I understand the logical order for the heir but, why isn't it Prince Andrew if Prince Charles is no longer around and he has never been the heir. Does this not matter, does the order just run through anyway if you get what I mean?
2007-01-04 08:58:28 · 6 answers · asked by Stephanie P 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
its a bit hard to explain but if you go to wiki you may understand it better
2007-01-04 09:03:54 · answer #1 · answered by sugarplum9903 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As soon as a male child is born to the heir, he becomes next in line to the throne. Even if Charles never becomes King, William is after him in the line of succession.
2007-01-04 09:32:12 · answer #2 · answered by Sandy Lou 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
At one time, Princess Anne was second in line to the throne. Then Andrew came along and she went down one. And so it is with all in line to the throne, the nearest in line is followed by his/her children, their children, their children. Everyone else moves down accordingly or moves up as the case may be. The Queen herself was never expected to take the Throne. Destiny proved otherwise.
2007-01-04 09:06:05 · answer #3 · answered by Raymo 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The system has been around for a long time. The eldest son inherits, then his eldest son and so on. If there are no sons, the eldest daughter inherits (as did HM). If there are no children, the next eldest brother inherits.
2007-01-04 09:03:37 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
no.after prince charles,his son is d heir.then,harry.then,prince andrew's kids.then prince edward's,then princess anne's.but it wouldn't go till then,it'll remain within charles n his boys.
2007-01-06 02:42:08 · answer #5 · answered by Ms Hermione Granger 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
stupid rules, should give it all up, who really cares, what do they do for us, nothing, they are so out of touch, and have no idea of what the real world is all about
2007-01-04 10:04:46 · answer #6 · answered by ringo711 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋