Why are male descendants preferred over females in the line of succession to the British throne?

It is man ego thing. They think women can't rule country. But us women know better.

The rules of succession were drawn up in a paternalistic society, where it was assumed that males were the only ones capable of leadership. This had developed from one practical consideration - kings often had to fight for their thrones and warfare was constant. In an age when kings led their men into battle, the preference was for male heirs.

In England, women could succeed, though it was not common. After all the kerfuffle that Henry VIII went through for a male heir, his daughter Elizabeth I was the most capable ruler of her time.

The succession was traced back to the Electress Sophia, because the other lines were ultimately Stuarts, who had been banned from the succession since James II was a Roman Catholic. The Electress Sophia would have become queen, but she died just a few months before Queen Anne. So Sophia's eldest son became King George I.

At present, Prince Charles is heir to the throne because he is the oldest son. If Princess Anne were the oldest, he would still be heir, because sons take precedence over daughters. Unfair, but that's how it is. These rules were drawn up hundreds of years ago.

This is an excellent question and most of the answers given pretty much touch on all the reasons why preference was given to the males. The family name was very important and held deep significance at the time and the male heirs naturally carried on that name. Also it was predominately believed men were simply more fit to rule (which continues today, have we had a female president?) and if you consider the horror that was childbirth at the time many women did not survive it. Why set yourself up to have to replace a ruler once she provided an heir? Women also did not tend to live as long as their male counterparts because having a child was so very hard on the body. It is today as well but we have come a long way in our medical practices and can ease much of the physical burden.

As they say, men made the rules. And for generations women have been considered the inferior gender. I think, for the men of the day, it was a natural conclusion that all males in line to the throne would take precedence over females.

This is a holdover of a time when it was assumed that a male was automatically more fit to rule than a female. The succession to the French throne for many centuries followed an even stricter rule, the Salic Law, which excluded all succession through the female - Essentially, when the king died, the son of the son of his grandfather's baby brother might succeed to the throne, while the previous king's oldest daughter could never do so.

The change only applies to the descendants of Prince Charles. Anne remains in line after her brothers and their descendants. Princesses Anne, Beatrice and Eugenie, Lady Louise, Zara Tindall, Savanah Philips and Isla Philips (and any other female in the line of succession) can all be further displaced by the potential births of any future younger brothers (probably unlikely for either The Queen or Princess Anne to have further sons). Any future sister of Prince George would be in line to the throne before any future younger brothers.

Cognatic, or male-preference, primogeniture allows a female to succeed to the throne only if she has no living brothers, and no deceased brothers left living heirs. Although such a procedure smacks of political incorrectness in 2007, its roots actually had some practical basis back when kings ruled by divine right:

1) The monarch was usually a military protector, who often led his troops in battle during the Middle Ages.

2) The king held a semi-mystical position as a "high priest".

3) Y chromosomes change slowly over time and are only passed through the direct male line, meaning it is easier to trace paternal lineage. Also, a slightly higher percentage of the genome is inherited from father to son than parent to daughter. Thus, it was easier to see if a man who claimed to be a monarch's son was a spitting image of dear ol' dad than it was to tell if a woman who claimed to be his daughter was.

4) Never under estimate the power of tradition.

It's not really to honor Sophia -- for the Settlement Act of 1701, it was to find SOMEONE who wasn't Catholic to inherit. Sophia was the daughter of Elizabeth Stuart, who was Charles I's sister, and granddaughter of James I of England, who inherited after Elizabeth I. While Sophia was an intelligent woman, her main attractiveness to England was that she was Protestant. Given a choice between a Protestant cousin and the Catholic son of James II, (James Stuart, "The Pretender"), England decided they could live with a Protestant woman as ruler better than with a Catholic male. Unfortunately, Sophia died in June of 1714, almost two months before Queen Anne of England died in August of 1714. As a result, Sophia's son became George I of England.

In other words, the English throne prefers males -- as long as they are Protestant!

Because when the rules where drawn up, women were property. The real power was given to the first born son. Princesses were married off to stop wars and or get more land for the realm. They were chattel. That simple.

To keep the family name alive. If a woman succeeded to the throne then when she got married, her children would have her husbands name and his name would be carried on. They don't want that. They want the royal last name to carry on and they do that by having the throne be descended through the males.

Probably for the sake of carrying on the family name. Women's names change when they marry.