Prince Andrew and his daughters are higher in the line of succession than Princess Anne.
You're right. The change in the rules allowing female descendants to take the throne only applies to descendants of Charles. So remove Anne from my list and it's still highly unlikely to happen that Andrew would become king. Andrews daughters don't come into it anywhere near the top because they aren't descendants of Charles.
Well they were, but what you can say is that at the time of their weddings the ones chosen could not lose their position in the order of accession because of the birth of another baby.
Also, for somebody so contemptuous of pedants to then try to assert that the queen can be considered a future monarch in the same way as Charles and William are is a bit rich.
Get your facts right. The Queen was a future monarch when she got married. Her father was still on the throne.
Well, as you put it, that is a proper sequence (given that VCM then adds the 'sequentially' bit - as in 'Monarch, 1st in Line, 2nd in Line').
However, a large part of the problem is that VCM didn't put it like that. She does specifically say the link is designers of wedding dresses for future monarchs. Since, in three of the cases, the monarch or monarch-to-be wasn't the one for whom the dress was designed, the explanation doesn't make sense.... The problem is that VCM gave a very loose definition. That should really have been picked up by the producer, and they should have refilmed that bit afterwards.
I'm sorry, but expecting them to reshoot that bit in case some uber-pedants were watching is silly. The on screen answer was even less explicit ("Royal Wedding Dress Designers") though it is at least clear the link is the wedding dress, not who was wearing it. But clearly a female future monarch would be wearing it, a male one probably not.
Why split hairs (or even heirs) over such a tiny detail?
I'm sorry, but expecting them to reshoot that bit in case some uber-pedants were watching is silly.
Why split hairs (or even heirs) over such a tiny detail?
Oh please. This is a show gleefully aimed at pedants and purists! It would take all of a few seconds for the producer to say 'Actually Vicky, you messed up your words there, and said the link was "designers of wedding dresses for monarchs". Let's quickly have you redo the bit to the camera and add a few more words that make it more correct. That way, the tedious pedants who make up our audience won't go on internet forums and spend over two days having a barney about it..'
It's commonplace for parts of panel shows to be redone during filming. On Have I Got News For You, they refilm several bits every show, just because the original bit to camera had a slightly misplaced pause somewhere.
Oh please. This is a show gleefully aimed at pedants and purists! It would take all of a few seconds for the producer to say 'Actually Vicky, you messed up your words there, and said the link was "designers of wedding dresses for monarchs". Let's quickly have you redo the bit to the camera and add a few more words that make it more correct. That way, the tedious pedants who make up our audience won't go on internet forums and spend over two days having a barney about it..'
It's commonplace for parts of panel shows to be redone during filming. On Have I Got News For You, they refilm several bits every show, just because the original bit to camera had a slightly misplaced pause somewhere.
I suggested it earlier, it is one where the answer is obvious (even if you cannot name the actual last dress designer) but once you start analysing then there are lots of complications but that probably applies to many Only Connect questions and answers.
Oh please. This is a show gleefully aimed at pedants and purists! It would take all of a few seconds for the producer to say 'Actually Vicky, you messed up your words there, and said the link was "designers of wedding dresses for monarchs". Let's quickly have you redo the bit to the camera and add a few more words that make it more correct. That way, the tedious pedants who make up our audience won't go on internet forums and spend over two days having a barney about it..'
It's commonplace for parts of panel shows to be redone during filming. On Have I Got News For You, they refilm several bits every show, just because the original bit to camera had a slightly misplaced pause somewhere.
Really, you mean they aren't shown as recorded without edits? You astound me.
Had they redone it she would have had to go into a lengthy definition to cover every possible criticism as discussed here. Perhaps they actually did re-shoot it after she initially gave the answer as per the on-screen caption? Who knows? Who cares?
I'd say the show is mainly aimed at people who like solving puzzles. Hence use of hyroglyfics, the ultimate in puzzle solving detective work. Obviously it attracts pedants too. That's fine by me. It's the pedantry for the sake of it I find tedious.
Really, you mean they aren't shown as recorded without edits? You astound me.
Had they redone it she would have had to go into a lengthy definition to cover every possible criticism as discussed here. Perhaps they actually did re-shoot it after she initially gave the answer as per the on-screen caption? Who knows? Who cares?
I'd say the show is mainly aimed at people who like solving puzzles. Hence use of hyroglyfics, the ultimate in puzzle solving detective work. Obviously it attracts pedants too. That's fine by me. It's the pedantry for the sake of it I find tedious.
Actually, there are fewer reshoots than you might think. From the [number redacted to avoid spoilers] episodes I was on in this series, I can only remember one substantial reshoot to clear up an explanation of an answer. That was for the going clockwise/to the left question from the first episode.
Yes, the show attracts pedants, but not all of its 2 million viewers fall into that category. I just think those who are particularly pedantic are especially likely to want to talk about the show on, say, Digital Spy. ;-)
Again, a bit rich from the one who was also initially "puzzled" by their choice of weddings and started it all off with a lengthy post
In the name of pedantry, I only 'seconded' the original question about it.
It didn't make sense to me originally. Chris explained it, and then it did. But there're still people like you (well, mainly you actually!) who've continued to carp about it and introduce nonsensical complications.
Anyway, it would have been a perfectly fine question had VCM just phrased it in two relatively concise sentences. It wouldn't have needed lots of qualifiers, as Allafix claims. I could give a perfectly adequate two line explanation myself, but I'm just thoroughly bored with this subject now and don't intend to revisit it just to please awkward bolshy buggers.
Strong pair of teams this evening - is that the highest aggregate score? Linguists' captain was very smart and i'd never seen any team attempt their wall in the same way - they're looking like winners thus far.
Well that 19 at cribbage question was silly tonight. You can't score 19 simple as. It isn't 0 - it just isn't possible! I knew exactly what the first 2 clues were, but struggled to make a connection. I mean why should a score of 0, connect with a score which isn't possible? Not normally one to grumble, but that was a poor question.
I reckon The Chessmen have a good chance of getting through when they come back again. Both teams did very well today!
That Michael-Keaton-a-like was really very good. (Even his own forehead was struggling to contain his brain!) The Chessmen looked really miffed to be on the losing side though. (You could see Pertinez thinking 'But we're so brilliant! How on earth have we managed to find two sets of people capable of beating us!')
Given some of the teams we've seen so far, though, you're right, The Chessmen ought to cream them.
Well that 19 at cribbage question was silly tonight. You can't score 19 simple as. It isn't 0 - it just isn't possible! I knew exactly what the first 2 clues were, but struggled to make a connection. I mean why should a score of 0, connect with a score which isn't possible? Not normally one to grumble, but that was a poor question.
According to a bit of googling some people refer to a hand which scores 0 as a "nineteen-point hand"
Was quite pleased today. Got a couple of 3-pointers and unusually, a wall.
I wasn't entirely happy that the Chessmen were allowed to appear in a second series.
And I do miss not being able to play along with the walls on the website. Don't know why the Beeb can't put those walls up, even if they no longer allow the 'make your own'.
Comments
Has Anne not benefited from the change in the accession law?
In the spirit of pedantry, his name is Henry. ;-)
It doesn't apply to members of the Royal Family born before October 2011 when the change was agreed.
I don't think it is retrospective.
Why split hairs (or even heirs) over such a tiny detail?
Oh please. This is a show gleefully aimed at pedants and purists! It would take all of a few seconds for the producer to say 'Actually Vicky, you messed up your words there, and said the link was "designers of wedding dresses for monarchs". Let's quickly have you redo the bit to the camera and add a few more words that make it more correct. That way, the tedious pedants who make up our audience won't go on internet forums and spend over two days having a barney about it..'
It's commonplace for parts of panel shows to be redone during filming. On Have I Got News For You, they refilm several bits every show, just because the original bit to camera had a slightly misplaced pause somewhere.
I suggested it earlier, it is one where the answer is obvious (even if you cannot name the actual last dress designer) but once you start analysing then there are lots of complications but that probably applies to many Only Connect questions and answers.
Had they redone it she would have had to go into a lengthy definition to cover every possible criticism as discussed here. Perhaps they actually did re-shoot it after she initially gave the answer as per the on-screen caption? Who knows? Who cares?
I'd say the show is mainly aimed at people who like solving puzzles. Hence use of hyroglyfics, the ultimate in puzzle solving detective work. Obviously it attracts pedants too. That's fine by me. It's the pedantry for the sake of it I find tedious.
For pedantry's sake, it's hieroglyphics
Actually, there are fewer reshoots than you might think. From the [number redacted to avoid spoilers] episodes I was on in this series, I can only remember one substantial reshoot to clear up an explanation of an answer. That was for the going clockwise/to the left question from the first episode.
Yes, the show attracts pedants, but not all of its 2 million viewers fall into that category. I just think those who are particularly pedantic are especially likely to want to talk about the show on, say, Digital Spy. ;-)
If only images could be displayed then someone could trump everyone and answer in hieroglyphs (or whatever they are called).
In the name of pedantry, I only 'seconded' the original question about it.
It didn't make sense to me originally. Chris explained it, and then it did. But there're still people like you (well, mainly you actually!) who've continued to carp about it and introduce nonsensical complications.
Anyway, it would have been a perfectly fine question had VCM just phrased it in two relatively concise sentences. It wouldn't have needed lots of qualifiers, as Allafix claims. I could give a perfectly adequate two line explanation myself, but I'm just thoroughly bored with this subject now and don't intend to revisit it just to please awkward bolshy buggers.
K
That Michael-Keaton-a-like was really very good. (Even his own forehead was struggling to contain his brain!) The Chessmen looked really miffed to be on the losing side though. (You could see Pertinez thinking 'But we're so brilliant! How on earth have we managed to find two sets of people capable of beating us!')
Given some of the teams we've seen so far, though, you're right, The Chessmen ought to cream them.
According to a bit of googling some people refer to a hand which scores 0 as a "nineteen-point hand"
Was quite pleased today. Got a couple of 3-pointers and unusually, a wall.
And I do miss not being able to play along with the walls on the website. Don't know why the Beeb can't put those walls up, even if they no longer allow the 'make your own'.