Run The World, Girls.

So, another technically member of the royal family who has a Twitter is Mike Tindall. Of course, that is completely unimportant, because Mike Tindall now also has a daughter.

That's right. If you haven't read already, Zara Phillips had a baby girl on Friday. So far, there is no word from the Palace on her name, but she's sixteenth in line to the throne and so she's a royal baby too. Though, and I hate to say this because all royal babies are wonderful, not half as important a one as Prince George. 

Even though they are never going to read this, my congratulations to Zara and Mike. I wish nothing but well for them and their baby daughter. Also, I wish that the entire family shows up for some royal event so we can have pictures.

When I first read the news, my train of thought went something like this: “One more royal baby? Cool! Oh, it’s a girl. Good thing I don’t bet money on these things, because otherwise I would have lost money. This is the Queen’s FOURTH great-grandchild. Her Majesty’s getting quite old. Third great-granddaughter, though. There’ve a lot of girls being born into this family. Princess Madeleine’s going to have a girl too. Lot of girls being born into a lot of royal families. Maybe they’ll call her Margaret. If I tweet about the possibility of them calling her Margaret, will Mike Tindall read it? Does Mike Tindall read posts tagged #royalbaby?” and so on and so forth.

A mostly pointless stream of thoughts, but one stayed in my mind particularly. There are a lot of girls being born into royal families. And now, with these new laws allowing succession of the first born child of the Monarch, irrespective of their gender, they can someday be Queen, no matter how many younger brothers they have. And that got me thinking; is it possible that a society that has been predominantly controlled by men for all these years could someday be ruled over by women? 

Politics are of no interest to me, so when I say 'ruled over by', I'm talking about the heads of the seven major monarchies in Europe - Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 

Of the current group of rulers, the ones that existed pre-abdications, three are Queens. Two of them, Queen Elizabeth and Queen Margrethe, ascended the throne at a fairly young age, due to the unexpected circumstances their fathers' untimely death without any male heirs. Queen Beatrix, however, ascended the throne after her mother abdicated in her favour, and her grandmother had been Queen before that, so the Netherlands are no stranger to a Queen's rule. But, despite a surprisingly modern ratio of kings is to queens, the scale still tips in the favour of the men.

The next generation isn't any better. Worse, in fact. No one, apart from Crown Princess Victoria, is a woman, and most of them are going to rule because they are the elder sibling and not because the laws are biased.

It is the generation after that, the generation that consists of the grandchildren of the present monarchs (except Queen Elizabeth, whose great-grandchild is the one I'm considering, because she is OLD), who range between the ages of 1/2 and 12, that, for the first time in history, there will be more Queens of European nations than there will be Kings. Just look at the list.

FUTURE KINGS

Prince Christian of Denmark, second in line to the throne. 

The most featured baby on my blog. You should know his name and his position in the hierarchy by now.

And that's all. Two. Out of seven. Hopelessly outnumbered. On the other hand, 

FUTURE QUEENS

Princess Elisabeth of Belgium, first in line to the throne.

Catharina-Amalia of the Netherlands, first in line to the throne.

Princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway, second in line to the throne.

Infanta Leonor of Spain, second in line to the throne.

Princess Estelle of Sweden, second in line to the throne.

That's just fantastic, isn't it? And, the best thing is, I'm not so much older than them that I won't be around to see this happen. I will! 

Oh, I can't wait. Only fifty years to go.

~

I'm doing a thing called the 100 Book Challenge on Twitter, where I try and read a hundred books in the year and chart my progress through tweets. So far, I've read one, but you can see how I'm coming along by following me @JustAsSaneAsMe. Also, participate in the challenge yourself. It's fun!

N

#HappyBirthdayKate

It's the Duchess of Cambridge's birthday. She's 32 today. Wish her on Twitter!

No, you can't, she doesn't have a Twitter.

Which brings me to my main subject - royalty on Twitter.
(If you were expecting something more to do with the actual event of Kate turning 32, there will be a post on Royal Central and an article in the Daily Mail which will list 32 facts about the Duchess, more than half of which I will already know. But I'll put links at the bottom of the post for those who want to know more, anyway.)

None of the higher up royals are on Twitter. The Queen obviously isn't, and not just because she's getting on in age, and, if my grandparents are anything to go by, probably doesn't know how to use anything more newfangled than Google. No, she doesn't use it because she's the Queen. She has a certain image to maintain, and it would most certainly be defiled if she sank as low as Twitter, where she would have to be on an equal platform with the likes of Justin Beiber - even more so if she didn't manage to gather as many followers as him.

Prince Charles doesn't have a Twitter either, but Clarence House does. Clarence House is the official residence of the Prince of Wales, and usually they are the first to convey important royal news on the Internet. Like when Prince George was born, or when it was decided that the excitement about Prince George was going down and it was time to christen him to liven things up a little bit.

This is what Clarence House looks like. You can follow them at @ClarenceHouse.

Neither of Princes William and Harry have a recognised Twitter. That doesn't strike me odd - after all, they are a part of The Firm - but they're both still young, and Prince William has an iPhone. What does he do on it if he isn't tweeting?
Last year, it was revealed that Prince Harry did have a Facebook account, which was taken down following the debacle with the pictures in Las Vegas, and a little before that, he said in an interview that he reads almost all the articles written about him even though his father has told him not to. Which is why I wouldn't put it past Harry to have a Twitter too. It's probably called something inconspicuous, though, like Steve or Jim, so if you see someone on Twitter who looks to ordinary to be true, it's probably Prince Harry. Follow that person. (Don't really.)

However, the next in line to the throne (I'm excluding Prince George from this altogether. I don't think he knows how to speak, let alone tweet), the Duke of York, does have a Twitter.

If you're wondering why I've stuck a picture of Prince Andrew in the middle of the post is because he is a relatively obscure royal and not many people even know who he is. For those people, that is the Duke of York. His Twitter is @TheDukeOfYork, but he isn't the only one who uses it. In fact, he hardly uses it at all, just occasionally. His tweets are signed 'AY', for Andrew York.

Another, well, ex-royal with a Twitter, is Andrew's ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York. Her Twitter seems like she actually uses it, which is fitting because she's always struck me as the most different and modern, I suppose, of the otherwise extremely rigid royal family. The Duchess was very interested in Queen Victoria before she got married (and after - she was a producer for the movie, The Young Victoria), so it must have been a dream for her to marry Victoria's great-great-great-grandson. Well, into the family, anyway. Even though she got divorced from Andrew, she never married again, which is why she was allowed to retain the title of Duchess of York. She's very close to her daughters, and sometimes she wears crazy clothes, like she is a 25 year old, not the mother of one. Despite leaving The Firm she's continued to do charity work and one time she did an interview with Cheryl Cole, and it was hilarious. Twitter: @SarahTheDuchess

None of the royals lower than Prince Andrew have a Twitter of which I know, but there is an account for the British Monarchy (@BritishMonarchy) which isn't maintained by any of the members of the family, but is an official account and does post relevant and accurate royal information, so if that's what you want you can follow them.

Good people to follow if you're looking for concise and almost instant information about the British Royal Family are royal correspondents. These are the people who write for newspapers and websites or appear on the news channels to talk about royalty. If you follow too many of them, like I have, and something big happens, like Prince William goes back to school, it does get a little bit repetitive, and a lot of the times it's just one correspondent retweeting another, so choose wisely.

My personal favourites are Dickie and Victoria Arbiter. They're father and daughter - he was a press spokesman for Her Majesty and she is a royal contributor for CNN. Both of them are great fun, especially if you have a fair bit of knowledge about the members and the working of the royal family. You can follow them at @RoyalDickie and @victoriaarbiter.

Also, you should follow Royal Central, because I write for them, and I'm not above blatant promotion of websites which I write for (A link to this post will go onto my Facebook page five minutes after it is published).

Duchess of Cambridge turns 32: Royal Central's article.

N