Why Queen Elizabeth became queen of England

Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 12:02 pm

Why Queen Elizabeth became queen of England

Postby Sylvia » Mon May 21, 2018 1:36 pm

The Wedding of Prince Harry and Megan over the weekend got me very curious as to why the head of the British Monarchy is a woman i.e Queen Elizabeth II. I was equally surprised that she even has a husband Prince Philip also known as the "duke of Edinburgh" so I did a bit of research on quora and got this

"If King George VI had a son, then he would have been king after the death of George VI, whether he was older or younger than his sisters.

However, King George only had daughters: Elizabeth, the eldest and the current monarch, and Margaret.

Queen Elizabeth II had a boy as her first child, Charles, who will become King on her death (provided he does not die before her, or abdicate). However, even if her daughter Anne was the oldest, then Charles would still be first in line to the throne, as ascension rights had favoured males.

As it is, although Anne is the second eldest, she comes after not only Charles and his decendants, but also Andrew and his decendants, and Edward and his descendants. This may be a factor in why she made the decision to bring her children up without royal titles, allowing them much more freedom in life, as they are very far down the ascension list.

Charles's eldest son, Prince William, is second in line to the throne. Before his wife's pregnancy was announced, a procedure was started that would make their first child next in line to the throne, whether they were male or female. This was ratified by the UK, but also needs to be ratified by every country of the commonwealth before the child could become monarch of them all. William and Katherine's first child was male, but the process is continuing, as it could affect future generations.

So, in history, it has always been more likely that Britain will have a king, rather than a queen. Indeed, if it was considered likely that George VI would ever become king, then there would probably have been a great deal of pressure for him to have more children, until a son was born. There is unsubstantiated rumour that it was mooted that the new monarch should actually be the youngest of the four brothers, Edward, Albert, Henry and George, as he had a son, whereas none of the others did. (The younger brother was actually called George. King George VI was born as 'Albert', but took the name George when he ascended to the throne, to show consistency to the public, as his father had been George V).

So, we would have had a king if Prince Albert, later King George VI, had a son. As it is, the line of ascension guarantees us at least a further three kings to come - Charles, William and George. Currently the next in line is Prince Henry (Harry), though this will change once Princess Katherine had her next child, who will move above Harry in the order.

In the future, we should see a more even split in the number of kings and queens of Britain, as gender will not have a bearing on line of ascension. However,
female members of the royal family do seem to have a longer lifespan than the males, and so the length of their reign is likely to be longer, perhaps even outliving some of their children"

Source:https://www.quora.com/Why-hasnt-UK-had- ... -George-VI

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest