# 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:** 3
**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, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/41 "2011-10-28T21:49:33Z")
> [@Sami41](#): > > Is the new law retroactive? > > Wiki is still showing Anne as 10th in line for the throne, but I’m not sure how fast Wiki updates. [Succession to the British throne - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_British_throne) > > I know it’s pretty unlikely that Charles, William and Harry all die before William or Harry have kids. But if they did, under the new law, wouldn’t Anne be next in line above Andrew, his heirs, Edward and his heirs, since she would then be the eldest surviving child of Liz and Phil? No, it isn’t - per Cameron’s quote, it applies only from William’s generation on. Also > [@BBC article cited in the OP](#): > > Sons and daughters of **any future UK monarch** will have equal right to the throne, emphasis mine. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2011, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/42 "2011-10-28T21:53:49Z")
> [@Mk\_VII](#): > > The Statute of Westminster requires that any [valid] changes to the succession require exactly similar legislation to be passed by all the Commonwealth countries which retain the Queen as Head of State. Here’s a chance for Tuvalu to make some extra money - refuse to pass the legislation until they get a big foreign aid package from Her Majesty Elizabeth II! ---
**Author:** ![Sami41](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c57346/32.png) [@Sami41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sami41)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2011, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/43 "2011-10-28T21:53:50Z")
:smack: I didn’t read the linked article, just another article earlier today (which didn’t elaborate). That’ll teach me. Thanks! ---
**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, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/44 "2011-10-28T21:57:07Z")
> [@Sami41](#): > > :smack: > > I didn’t read the linked article, just another article earlier today (which didn’t elaborate). That’ll teach me. > > Thanks! Let him that is without sin, say I. 😉 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2011, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/45 "2011-10-28T22:07:25Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > In fact, I think in some Muslim communities, a brother’s daughter is considered a man’s ideal match. I have heard this about one’s _father’s_ brother’s daughter, so one’s first cousin and not niece. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2011, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/46 "2011-10-29T02:01:33Z")
> [@Sami41](#): > > Is the new law retroactive? > > Wiki is still showing Anne as 10th in line for the throne, but I’m not sure how fast Wiki updates. [Succession to the British throne - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_British_throne) The law hasn’t been passed yet in any country, so there has been no change, even if it would do that. There’s just an agreement in principle as of today. It could be years before all of the cats get herded into the right place. ---
**Author:** ![flodnak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/838e76/32.png) [@flodnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flodnak)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2011, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/47 "2011-10-29T07:07:50Z")
> [@chizzuk](#): > > Yeah, I think it depends on each country’s specific situation. Sweden changed the titles immediately. But Spain has been contemplating a similar change and there has been no mention whatsoever of removing Crown Prince Felipe from his position, even though he has two older sisters. I believe the general sentiment is that the oldest child, Infanta Elena, is a bit woo-woo and while everyone is all for gender equality in concept, no one actually wants her on the throne over her more intelligent, better-prepared younger brother. It’s frightening how similar this is to the situation in Norway 😛 Here, the law changed things in stages, from salic to absolute primogeniture. For the generation that includes the current King (he was Crown Prince at the time), nothing changed. Although he had two older sisters, Harald would remain the only one eligible to inherit the throne (salic primogeniture). For his children’s generation, boys would come before girls (agnatic primogeniture), so Haakon comes before Märtha even though he is the younger of the two. Both were in their teens when the law passed so neither had children. But as they did so, Haakon’s children would enter the line of succession behind him in order of age, without regard to gender (absolute primogeniture). …And although there were no signs of this at the time, most Norwegians are now glad the change did not take effect one generation earlier, because Märtha is into all manner of woowoo things and no one actually wants her on the throne over her more grounded, better-prepared younger brother. In Sweden, on the other hand, I think Victoria’s going to do a fine job. She’s had her problems, and who hasn’t, but at least she doesn’t think she can talk to angels :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Naxos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/50afbb/32.png) [@Naxos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Naxos)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2011, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/48 "2011-10-29T07:56:39Z")
> [@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? Right. If something comes out of a particular vagina, then all other people should be allowed to worship it. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2011, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/49 "2011-10-29T08:09:21Z")
> [@Naxos](#): > > Right. > > If something comes out of a particular vagina, then all other people should be allowed to worship it. In my experience, it’s true that some vaginas are more magical than others. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2011, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/50 "2011-10-29T08:13:42Z")
> [@Naxos](#): > > Right. > > If something comes out of a particular vagina, then all other people should be allowed to worship it. Bring any paper? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2011, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/51 "2011-10-29T08:14:50Z")
Interestingly, if this law had been in effect back in 1900, then we wouldn’t have the current line on the throne. Victoria’s oldest child was her daughter Victoria, who was passed over for Edward VII. But if this law had been in effect, then Victoria II would have become Queen of the United Kingdom in 1901 when her mother died. Victoria II would have had a short reign because she died seven months later. So her oldest child would have become King William V. And the reason that’s “interesting” is because he already had a [job](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_II,_German_Emperor). (The current King of the United Kingdom would be [this guy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Friedrich,_Prince_of_Prussia).) ---
**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 29, 2011, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/52 "2011-10-29T08:41:19Z")
> [@Naxos](#): > > Right. > > If something comes out of a particular vagina, then all other people should be allowed to worship it. Id rather the UK be a republic, but if we’re gonna have a monarchy, at least its not sexist. ---
**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 29, 2011, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/53 "2011-10-29T09:37:44Z")
> [@One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](#): > > Id rather the UK be a republic, but if we’re gonna have a monarchy, at least its not sexist. As much as it causes a white hot agony in my fingers to type these words, I agree. ---
**Author:** ![williambaskerville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f14d63/32.png) [@williambaskerville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/williambaskerville)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2011, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/54 "2011-10-29T10:06:27Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > No, it isn’t - per Cameron’s quote, it applies only from William’s generation on. Also > emphasis mine. The Guardian disagrees. > **[Royal equality act will end succession of first born male - rather than older...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/commonwealth-royalty-succession-change)** > > 'Outdated' law barring a potential monarch from marrying a Catholic also to be scrapped at Commonwealth meeting Quote from the above article :- "• An elder daughter should be placed behind a younger son in the line of succession. The order of succession will in future be determined by the order of birth. The immediate impact will place the Princess Royal, the Queen’s daughter, fourth in the line of succession behind the Prince of Wales and his two sons. At the moment the princess is 10th. The Duke of York, who is fourth, will drop to eighth." ---
**Author:** ![Girl\_From\_Mars](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3da27b/32.png) [@Girl\_From\_Mars](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Girl_From_Mars)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2011, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/55 "2011-10-29T11:39:10Z")
> [@Obesity in America revisited](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obesity-in-america-revisited/70563/44): > > (The current King of the United Kingdom would be [this guy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Friedrich,_Prince_of_Prussia).) Not that the Daily Mail or Wiki are the be all and end all of accurate information, but: [If the change in British law, allowing eldest daughters of the monarch to accede to the throne, had been passed in the time of Queen Victoria, Princess Marie Cécile would be the current British queen, according to British newspaper the Daily Mail](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Marie_C%C3%A9cile_of_Prussia) ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2011, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/56 "2011-10-29T16:41:10Z")
> [@Girl\_From\_Mars](#): > > Not that the Daily Mail or Wiki are the be all and end all of accurate information, but: > [If the change in British law, allowing eldest daughters of the monarch to accede to the throne, had been passed in the time of Queen Victoria, Princess Marie Cécile would be the current British queen, according to British newspaper the Daily Mail](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Marie_C%C3%A9cile_of_Prussia) This is evidence of why I should spend an extra five minutes of research on Wikipedia before deciding who gets to rule millions of people. ---
**Author:** ![Bookkeeper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bookkeeper/32/281_2.png) [@Bookkeeper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bookkeeper)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2011, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/57 "2011-10-29T20:56:54Z")
Note, however, that if the succession law had been changed back in Vickie’s time, she and the rest of the country might have had different ideas about who would have been suitable husbands for her daughters. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2011, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/58 "2011-10-29T21:31:48Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Interestingly, if this law had been in effect back in 1900, then we wouldn’t have the current line on the throne. Victoria’s oldest child was her daughter Victoria, who was passed over for Edward VII. But if this law had been in effect, then Victoria II would have become Queen of the United Kingdom in 1901 when her mother died. Victoria II would have had a short reign because she died seven months later. So her oldest child would have become King William V. > > And the reason that’s “interesting” is because he already had a [job](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_II,_German_Emperor). > > (The current King of the United Kingdom would be [this guy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Friedrich,_Prince_of_Prussia).) Unlikely, because the English aren’t big on marrying crown princesses to people who have much of a chance of their own succession (frankly, most countries aren’t), at least not in that recent timeline. So Victoria would have been married off to someone more appropriate farther from any possibility of having his own crown. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2011, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/59 "2011-10-30T00:24:00Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > Unlikely, because the English aren’t big on marrying crown princesses to people who have much of a chance of their own succession (frankly, most countries aren’t), at least not in that recent timeline. So Victoria would have been married off to someone more appropriate farther from any possibility of having his own crown. But if the law had gone into effect in 1900, it would have been too late to make those considerations. Princess Victoria married Friedrich Wilhelm in 1858 and their son Wilhelm was born in 1859 (two days after their first anniversary). I’ll grant that under those circumstances it would have been incredibly unlikely that Parliament would have chosen to change the succession laws in 1900. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2011, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060/60 "2011-10-30T00:59:17Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > (The current King of the United Kingdom would be [this guy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Friedrich,_Prince_of_Prussia).) > [@Girl\_From\_Mars](#): > > Not that the Daily Mail or Wiki are the be all and end all of accurate information, but: > [If the change in British law, allowing eldest daughters of the monarch to accede to the throne, had been passed in the time of Queen Victoria, Princess Marie Cécile would be the current British queen, according to British newspaper the Daily Mail](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Marie_C%C3%A9cile_of_Prussia) We can never know if anything like this would be true, because the circumstances of the family’s history would have changed. You can say such-and-such guy would be king, but with an alternate history individual players would have been in different locations and undergone different experiences than history records now. Marriages would have been different, producing other offspring than you see now. Perhaps some who lived out their lives in safety would have been placed in harm’s way, such as killed during the Battle of Britain or thrown from a horse he or she would otherwise not have ridden etc. Or conversely, some who died may have managed to extend their lives or avoid harm completely thanks to being in different circumstances. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-laws-changed-in-uk/601060.md?page=4)