of a Yankee, I guess. I couldn't find any news on TV yesterday....everything was given over to the nuptials. Well, I guess everybody likes a good party....
 
BTW Look up how the British royal succession is determined. Pretty interesting, and perhaps not what you would expect.

Amazing to me how much things over there have changed. I probably wouldn't have watched but my wife was watching and drew me into it. I actually liked watching. Probably not for the same reason my wife liked it.
 
I agree Harry probably will never be a king, but you never know. Definitely more money and thought goes into pomp over there than here...or we just don't see it here. The uber wealthy are often intentionally tucked away.
It appears to me this was a way to try and include the common folk. In making them feel like a small part of the event it seemed inclusive and I suppose it was, if only on a very surface level.

sharke
On my social media feeds today: "oooh look at the way she was looking at him during the ceremony, that's pure love"
 
SHE'S A TRAINED ACTRESS

never seen her act in anything.

"never seen her act in anything."
 
I just looked. A bunch of TV series (mostly single episode appearances) and some movies. Fairly impressive overall. Interestingly, she was briefcase#24 for thirty-some episodes of the "Deal or No Deal" game show. 
 

rbecker
I guess I just don't get into the whole "Royal" thing. Too much of a Yankee, I guess.

I’m English and I’ve never got it either.

rbecker 
BTW Look up how the British royal succession is determined. Pretty interesting, and perhaps not what you would expect.

The process isn’t that weird when you know why the Act of Settlement 1701 was passed, which was to make sure that though His or Her Britannic Majesty reigns they do not rule. Only Parliament passes laws and the Courts enforce those laws. And when the King or Queen dies Parliament and the Privy Council have to agree who their successor is.

Wikipedia explains it pretty well - https://en.wikipedia.org/../Act_of_Settlement_1701

It is interesting in that the succession follows individual lines rather than a notion of seniority. That is, after Elizabeth, Charles is next. After Charles, his eldest son William. This could all be guessed. However, if something were to happen with William, one might think it would go to the next eldest of Charles' sons - Harry - but that is not how it works. The crown trickles down through the children of William, then their children and so forth. I am not an expert, but it used to be the sons were considered first, by age, and only after all the sons were exhausted would the crown go to the eldest daughter and so forth. But I think that has changed recently, with sons and daughters being considered on equal footing when it comes to succession. To see this in action, consider that all of Charles' brothers "trump" Princess Anne, although she is the eldest after Charles. However, when you look at the pecking order of the children of prince William, they are right in line by age. Anyway, Harry is sixth in line now but over time that could easily go to double-digits. The chances of he becoming King are quite remote.
 
Religion, divorce, religion of spouse...all this plays into succession, with changes being made over time.
 
Corrections welcome!

(Ir)Regardless of who is the successor to King or Queen, I would think anybody in the extended royal family is going to live a well-to-do existence (i.e., money is not an issue) just by these bloodlines. Is that right? Can a heir ever be excluded?

KenB123
...I would think anybody in the extended royal family is going to live a well-to-do existence (i.e., money is not an issue) just by these bloodlines. Is that right? Can a heir ever be excluded?

No matter what level they are at as individuals, I would guess you or I could never even imagine their wealth. I've seen some number$, but can't remember the amounts. Excluded? I doubt it unless parliament gets into the act. I suppose if convicted of a crime or some really bad action. I think they all have established royal incomes...but now I am getting out of what I know, and so will stop. 
 
What I DO know that I would never want to be a royal. The wealth would be nice, but IMO this would be the worst way to be wealthy. All the tabloids and paparazzi and royal obligations. I would much rather that some music company recognizes my genius, quietly buys all my songs out so I can then purchase my own island in the Caribbean and live a life of ease in obscurity.

KenB123
Irregardless of who is the successor to King or Queen, I would think anybody in the extended royal family is going to live a well-to-do existence (i.e., money is not an issue) just by these bloodlines. Is that right? Can a heir ever be excluded?

 
irregardless isn't a word ken.