No, it isn’t - per Cameron’s quote, it applies only from William’s generation on. Also
emphasis mine.
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!
: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. 
I have heard this about one’s father’s brother’s daughter, so one’s first cousin and not niece.
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.
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:
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.
Bring any paper? :dubious:
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.
(The current King of the United Kingdom would be this guy.)
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.
The Guardian disagrees.
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."
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
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.
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.
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.
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.