By the time the son reached adulthood though there would be groups pressuring him to stand aside and let his older sister move up the line of succession.This probably means that succession legisture is not changed retroactively so if Charles and Diana has son, he would be on line of succession before her older sister.
By the time the son reached adulthood though there would be groups pressuring him to stand aside and let his older sister move up the line of succession.
By the time the son reached adulthood though there would be groups pressuring him to stand aside and let his older sister move up the line of succession.
UK changed its succession laws in 2011 so the eldest child regardless of the sex was the heir. What if prince William had been born in 1982 as princess Wilhelmina? Would the royal court have deemed it fit for change it in the 1980s already?
Nope, Spain never changed the succession law. They wanted, when Felipes first born was a girl, but it would need a complicated proses to change the constitution. When the second child was also a daughter, they postponed it.Spain changed the law but with a provision that Filipe would remain 1st in line and that it would would come into effec for the next generation.
Nope, Spain never changed the succession law. They wanted, when Felipes first born was a girl, but it would need a complicated proses to change the constitution. When the second child was also a daughter, they postponed it.
They talked about it, the consensus being that Filipe would still be king and his first child would be sovereign regardless of gender. If they had had a third (Male) child they would have enacted the changes, but Spain being Spain they failed to do so to avoid yet another constitutional discussion.Yes, I believe the current King and Queen even announced they were expecting a second girl (the Infanta Sofia), which basically brought the issue to an end for a generation.
Will be interesting to see if changes are made in advance of the Princess of Asturias getting married or if they see what her first child is first - again if its a boy, the issue can be deferred for another generation.
I actually wonder whether the Prince and Princess of Wales might decide to avoid the whole issue by not choosing to have a second child if their first is a girl. The Queen had enough children that should something happen to the new Princess the line of succession would still be secure.
If Charles first two children are both female and his siblings get the children they got and Charles do not get any more children then Peter Phillips, born in 1977 is heir appearant until Prince Edwards first son in 2007. The 30 year old Peter might take it with stride.I actually wonder whether the Prince and Princess of Wales might decide to avoid the whole issue by not choosing to have a second child if their first is a girl. The Queen had enough children that should something happen to the new Princess the line of succession would still be secure.
If Charles first two children are both female and his siblings get the children they got and Charles do not get any more children then Peter Phillips, born in 1977 is heir appearant until Prince Edwards first son in 2007. The 30 year old Peter might take it with stride.
If Charles first two children are both female and his siblings get the children they got and Charles do not get any more children then Peter Phillips, born in 1977 is heir appearant until Prince Edwards first son in 2007. The 30 year old Peter might take it with stride.
The fact is that Charles is the only child of Elizabeth to only get sons. Andrew only got girls, Edward and Anne one each. Elizabeths sister Margret have one of each.
We could have had a situation were the first male in the line of succession is not Elizabeth or Margrets grandchildren but someone even lower, for example one of Prince George, duke of Kents grandchildren. If the current duke of Kent, currently at 39 in the line of succession is the heir because everyone above him is female, would not the parliament have changed the rules long before 2011?
To me, this takes it to a higher level. I mean, including the important, practical social dimension to the question of whether to go retro and change order of succession.. . . A more relevant example may be Norway. The law of succession was changed in the 1990s to allow female succession and to provide for the first born of Prince Haakon to become King. Prince Haakon is the younger child of King Harald V, he has an older sister, who was born without any succession rights at all. At the time the law of succession was changed, Haakon and Martha Louise were in their 20s, Haakon had been prepared to become King one day since he was very young, as far as I am aware no one seriously advocated depriving him of his right and the change to the law of succession was not retroactive. . .