Princess Royal, Princess Anne

[Grandduchess Valeria]

I think first in line are always sons and their children. The princess royal's position was heir to the throne just if the king had no surviving sons. Here's the difference between England and for example Russia. If Nikolai wouldn't have had any sons the throne wouldn't have pass to Olga but to his brothers, uncles and so on...in England the throne is always given to the children of the king, jisst that sons are favored:)

[moonlight_tsarina]

Ah, I figured. I was only confused because I know that in England a girl-child may also rule (obviously). So does that mean when they were children, though Anne was older, the succession went as Charles, Andrew, Anne?

That being said also, I am just as confused because Andrew's children are also women, yet they still trump Anne in the succession. Why?

[CHRISinUSA]

Moonlight_tsarina, I wonder if you may be confusing the line of succession to the throne with the order of precedence?  There are not the same.

In Britain, the succession line goes from monarch to the eldest son (then down the line through all of his direct heirs if there are any).  If not, it goes to the monarch's second son (and down his line to his heirs), and so forth through all the sons.  A monarch's daughter (and her heirs) only comes after the absence or extinction of any brothers and their heirs. The Princess Royal was therefore never immediately after William and Harry - her two younger brothers have been ahead of her since their respective births.  

At birth, Anne was 3rd in line (after her mother and brother Charles).  Following the Queen's succession, she rose to 2nd (behind Charles).  Following Andrew's birth, she fell to 3rd behind him.  Following Edward's birth, she fell to 4th behind him.  The births of William and Harry moved her down to 5th, then 6th.  The births of Beatrice and Eugenie moved her down again to 7th, then 8th .  And finally, the births of Louise and James Wessex moved her down to her present 10th.

As far as order of precedence, there are technically several of them.  There are separate "official" lists for women and for men, another that is a little more complex because it depends on whether an individual's spouse is present or not, and finally a "private" list for use at royal gatherings that are not state occasions.

For the female list, the official order is (1) Queen, (2) any living Queen Dowager, (3) the wife of the Prince of Wales, (4) the wives of the Monarch's younger sons, and  (5) the Monarch's daughters.  

But in 2005, Queen Elizabeth II altered the private list, putting the Duchess of Cornwall fourth after herself, the Princess Royal, and Princess Alexandra, contrary to the usual position of the heir's consort.  This differed from earlier, because the late Princess of Wales had ranked above the Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra.  

The Duchess of Cornwall continues to rank second in the order of precedence at official occasions, such as state dinners, or whenever Charles is present with his wife (in which case she draws her precedence from his rank, not her own).

Hope that helps.

[moonlight_tsarina]

Yes, thank you so much! You definitely solved many questions I have or had, simply because you actually explained it!

But another question, does that mean James Wessex is ahead of his sister as well as the Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie because he is a male?

And lastly, say if Princess Anne was Queen Elizabeth II's only child, would she ascend the throne upon her mother's death?

[CHRISinUSA]

Yes, if Anne were the Queen's only child, Anne would succeed her mother.  James Wessex is ahead of his sister because he is male.  However, James is behind the York Princesses because James' father (Edward) ranks behind Andrew. 

The succession goes to the Queen's eldest son (Charles), and then to ALL of Charles heirs (sons first, then daughters).  Only then does it shift to the Queen's 2nd son (Andrew), and then to ALL of Andrew's heirs (he has no sons so it goes to his daughters).  After that it shifts to the Queen's third son (Edward) and ALL of Edward's heirs (sons first, so James goes ahead of Louise).  After that, and since the Queen has no further sons, Anne comes next (then her heirs - son first).

[moonlight_tsarina]

Excellent, excellent. Thanks for verifying and for your patience!

[toddy]

Just curious on how everyone feels about changing the order of succession allowing for daughters to take precedence in the birth order?

[Paul]

Just curious on how everyone feels about changing the order of succession allowing for daughters to take precedence in the birth order?

Wasn't this discussed in Britain fairly recently? 'not sure what happened with that, though.

[Robert_Hall]

It is being discussed- again.  However, it would not be retroactive. as I understand it. Most likely not take effect until William's reign, if even then.

[Kalafrana]

It's being discussed at the moment. It could be done by means of an amendment to the Act of Settlement 1701. However, it would need to be approved by all the Commonwealth countries which recognise the Queen as monarch (21 I think), which will, inevitably, take time.

My personal feeling is that if a change is going to be made it needs to be done before William and Kate have children, in order to have minimal effect on persons already living - even if Anne were to jump ahead of Andrew she is still pretty unlikely to succeed. The Swedes changed their succession laws after the birth of Carl Philip, who therefore started out as heir apparent but was then demoted behind his sister - which seems wrong, somehow.

Ann

[darius]

I don´t like these attempts to tinker with the established order of succession.  It is unneccesary - the laws apply only to those of the dynasty and those who marry into it - there is no discrimination against the general population so I don´t see how its in the public interest.  Imagine that last week a female 2nd in line to the trone married a Mister Middleton... Legally the heir in this case would become Mrs Middleton and any children would have the Middleton surname - what would happen to the Windsors?  Unless an Order was passed in Council the ruling Dynasty would be Middleton - and wouldn´t such an Order be deemed discriminatory?  Best to leave things as they are...

[toddy]

I am against it mainly  they are trying to democratize a undemocratic institution to start with . I belive if they end up changing it  they might as well do away with it .  but allowing the males to succeed  also allows for more woman to become queen . like kate middleton a commonor now can become queen over a member of the royal family i.e princess Anne.

[Robert_Hall]

There is a huge difference between a Queen Consort [Middleton] and a Queen Regnant [Anne]. The idea behind changing the rules of succession is to  put the monarchy on the same EU playing field as the other European monarchies. The British monarchy is quite adaptable, it always has been. It would not have lasted this long if it were not. And, do not forget, 3 of Britain's greatest monarchs were Queens Regnant.

[Kalafrana]

'And, do not forget, 3 of Britain's greatest monarchs were Queens Regnant.'

I take it that you are including our present Queen?

We should bear in mind Queen Victoria (presumably one of your three) went through an extremely unpopular phase after Albert's death because of her failure to perform the role her subjects expected of her, i.e. public duties. Further, this country has also had two disastrous Queens Regnant in Mary Queen of Scots and Mary I, and two distinctly indifferently ones in Mary II (seems best to avoid Queens Regnant named Mary!) and Anne.

Ann

[toddy]

its not like we are giving up Queen regnant  I just feel  its silly to democratize  un-democratic institution to begin with  and   its a big mistake  and even if they did change the law   it would most likely be  60 to 80 years  and that's if William and Catherine have a girl first   it could be  100 years   i think its silly to change it