British Royal History: General Questions, Random Facts & Strange Quirks
Was Queen Victoria the lowest ever in the Line of Succession to ascend to the Throne?
At the time of her birth in May 1819 Queen Victoria was fifth in line of the succession for the British Throne behind her father and three uncles.
Her father died ten months later on 23 January 1820 and she became fourth in line;
Six days later she became third in line for the Throne after her grandfather King George III died.
Her three uncles (George IV, Frederick and William IV) all died without surviving legitimate children.
She became 2nd in line for the Throne when Frederick died in 1827;
She became first in line for the Throne in 1830 when King George IV died;
Victoria's uncle King William IV died in 1837 and she became Queen.
She was initially Number 5 in line for the throne but moved up fast in the line of succession. So was Victoria the lowest person ever in the line of succession at birth (being fifth) to ascend to the Throne?
Victoria's path to the throne 1819-1837
1760 - Reign of King George III
1819 - birth of Princess Alexandrina Victoria of Kent and Strathearn (she is 5th in line after the Prince Regent and the Dukes of York, Clarence & Kent)
1820 - death of the Duke of Kent and Strathearn (now 4th after the Prince Regent, York & Clarence)
1820 - death of George III (3rd after York & Clarence)
1820 - birth of Princess Elizabeth of Clarence (4th after York, Clarence & Clarence)
1821 - death of Princess Elizabeth of Clarence (3rd after York & Clarence)
1827 - death of Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany (2nd after Clarence)
1830 - death of George IV (becomes heiress presumptive)
1837 - death of William IV; Victoria succeeds to the throne :crown5:
George II was about 53 or even lower when born behind his father and grandmother and the 50+ ahead of her when he was born in 1683.
When the Act of Settlement was passed in 1701 both she and he moved up ahead of over 50 people who were RCs.
So no Victoria wasn't the lowest ever - George II would have been and then George I.
I believe there were some 50-odd people excluded from the line of succession between Anne and George I.
Henry I would have been 4th in line at birth had the line followed primogeniture (which it didn't).
John had 4 elder living brothers when he was born, 3 of whom would have children (I'm not sure how far down he would have been bumped in the line).
At birth Henry IV was 4th in the succession if you don't count women and 5th if you do. Continuing to count female-line descendants (through Henry's uncle) he would have been 9th in the line of succession at the time of his grandfather's death.
If we include women, Richard III would have been something like 13th in the line of succession.
Thread originally a Queen Victoria spinoff but tarted up and re-named to broaden the subject base.
|All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:52 AM.|
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014