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.

Fergie wouldn’t be the queen mother of a Beatrice became Queen. Just like Diana wouldn’t be the Queen Mother when William becomes King if she were alive.

The Queen Mother title refers to a (dowager) Queen who is the mother to the monarch. In the event that Andrew became King, there would be no Queen consort. If Diana had lived, she would not be Queen - either Charles would still have married Camilla in which case she’d be Queen as she is now, or they wouldn’t have married in which case there would be no Queen.

But the mothers of neither William nor Beatrice would have been Queens - so neither Diana not Fergie would have been Queen Mother.

I think it was Queen Victoria’s eldest daughter Princess Victoria. She was a year older than Edward VII. By the time she would have inherited though she’d have had a short reign since she died only seven months after her mother.

That's not entirely true as it was backdated to 28th October 2011 in the Succession to the Crown Act 2013.

In determining the succession to the Crown, the gender of a person born after 28 October 2011 does not give that person, or that person’s descendants, precedence over any other person (whenever born).

Henry Fitzroy died after the annulment of Henry’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon and after the execution of Anne Boleyn and after Henry VIII’s engagement to Jane Seymour.

So at least three of his wives were in place or about to be in place by the time his illegitimate son died.

And by the time Henry took his 4th, 5th and 6th wives he had a legitimate and living son. So I don’t think Henry Fitzroy predeceasing his father had any impact on Henry’s marriages.

So there’s the last glitch in the sexist matrix, 1901. Princess Victoria would’ve become Queen for a few months and changed the whole lineage.

Mad to think in the last 190ish years we’ve had two Queens totalling 133 years in charge. The girls definitely do better in the longevity stakes!

That's not entirely true as it was backdated to 28th October 2011 in the Succession to the Crown Act 2013.

In determining the succession to the Crown, the gender of a person born after 28 October 2011 does not give that person, or that person’s descendants, precedence over any other person (whenever born).

Is there a particular significance to that date? Or just plucked from the air? You'd think they say from the 1st Jan or something similar. Am I missing an obvious significance?

@monkeysox thing is though, its not the "wrong" way round, its just the traditional, law for centuries way around. The royal line of succession was changed prior to the birth of George in case he was a girl but I'm, not sure if its applied retroactively and Louise and the brother are so far down it wouldn't matter anyway. There aren't actually very many instances of older sisters being passed over for the crown anyway - there are instances of them not being considered and it going sideways, eg Matilda / Stephen in the 11th Century which provoked a couple of decades of horrific civil war but other than Mary and Elizabeth Tudor who were shunted down the line for little brother Edward VI , there aren't that many since William I in 1066 who "should" have been Queen but weren't.

The OP made a simple mistake with facts and admitted it one page 1.

8 pages later people are still correcting her and putting the boot in.

Some Mumsneters really are dreadful people.

28 October is when the Perth Agreement was reached. There had to be agreement between all the countries of which the Queen was monarch to change the succession.

Then each country made its own legislative provision giving effect to the changes from the date of the agreement.

Edward VI was never in good health though (and ultimately died at 15) - hence the desire for a ‘spare’.

Henry VIII managed to convince himself he was cursed, as his wives had so many miscarriages, or had children who died in extreme infancy. The reality was the pregnancies failed because he was riddled with syphilis.

It’s shocking isn’t it. Keyboard warriors who wouldn’t dare carry on like this in real life.

Sure - my point is that having an acknowledged but illegitimate son wasn’t enough to stop Henry going through his first three wives - there is no reason to think if Fitzroy lived that Henry would t have had cause to go through wives 4 to 6.

Yes got my Victorias the wrong way round 😂

Nothing to do with the thread really but I can't let this pass sorry.

You clearly have no idea what The St Bartholomew Day Massacre was, nor why it happened.
But, suffice to say, it killed no Royals in the line of succession and changed nothing in that regard. Catherine de Medici would not have risked that. Her own power depended on it.

YABU - because she is younger anyway. But also it has now changed and so is a minor legacy issue that will soon disappear.

Yes and while we're what what If Ing, if my aunt had had balls she would have been my uncle.

How sexist! I can just see Mia Tindall playing for England.

😂😂😂

You’d expect children not to know though (unless they were Horrible Histories fans).

Yeah but not everyone has interest in the history of the royal family. Doesn’t mean they don’t have knowledge of other important British history.

Yes, but if you were going to post something online as a fact in order to start discussion..... wouldn't you check that fact first, bearing in mind how easy it is to do.

Well I would personally but I don’t think OP deserves the ridicule she’s received. She made a mistake and has admitted it. The good thing though is that people continue to learn from the thread from those that are clued up on such things. Isn’t that a good thing?

To add to @lizziesiddal79 - at the time of Henry VIII, the Wars of the Roses were still within living memory. His father, Henry VII, had come to the throne by defeating Richard III. His claim to the throne was weak. When Henry VIII was king, there were quite a few people with a stronger claim to the throne than him. England had never had a Queen (apart from the brief, disputed reign of the Empress Matilda) and there was real doubt as to whether the country would accept being ruled by a queen. There were, therefore, concerns that, should Henry die without a male heir, England could be plunged back into wars of succession.

This does not, of course, excuse Henry's behaviour, but it does go some way to explain it.

Yes indeed. Also, she's been upfront about her mistake. She's been rightly corrected, no need for ridicule.

The OP's thread has started several interesting offshoot discussions about historical monarchs, so it's been worthwhile in the end.