Suppose Princess Anne was older than Charles, would she have been 1st in line for the throne?

Question

We were watching TV this morning and Anne was at the North Pole, lecturing the whole of mankind for being filthy.

In common with most people I respect Anne, she is made of stern stuff and is not a woman tho be trifled with, I reckon. To me, she epitomises "Britishness".

This led us to the usual conversation of " isn't it a pity she wasn't heir to the throne, instead of twit Charles?"


But can someone clarify the situation- even if she HAD been born before Charles, would he - by virtue of being the oldest male- still have been 1st in line?

Answer 1

The Throne always goes to the 1st male child, so even if Charles was the youngest to 8 girls, he would still be heir to the throne

Pretty sexist don't you think?

Answer 2

When Princess Anne was born, there was a rule in place which stated that the male line came first. Then the law changed, so that both men and women were equal, so even if Princess Anne had come first, Prince Charles would still become king.

Answer 3

Yep, that is indeed the case. The UK (and 99% of all other Monarchies) follow a patriarchical system of succession. All this means is that the position of monarch will succeed to the next male in line to that title. Only when this is not possible will it ever fall to a woman, and this has happened a few times - most notably with the two Queen Elizabeth's, who were without male siblings. If they had even a much younger brother the title would still fall to him, so long as the coronation had not taken place. Patriarchical succession doesn't just apply to kings and queens, any title of nobility (baron, viscount, earl, marquis and duke) is decided on this basis. Don't quote me on it, but I think the legislation that applies to these laws is contained with the pre 1964 Acts of Succession.

Answer 4

No, because in Great Britan the men go first in the line for the crown, that mena, Princes, Charles, then his two sons then his two younger brothers Andrew and Edward and after them came Princess Anne. if William gets married an have a son this come to be the third in the line after William

Answer 5

men are first in the order of priority at present day. The act taking into consideration the first born daughter to be triumphant to the throne has yet to be exceeded. hence if Prince William were to be triumphant to the throne and had a daughter and then a son, then below the present regulation then the boy might want to be King first.

Answer 6

The rules primogeniture state that the eldest son, regardless of birth order, is the next in line for the throne. Only is Queen Elizabeth had had no sons would Princess Anne be her mother's heir, or "Heiress Presumptive".

Answer 7

Most of the European Monarchies ( obviously not as stable as ours) have taken on board the notion that the eldest child takes the throne in due course. Britain's Monarchy works on the principle that tradition is to preserved and is only changed with a "kicking and screaming" mentality. Change the rule of male first succession and it makes changing the hopelessly undefendable rules which prohibit Roman Catholics taking the throne possible

Answer 8

I believe the in the British Monarchy, the crown is passed to the oldest male in line.

Answer 9

Charles would still be the 1st in line.

This by the way only happens in the UK as in the rest of the European Monarchies it is the first born, male or female.

Answer 10

All of the above answers are correct, guess you will have a
difficult time in choosing the best! Anyway, I decided to barge
in to congratulate you for having praised Princess Anne. It is
rare to have a Brit praising Royalty. I am a Scotsman, and feel
much the same as you about our present Royalty, and Princess
Anne is the best! Take good care of yourself, Iain