Iluvbertie
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,463
- City
- Bathurst
- Country
- Australia
If I may add an example to explain why Elizabeth would still have succeeded ahead of her Uncle Henry.
George III had a number of sons. The first five in order:
George, Frederick, William, Edward and Ernest.
George IV died in 1820, Frederick in 1828, William IV in 1837, Edward in 1819 so Ernest was the eldest living brother when William IV died but he didn't inherit the throne. Edward's daughter Victoria inherited because she was the daughter of the 4th son while Ernest was the 5th son.
The same thing would have happened in the case of Edward VIII remaining King and childless and the Duke of York dying in 1952. As he was the second son, his children and grandchildren would have inherited before the third son and his descendants.
Just as today - if Charles predeceases his mother - the next in line is William as Charles' son not Andrew as the next brother.
The line goes through each successive child in order so ALL of Charles' descendants are ahead of any of Andrew's who are ahead of any of Edward's etc.
George III had a number of sons. The first five in order:
George, Frederick, William, Edward and Ernest.
George IV died in 1820, Frederick in 1828, William IV in 1837, Edward in 1819 so Ernest was the eldest living brother when William IV died but he didn't inherit the throne. Edward's daughter Victoria inherited because she was the daughter of the 4th son while Ernest was the 5th son.
The same thing would have happened in the case of Edward VIII remaining King and childless and the Duke of York dying in 1952. As he was the second son, his children and grandchildren would have inherited before the third son and his descendants.
Just as today - if Charles predeceases his mother - the next in line is William as Charles' son not Andrew as the next brother.
The line goes through each successive child in order so ALL of Charles' descendants are ahead of any of Andrew's who are ahead of any of Edward's etc.