...
I think they lifted that ban on girls when Will's kids started arriving.
Quoting: Misspurrrrrect King George 6th the Queen's father, was the brother to Edward who abdicated so yes technically he was next in line, so as Queen Elizabeth was the oldest child when King George 6th died she became Queen as there were only two girls, Elizabeth and Margaret.
Now if they had a younger brother back then he would have become King, back then it was the first male child, no matter if they were first, middle or last born who became King.
Around the time of Prince William and Kate had children it was changed to the first born whether male or female to be next in line.
Prince Charles will be the King after Queen Elizabeth then after Charles it will be Prince William then his first born after William and so on.
So, that was my point! Elizabeth only became Queen because her father had no male heirs???
Who would have been next in line, then? Didn't she have uncles or a male cousin?
I mean, looking at it now, they follow the lineage all the way down to like 20th in succession, for pete's sake!
Maybe what happened there was
specifically to install HER??
I know she was young, but she sure has "toed the line" in all these decades....
Edward who abdicated was rightful heir, he gave up the throne so lineage goes to his brother, who became King George the 6th and he continued the direct line to the throne.
As he only had two daughters, Princess Elizabeth being the oldest was then the heir to the throne.
This is why there is at least two children in the families who are direct lineage better known as the heir and the spare.
<Ho boy>
ONE LAST TIME, and then I'm letting it DROP, cause *apparently* I'm not stating this clearly enough....
Ole Lizardbeth became Queen because her father died...he WAS the king (I thought), and she was the oldest child - the other was also a daughter, tho, too.
So the line of succession follows the child after the parent. Yes,
BUT!! It seemed it was only the MALES in the line, as once William had children - or rather while Kate was pregnant with their first-born they hurried and CHANGED the rule so that
even if she had had a girl, that child would be eligible to become the next in line to the throne (following Charles and her father, William).
I GET all that!
What I'm asking is: If Elizabeth could become Queen after HER father, was there a different set of circumstances that *allowed* her to ascend to the throne - EVEN THOUGH SHE IS A FEMALE - but wouldn't have allowed William's child - had it been a girl to also ascend to the throne??
WHY did they have to make it a new rule or whatever they voted in to be sure - it - would be the next in line???
Maybe they KNEW Harry was going to be out of the picture?!?!
IDK. I just found it curious that it made no difference waaaay back in 1940-something when Elizabeth took the throne that even tho she was a female, NO problem with her becoming queen, but if it had been William's daughter in - whatever - 2065 or something, it might have been a problem?!?!?
Anyway, since I'm not british, I guess it doesn't mean a hill of beans to me, just curiosity got to me....
