Yep, their daughter would become Queen, but Harry would rule as Prince Regent until her 18th birthday.
Victoria also had 2 older brothers, both of whom were alive at the time of her ascension. However they from her mother’s first marriage, and thus were never in the line of succession to begin with. Queens Mary II and Anne also had a living brother (James Francis Edward Stuart; “The Old Pretender”) who would’ve normally been ahead of them in the succession. Since he was baptised a Roman Catholic he was stripped of the succession at the same time his father, James II, was deposed.
Märtha’s mother, Queen Sonja, was not born royal or born into nobility, making her the product of the first generation in centuries that didn’t marry a close relative.
[QUOTE=chizzuk;14405797…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.[/QUOTE]
That’s because he’s so goodlooking. If he was ugly, they’d have tossed him aside:D
Well it’s a paper of record and they haven’t corrected it. I’ll email them and see if they’re sure they’re right. Cameron isn’t the brightest, his words frequently don’t mean what he wanted them to mean.
Weren’t there some people fairly high up the succession list for the British throne that got booted from the list for marrying Catholic? The Duke of Kent and his children may be who I’m thinking of. Will they get reinstated?
It was Prince Michael of Kent, the Duke’s brother (although his children are eligible since they’re not Catholic). The Duke of Kent is currently married to a Catholic, but since she converted after marriage, he’s okay (his two sons are ineligible, one for marriage and one for conversion, but neither his daughter nor his first son’s younger daughter ever converted, and I think his second son’s kids are too young to be either way yet).
This is all well and good, but what would be the precedent for conjoined twins? Nothing disfiguring mind you, and easily separated, but born at the same time. Is the monarchy prepared for such an occurrence? Why I think not.
Part of the problem with Spain is that it’s a Constitutional change, not a lower-level law. Yes, there has recently been a (minor and alredy matching some local laws set at lower levels) change to our Constitution, but this is something which would have direct consequences as it would mean making Elena (who’s on the low-IQ side of normal) our next Queen: it wouldn’t pass without a lot of debate, and that debate would have a lot of other long-demanded changes brought up as well as trigger the “and why the heck do we have to be a Monarchy anyway” debate. If Cristina had been the eldest, we might already have had non-salic inheritance from the onset…
Felipe and Letizia have already said that they’re stopping at #2 unless there’s an accident. They’ve got the heir-apparent, they’ve got the replacement, there’s no reason to court a #3 which could be a boy and, as you say, bring the whole mess to the forefront.