I was today years old when I realised Princess Anne should be Queen

[monkeysox]

She's the eldest child. The law has changed now.
Even Zara Philips is behind her little brother in line to the throne. Wtf.

I didn’t know that women were bypassed in succession either,

Can I ask (as a genuine question, not meaning to be snide), when you thought it had changed? Is it just that it's such an antiquated rule you assumed it just must have been changed - because I imagine when it was changed in 2013 there were people who thought "hang on, that hasn't already been sorted??"

Why would you not do a 10 second google before posting this just to check?! 😂

Also the law hasn't changed for her. The new law of succession applies only to children born after 2011

None of that is correct but you're mainly being unreasonable for the use of 'today years old'

Agreed.

Yes, I think she'd make a brilliant Queen too.

But as she's

a) not the eldest child and
b) the law ending male primogeniture affects only those born after a set date in 2011

there is no way at all that she should be in a different place in the succession

I honestly didn’t think it was ever a rule. I’ve never had much interest in the royal family but as we had queen Victoria and obviously queen Elizabeth I just assumed the crown went to the oldest child no matter what sex they were.

What's with all the bats royal themed threads in the last half hour or so?

I'm possibly doing people an injustice here, but I'm now imagining someone in a weddining dress yelling 'God Save Queen Anne' for 12 hours whilst queuing

Charles was going-on-two-day years old the day Anne was born, if that helps OP.

The first of which had no siblings and the second no brothers.

Yes, because the Queen changed the rules only recently or fairly recently. Charles will be 74 in November. Anne is 72.

Maybe get basic facts correct before starting a thread

No, it wasn't the case due to the fact that he has children, nothing to do with this rule. If they were both girls they would still have precedence over Anne.

Ah ok, thanks for explaining. I did watch The Crown so I knew Elizabeth had no brothers but didn’t know that about Victoria

Doesn't anyone consider that Anne has been able to grow up the way she has because she was NOT expected to become Monarch? Conversely it would probably have done Charles's character the world of good had he been further down the queue. If we're going to carry on with wild speculation, if Andrew had been first in line he might have been forced to become, well, maybe not a fabulous human being, but a better one in some respects at least. And Edward if he were the heir would never have been allowed to organise It's a Knockout.

Never watched The Crown but my mother told me all the succession stuff, like the difference between an Heir Apparent and an Heir Presumptive (if I'm remembering it right, "apparently" Charles would be the next King, but if we "presume" this or that happened it would go to Andrew then Edward etc). On a side note, my mother watched the Queen's coronation on a tiny purple-and-white television that belonged to her uncle. How times change! Now we don't have television so we just have to go there in person. Apparently.

Doesn't anyone consider that Anne has been able to grow up the way she has because she was NOT expected to become Monarch? yes

EbbyEbs

Does Princess Anne piss off Princess Michael?. I’d love that to be true.

you’ve got to love the ‘Anne should be queen’ royalists who DO realise Charles is the eldest. Passionately believe in hereditary privilege AND want to select on merit. Actually, maybe that could work - like a sort of royal ‘Britain’s got talent’…

If Charles had died childless, Andrew would be King.

I was being tongue in cheek. But that's not to say I wasn't right. Or that I'm a royalist. Why do people keep assuming that?

However, Victoria and Queen Elizabeth Ist were the only legitimate heirs at that time.

Yes, this is what I didn’t know originally, I assumed it would go to Anne

I wouldn't pay too much attention to the wedding dress one...

You've given me a laugh this morning OP. 🤣🤣 Thank you.

I'm picturing someone who suddenly woke up with a jolt this morning and shrieked "Oh my god, stop!! We've just made the wrong person monarch!!"

With regard to where Princess Anne and other women stand, the ancient (and ridiculous) law of male primogeniture in the line of succession were not changed until 2013, just before Prince George was born. They apply going forward, not retroactively.

When they changed the law for Charlotte, why could they not have applied it retrospectively? As it would have been very unlikely to have made any real difference unless William and Harry plus descendants were wiped out?

This is typical Mumsnet look for and claim misogyny when it really isn't there and of course it's all the men's fault.

Are you on the strong stuff already op?