...


<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....


You are correct in the history of the royals the male children usually took the throne but there have been times when the female children did become ruling Queens, 6 times Queen Elizabeth the first Henry the eighths only daughter, Queen Victoria the only child and the current Queen.

The other three Queens go back to the 1600s or whenever but can't remember the details, so it has happened, Queen Victoria's mother was German that's where the German side comes in I'm certain but could be wrong.