Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Le Taz Hot

(22,271 posts)
10. It was never intended that Eliabeth take the throne;
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 09:05 AM
Jul 2013

however, since her uncle David (Edward VIII) abdicated (to marry an American divorcee), the succession went to Elizabeth's father, George (can't remember the number). Since Edward took himself out of the line of succession and had no male heirs, the next in line after Elizabeth's father was Elizabeth, followed by her sister. If Elizabeth's father and mother would have had a son, even if he was much younger, he would have taken the throne ahead of Elizabeth.

By the old rules, if Kate and William's first child is a girl, she will be first in line of succession unless and until a male is born, then he knocks her to #2. It's that question that I was asking.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Queen gives royal assent ...»Reply #10