Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
9:25 am
April 9, 2011
Offline
I’m hoping someone much more knowledgable can answer this really easy question I am going to present.
Yesterday my state paper had a delightful double page spread on the upcoming royal baby. And in the article they mentioned how the law has been changed to that maes don’t trump females in the inheritance stake. Now I thought I had my head around the whole inheritance thing, but the paper then made the following statement. Not word for word as I don’t have it in front anymore:
‘This new law means that if it is a girl, she will be third in line to the throne behind Charles and William but ahead of Harry. Before the law was changed the child would have fallen behind Harry’
Is this true? I always thought that based on the old law that the throne went to the child of the monarch regardless of gender and it only went to the monarch’s sibling if there were no children of the monarch. Would Harry seriously have inherited the throne if William only had daughters under the old law?
2:04 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
I think the baby will come before Harry. Billy boy is heir after Jug ears and Horsey. The original idea was that a male was better than a female, but H8 was left with a difficult decision when he was King. He knew that he had just one male heir and no spare so he had no choice but to but to change the rules to allow woman to become a monarch, but I think it a case of a woman can rule but only if there was no hope of a male inheriting the throne. There were a few potential male claiments to the throne when Henry died but Henry had chopped most of them up.
The law more or less stayed the same where woman rulers were concerned, with a few minor changes here and there. The Queen has simply put the rubber stamp and royal seal on the inheritence lot.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
9:50 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
yes..A daughter born as the first child will now the the heir apparent rather than her great-grand-mother who was the heiress presumptive. This is a much needed change in the law of not just the UK but many of the Commonwealth too since their parliments’ needed to give thier permission before it could get the Royal assent from the Queen.
eta.. Victoria became queen as the child of an older male sibling even though she had uncles and male cousins. Following the death of William IV, the crown of Hanover went to her uncle who reigned as Ernest Augustus I since they Honoverians pracied Salic Law.
Intereastingly..it also moves the Princess Royal up the chain. Instead of being behind Princes Andrew and Edward and thier children, she will become 4th in line until the Cambridge baby is born and then she will drop down to 5th.
It's always bunnies.
10:40 pm
April 9, 2011
Offline
So my paper was wrong in stating that before the law change, Harry would be ahead of Will’s daughter? Cause my understanding it that at the moment, Beatrice and Eugenie are ahead of Edward.
I thought the lawchange only ‘begins’ from William’s children, so the Princess Royal is still behind her two younger brothers.
3:30 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
Bill1978 said
So my paper was wrong in stating that before the law change, Harry would be ahead of Will’s daughter? Cause my understanding it that at the moment, Beatrice and Eugenie are ahead of Edward.
You are correct..the paper is wrong. The line of succession goes
1)eldest son,
2)children of eldest son( boys then girls by age),
3)2nd son,
4)his children as before,
other sons and their children
daughter and thier childre,
Yes Beatrice and Eugenie come before Edward. But Edward’s son comes before his sister even though she is the elder child.
I thought the lawchange only ‘begins’ from William’s children, so the Princess Royal is still behind her two younger brothers.
You are probably right..I read about the law chance in a French paper ( LaPresse) and I sometimes miss the sutilities when I mentally translate into English.
It's always bunnies.
