Heirs to the British throne: how it works
In stating that Prince Andrew is second in line to the British throne, K Ryder (letter, Friday) is incorrect.
The statement is tantamount to saying that a grandson can never succeed as king, when there are royal uncles alive.
The doctrine of primogeniture governs succession to the British crown. This means that, in a family tree, you exhaust the first male root before moving sideways to a collateral. Thus, in June 1377 King Richard II [1377-99] succeeded as King of England his grandfather, King Edward III, because Richard’s father (“the Black Prince”) was dead. The throne did NOT pass to the Black Prince’s younger brother, the Earl of Cambridge (Edmund of Langley, 1341-1402.)
Another illustration: in October 1760 King George III [1760 – 1820] succeeded as King of the United Kingdom his grandfather, King George II, because George II’s father (Frederick Louis, Prince of Wales) was dead. The throne did NOT pass to Frederick’s younger brother, the Duke of Cumberland (“Butcher Cumberland”, 1721-1765.)
A subsidiary rule of British primogeniture is its preference for males over females. In the UK there are parliamentary moves afoot to abolish this sub-rule, those moves recently having been approved by the Queen and Commonwealth leaders. If the suggested legislation is to be retroactive, then it will mean that Princess Anne would become fourth in line to the British throne, after her brother Prince Charles, and his two sons, Prince William and Prince Henry (“Harry”). Prince Andrew, Duke of York, would be relegated (after Princess Anne's family) to eighth position.
Thus, assuming this proposed legislation becomes law, should Prince William’s wife, the Duchess of Cambridge, give birth to a female first-born, then that baby girl would be third in line to the British throne, no matter how many brothers of hers were born afterwards.
Rodney Griffith
