Yet, there was absolutely no mention of this rather interesting angle to the stories in the media. Every one went to Jordan, fawned over the Prince-turned-King and professed to feel Queen Noor's pain. Yet, there is something spooky when a decision that is assumed to have been settled for three decades is reversed so suddenly. The new king's heir apparent is his brother. I'm not sure (Hussein had the four wives that Islam allowed him to have) but the heir apparent is the son of Hussein's youngest wife, a woman who happens to be American-born. There are conspiracy theories floating around, with the usual Middle-East cast of suspects -- Israel, the CIA, Saddam Hussein, Kuwait ...
What will be pretty interesting is if Abdulla dies or abdicates. Then, you will have as king of Jordan, the Western-educated son of an American king. I hate to think of all the fawning the media will go into then.
One of my friends to whom I suggested this didn't agree. In Arabia, he insisted, heirs are installed at the very last moment so that they don't get any ideas. That reminded me of the Muslim rulers that North India had for a few centuries; several of them came to power by throwing their fathers in jail and assuming the throne. The more ruthless ones killed their fathers. With Jordan coming from the same culture (and following the modes of the 1600s still), King Hussein was probably only being extra cautious.
Still, it would make an interesting story, if only some one would write about it.
