She was the only heir at the time.
2007-11-28 23:45:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by yoda 3
·
2⤊
5⤋
Her uncle, King Edward VIII abdicated the Throne around 1938 or so, leaving his younger brother, Prince George the new King. King George had ONLY 2 DAUGHTERS and no sons. If Queen Elizabeth had a younger brother, HE would have become King instead of Her. In England the males get the Throne BEFORE the females (not fair!) However, since there were only 2 girls, one of them would inherit the Throne.
England also does not give Princesses the same respect in titles. When Andrew married he was given a Ducal title (Duke of York) while Princess Anne got NOTHING when she got married! This is why the Queen made her "the Princess Royal" (there can be only one alive at a time) and is purely a made-up title that confers nothing but that Title! In other words, while Charles and Andrew live off the taxes of "Cornwall and York" Anne must make her own living.
2007-11-29 18:28:29
·
answer #2
·
answered by AdamKadmon 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Because her father King George V1 only had two daughters. Elizabeth was the elder so she became the next Monarch ie Queen. Had she had a brother even one younger than her, he would have taken priority and ascended the throne. Today however, regardless of the sex of the child, the first born child of William (if he becomes King after Charles) will be the next King or Queen. Equality has finally caught up with the Royal Family. In many countries women are not regarded well enough to be considered fit to be crowned Head of State.
2007-11-29 09:13:46
·
answer #3
·
answered by suevbaustralia 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Britain does not have a king because it is ruled by a Queen, Elizabeth II. She was heir to her father King George VI.He had only 2 daughters, and Elizabeth,as his eldest child,ascended the throne upon his death.Elizabeth takes her Royal Duties seriously,and has never entertained the thought of making her husband a king,so Philip bears the title of Prince Consort,the highest title that a spouse of a ruling Queen Regent can have. The title of King presumes the monarch,so as long as there is a Queen Monarch,there can be no King in England. This has nothing to do with who Philip is;he is a Royal Prince of the Danish-German-Greek Royal House of Schlessweig-Holstein-
Sonderburg-Glucksburg
and is a third cousin to his wife.It would take an act of Parliament to proclaim him King;and there is no need to do so.The Queen performs her duties with seriousness and dedication,and the Royal couple have produced heirs to the throne who are all of age to take on the duties when the time comes.
2007-11-29 14:04:07
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
The Netherlands and Denmark have Queens not Kings at the moment. In some monarchies like the UK if the reigning monarch has no sons and only daughters they will ascend to the throne. In some monarchies (e.g Netherlands and Denmark) the oldest child of whatever gender will ascend to the throne (both the examples only changed their laws recently, before that it was the same as the UK, but despite this The Netherlands never had a king in the 20th Century they had three Queens in a row, however, the next monarch will be a King as Queen Beatrix only has three sons).
2007-11-29 07:59:58
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
What? What on earth does 'in the world every (or some) country have King' mean? There are many many countries without monarchs at all, and several with queens rather than kings.
As for the British case: she was the next in line for the throne, and British law doesn't discriminate on grounds of gender in this regard.
2007-11-29 08:02:07
·
answer #6
·
answered by garik 5
·
0⤊
4⤋
Because she was the eldest child of a monarch who did not have sons. Britsh laws of succession do not follow Salic law, which specifies that only men can inherit. As a result, the succession go to a child of a reigning monarch -- preferably male, but in the absence of a male heir, then to the eldest female. The logic is that ANY child of a reigning monarch has preference over that monarch's siblings.
If Britain followed Salic law, then Victoria would not have become Queen in 1837, the current King of Britain would have been HRH Prince Ernst August of Hanover (who was born in 1954).
2007-11-29 07:53:50
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
2⤋
The current British monarch is Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, her father King George VI only had two daughters, therefore, she became heiress presumptive. An heiress presumptive is the person provisionally scheduled to inherit a throne, peerage, or other hereditary honor, but whose position can be displaced by the birth of an heir apparent or of a new heir presumptive with a better claim to the throne.
Succession to the British Throne is governed both by common law and statute. Under common law the crown is passed on by male-preference primogeniture. In other words, an individual's male children are preferred over his or her female children, and an older child is preferred over a younger child of the same gender, with children representing their deceased ancestors.
There are currently two other female monarchs in Europe. Queen Margrethe II of Denmark and Queen Beatrix of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden, Duchess of Västergötland is the heiress apparent to the Swedish throne. She is currently the world's only female heir apparent to a royal throne.
2007-11-29 10:55:38
·
answer #8
·
answered by Rachelle_of_Shangri_La 7
·
2⤊
5⤋
There was no male air to the throne, that was why you have a queen.
2007-11-29 07:47:26
·
answer #9
·
answered by wine bluff 1
·
1⤊
1⤋
she was the heir to the throne
2007-11-29 07:41:36
·
answer #10
·
answered by racer 51 7
·
4⤊
1⤋