# Royal succession laws changed in UK **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [October 28, 2011, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060 "2011-10-28T10:01:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/838e76/32.png) [@One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/One_And_Only_Wanderers)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2011, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/1 "2011-10-28T10:01:19Z")
> **[Girls equal in British throne succession](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15492607)** > > Sons and daughters of any future British monarch will have equal right to the throne, after Commonwealth leaders agreed to change succession laws. About time really, why should an elder daughter be skipped for a younger (male) sibling? ---
**Author:** ![Illuminatiprimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/illuminatiprimus/32/11520_2.png) [@Illuminatiprimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Illuminatiprimus)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2011, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/2 "2011-10-28T10:05:49Z")
Or be excluded for marrying a Catholic. As much as I think these changes are kind of overdue and all I can’t help but wonder if we don’t have better things to worry about at this precise moment. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2011, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/3 "2011-10-28T10:16:57Z")
> [@Illuminatiprimus](#): > > …I can’t help but wonder if we don’t have better things to worry about at this precise moment. Yeah, but it’s a quick win. Hardly anything to actually do, in order to make this change, but with benefits that are likely to be fairly popular (if only in a mild sense). ---
**Author:** ![Aspidistra](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspidistra/32/3894_2.png) [@Aspidistra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspidistra)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2011, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/4 "2011-10-28T10:27:06Z")
Not going to make much difference for the next 30-50 years though, is it? ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2011, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/5 "2011-10-28T10:39:24Z")
> [@Illuminatiprimus](#): > > Or be excluded for marrying a Catholic. AIUI that was because the Catholic church required any children born of such a union to be raised as Catholics - has that changed, or was I wrong in the first place? Bottom line, there is a 50% chance that this will have a meaningful impact when William dies circa 2082 (since I give him an excellent chance of being our first centenarian monarch), but it gives us some feel-good factor now. That probably outweighs tradition. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![SanVito](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sanvito/32/2805_2.png) [@SanVito](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanVito)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2011, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/6 "2011-10-28T11:00:25Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > Not going to make much difference for the next 30-50 years though, is it? But I think the urgency was in case the Cambridge’s have a baby, which could easily (but not likely) happen within a year or so. It would cause a bit of a rumpus if they had a girl under the existing law. ---
**Author:** ![ColdPhoenix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@ColdPhoenix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ColdPhoenix)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2011, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/7 "2011-10-28T12:06:42Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > Bottom line, there is a 50% chance that this will have a meaningful impact when William dies circa 2082 (since I give him an excellent chance of being our first centenarian monarch) I think the current queen is more likely to be the first centenarian. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2011, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/8 "2011-10-28T12:15:03Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > Bottom line, there is a 50% chance that this will have a meaningful impact when William dies circa 2082 (since I give him an excellent chance of being our first centenarian monarch), but it gives us some feel-good factor now. That probably outweighs tradition. 🙂 He could be first, second, or even third. The Queen has less than 15 years to make it to 100 and her mother lived past that age. Charles appears to be in decent health, his grandmother lived past 100 and both his parents are long livers. ---
**Author:** ![Illuminatiprimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/illuminatiprimus/32/11520_2.png) [@Illuminatiprimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Illuminatiprimus)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2011, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/9 "2011-10-28T13:05:33Z")
> [@SanVito](#): > > But I think the urgency was in case the Cambridge’s have a baby, which could easily (but not likely) happen within a year or so. It would cause a bit of a rumpus if they had a girl under the existing law. Why? That child would be fourth in the line of succession, hardly competing for the top spot. Furthermore the restriction on not having a Catholic monarch isn’t quite as pertinent as it was when the Act of Settlement was passed - we’re no longer mired in religious-based hegemony at the hands of other powers. There is the issue with the monarch being head of the Church of England but that’s just another few Acts of Parliament away from being solved if it ever gets to it. ETA - hang on, Camilla Parker Bowles is 64! By what kind of miracle do you see her and Charles having a child? ---
**Author:** ![One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/838e76/32.png) [@One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/One_And_Only_Wanderers)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2011, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/10 "2011-10-28T13:19:55Z")
> [@Illuminatiprimus](#): > > Why? That child would be fourth in the line of succession, hardly competing for the top spot. Furthermore the restriction on not having a Catholic monarch isn’t quite as pertinent as it was when the Act of Settlement was passed - we’re no longer mired in religious-based hegemony at the hands of other powers. There is the issue with the monarch being head of the Church of England but that’s just another few Acts of Parliament away from being solved if it ever gets to it. > > ETA - hang on, Camilla Parker Bowles is 64! By what kind of miracle do you see her and Charles having a child? I think he means the new royal couple’s children, who are in direct line of succession, ie their eldest would be expected to ascend the throne. If their first child were a girl and then they had a boy, before the law had been changed, the girl would be behind the boy in the line of succession ---
**Author:** ![Capitaine\_Zombie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@Capitaine\_Zombie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capitaine_Zombie)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2011, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/11 "2011-10-28T13:23:44Z")
> [@One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](#): > > the girl would be behind the boy in the line of succession It’s always better the other way. ---
**Author:** ![dangermom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@dangermom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermom)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2011, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/12 "2011-10-28T13:24:05Z")
And just because that new baby would be down the list of succession doesn’t mean the UK tabloids wouldn’t have a field day with the utter unfairness of maybe excluding her in 50 years or so! 😛 ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2011, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/13 "2011-10-28T13:33:17Z")
Can one of you Royalists answer a question - under the old law, if William & Kate had a daughter but no son, and Elizabeth, Charles & William all died, who would become the new monarch - Harry or William’s daughter? ---
**Author:** ![Bakhesh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Bakhesh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bakhesh)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2011, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/14 "2011-10-28T13:35:41Z")
> [@One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](#): > > [Girls equal in British throne succession - BBC News](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15492607) > > About time really, why should an elder daughter be skipped for a younger (male) sibling? Probably for similar reasons that you have to belong to one single family. I mean seriously, the monarchy isn’t exactly an equal opportunities employer. ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2011, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/15 "2011-10-28T13:40:07Z")
> [@muldoonthief](#): > > Can one of you Royalists answer a question - under the old law, if William & Kate had a daughter but no son, and Elizabeth, Charles & William all died, who would become the new monarch - Harry or William’s daughter? I’m fairly sure William and Kate’s daughter would have succeeded in that case. Harry would have had to do her in too to become king, but he has the training for it. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2011, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/16 "2011-10-28T13:40:56Z")
Daughters? OK, I guess. Liz 1 was a tolerable monarch. But Catholics? Never! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2011, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/17 "2011-10-28T14:04:03Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > I’m fairly sure William and Kate’s daughter would have succeeded in that case. Harry would have had to do her in too to become king, but he has the training for it. The first two times I read that, I missed the “in” in the second sentence, which was quite disturbing. Especially with the “he has the training for it”. ---
**Author:** ![SecondJudith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@SecondJudith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SecondJudith)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2011, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/18 "2011-10-28T14:34:51Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Yeah, but it’s a quick win. Hardly anything to actually do, in order to make this change, but with benefits that are likely to be fairly popular (if only in a mild sense). Yes, it means papers get to run an article with a picture of the Duke and Duchess looking photogenically beatific together. ---
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2011, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/19 "2011-10-28T15:10:01Z")
> [@muldoonthief](#): > > Can one of you Royalists answer a question - under the old law, if William & Kate had a daughter but no son, and Elizabeth, Charles & William all died, who would become the new monarch - Harry or William’s daughter? The Cambridges having a daughter but William then dying is basically the model of the only situation in which the UK could have a heiress apparent. The Crown will always follow William’s line before getting to Harry’s. (I’m no Royalist.) What I’m curious to know is what is required to change the line of succession, especially for all the Commonwealth realms. It’s reported on TV here (Canada) that it’s been changed, but as the article linked in the OP points out, it will require some acts of parliament to be amended, and so in theory isn’t a done thing. But will that change the law for all Commonwealth realms, or will the other countries with Elizabeth as head of state have to pass laws as well? Or change their constitutions? ---
**Author:** ![flodnak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/838e76/32.png) [@flodnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flodnak)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2011, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/20 "2011-10-28T15:15:12Z")
> [@One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](#): > > I think he means the new royal couple’s children, who are in direct line of succession, ie their eldest would be expected to ascend the throne. If their first child were a girl and then they had a boy, before the law had been changed, the girl would be behind the boy in the line of succession Most likely but not necessarily. Before Sweden changed their succession law, the King’s second-born child Philip was ahead of his older sister Victoria. The change meant that they switched places and Victoria became Crown Princess. Of course, since Victoria was about three and Philip was still in diapers, the kids themselves were not terribly concerned about the changes 🙂 [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060.md?page=2)