Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

jacx asked in Society & CultureRoyalty · 10 years ago

Can someone please resolve a question about the monarchy please?

Had prince Charles had a daughter and no sons would his daughter have been heir to the thrown or princess Anne?

12 Answers

Relevance
  • 10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    1. If Prince Charles had no sons but only a (legitimate) daughter, she would be the Heir to the Throne. However, since Britain operates Male Primogeniture rules, she would be Heiress Presumptive, NOT Heiress Apparent; birth of a brother, even a much younger one, would automatically move down the daughter in the Line of Succession to the Throne.

    2. Princess Anne was only Heiress Presumptive to Charles for a very brief period until Prince Andrew was born. Because of the aforementioned Male Primogeniture law, when Andrew and Edward were born, Anne moved down two positions in the Line of Succession.

    In order for her to be Heiress to Prince Charles, William, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward, James and Louise all have to predecease her.

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    The daughter.

    Any child of Charles, male or female, precedes his two brothers and his sister in the line of succession to the throne. He is first in line to the throne, so his line is senior to all others, and his children have precedence over everyone else, including their uncles and their aunt and THEIR children.

    But if Charles had had no children at all, the next heir would have been Prince Andrew, not Princess Anne. This is because the UK still observes male-preference primogeniture, whereby males precede females in the line of succession. It doesn't mean that Prince Andrew would precede a daughter of Charles -- as I said, any child of Charles, no matter what the sex, is senior in the line of succession to anyone else -- but it does mean that even though Andrew is younger than Anne, he precedes her in the line of succession.

    That practice will almost certainly be changed soon, but it will not be retroactive. Princess Anne and her children and grandchildren and so forth will not move up in the line of succession. The change will apply only to the descendants of Charles and his two sons.

  • 10 years ago

    Yes, she would, and no, Princess Anne is 10th in the line of succession.

    Let's assume Charles had a daughter and no sons by Diana. Camilla is no longer able to bare offspring, so the daughter would be Heir Presumptive (conditional succession), where an eldest son would be Heir Apparent (automatic succession). However unlikely that he have more children, a daughter never succeeds automatically until their reigning parent passes on.

    The male children of the Monarch succeed in order of age, then the female children, so Charles, then his fictional daughter. If she bore heirs, they would succeed, If not, Andrew, then Beatrice, then Eugene. Then Edward. Then James, then Louise. Then Anne, then Peter, then Savannah, then Zara.

    Then on to Princess Margaret's line.

  • 10 years ago

    I think you would have to assume Charles will be named King for this scenario. Which at this point is beyond unlikely. With no sons It would fall to Andrew If Charles was not named King. But it is ultimately up to the Queen. I believe with sons the queen needs to follow a male blood line. Andrew has no sons. Charles does. If she skips over her own children for the crown when she dies or retires then it would go to William. If no sons were born to any of her male heirs then it would go to Charles (if the Queen so chooses) then to his daughter. But what do I know. I'm just a commoner from America.

    From what I can see across this great pond, the people are ready for William and don't give a rat's **** about ole Charlie boy anyway.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 10 years ago

    His daughter would have been heir to the throne.

    If he had had no children at all, the next in line would have been Prince Andrew.

    Princess Anne is quite far down in succession to the throne now.

  • 10 years ago

    no, even if he had a daughter before william, it would still be william who was heir to the throne, girls are not counted unless there are no brothers, Anne is Charles's sister and she is older than him, but it is charles that is next in line for the throne

  • Liz
    Lv 7
    10 years ago

    I'm not sure whether they've changed this yet, but the next heir would have been Prince Andrew.

  • 10 years ago

    His daughter would be his heiress, then his next brother (Andrew), then his daughters, then his next brother (Edward), then his children and THEN Princess Anne.

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    his daughter would be heir to the throne after him. it goes from first born child to their children. however, if they have no children then it goes to the next second born child

  • Olly
    Lv 5
    10 years ago

    His daughter

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.