Succession laws for English throne?

English common law provides for male-preference primogeniture, which means that girls count, it's just that boys come first.

So in this case, the line of succession would be

Prince Charles

Prince William

Prince William's elder daughter

Prince William's younger daughter

Prince Harry

Prince Harry's son.

And in due course, the UK would have another reigning Queen as it does now. In fact this situation is exactly the case when the present Queen's father was King - he only had 2 daughters, and his younger brothers had sons (the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent). But they didn't come higher than those two daughters and so we have Queen Elizabeth II.

What you are describing is called semi-Salic law of succession, where all living males have to be dead before a female can inherit the throne.

The UK does not practice Semi-Salic law, but instead practices "male preference primogeniture" where you always advance a generation if possible. Within that generation you choose males before females. So William's children come first (brothers before sisters), and if there are no children, then it goes to Prince Harry, or (if he is dead) to his children (brothers before sisters).

Many of the hereditary nobles are different. Most do not recognize females under any circumstances (known as Salic Law), and many other titles terminate if the direct line dies out.This means that the title cannot pass to cousins regardless of sex.

However, many people believe that if William's first born is a girl, that parliament will change the law to make her first in the line of succession. Although most people find the law outdated and sexist, the last time the first born was a girl with a younger brother was in 1840. There has been no real push to update the law as long as the application was purely theoretical.

In the 19th century the girls were expected to marry important royalty outside of Britain. Hence they could not be the monarch of the UK. Nowadays most people expect royals to marry commoners, so a woman could be a monarch as easily as a man.

It's not the English throne, it's the British throne.

There hasn't been an English monarchy for centuries.

King James VI of Scotland inherited the English crown in 1603, creating a single kingdom covering the entire island of Great Britain (Scotland, England and Wales). A century later we united politically creating a single new country, which which the addition of Ireland became the United Kingdom.

Since then there have only been kings and queens of the United Kingdom, not of England or Scotland.

My understanding of succession laws is that all of William's children would be next in line before Harry or his children.

The succession would be William and his family first, followed by Harry and his family. The UK succession is male-preference primogeniture (sons first in age order, then daughters), not aganatic (male-only). William's children, son or daughter, are higher in the succession than Harry's because William is older.

Primogeniture--male heirs take precedence over female, with children representing their deceased ancestors; and under the rule of primogeniture, the older son precedes the younger.

Thus:

William,

William's eldest daughter

William's younger daughter

Harry

Harry's son

No Williams daughters would have preference to the British throne. If William was King then his eldest daughter would be next in-line.

This is similar to how the current Queen succeeded her father.

The English Crown no longer exists it replaced into replaced with the British Crown after union. at the beginning you at the instant are not even interior the line of succession. The Act of settlement/Act of Union proclaimed that only descendants of Sophia, Electress of Hanover would inherit the British Crown. So the regulation says no. to no longer point out that the present Queen comes from a extra Senior branch of the Plantagenet dynasty than you do. you are able to desire to "declare" the throne as a pretender yet you will possibly have not any criminal foundation.

No. All of William's (theoretical) children are closer to the throne than Harry's (theoretical) children. They are also closer than Harry himself.

Right now, Elizabeth is queen. She has 4 children: Charles, Anne, Andrew, and Edward.

Charles is next in line to the throne. Then his sons. Then his daughters. (which he doesn't have)

Only if Charles and all of his kids died without issue would the crown go to Andrew, and then his sons (theoretically, since I think he only has daughters), and then his daughters. If all of them were wiped out, it would go to Edward, then Edward's children, and if they were wiped out as well it would go to Anne and then her children.

In your theoretical situation, the order would be:

Charles

William

William's older daughter

William's younger daughter

Harry

Harry's son

Andrew (Charles's brother)

etc.

No

William and all of his children come before Harry and Harry's kids. It's male-line by birth order.

William's children are first. Male or female.

Prince Harry Hewitt will never sit on the throne because he is the issue of a mad Spencer harlot and an even madder cavalry superstud.