Will Prince William & Kate Middleton’s Daughter Become Queen One Day?

New Rules

So … before anyone starts to freak out, Kate Middleton is NOT pregnant … well, that we know of. But a new push is being made in the rules that govern the British Monarchy that would allow the first born daughter of Prince William and Kate Middleton to become queen even if the couple give birth to a son as their second child. Now, all of this is dependent on 1.) Kate getting pregs and 2.) she giving birth to a girl. BUT, if British Prime Minister David Cameron has his way, the rules of royal succession would be changed so that IF Wills and Kate have a baby girl first, then she would be eligible to be queen rather than having to defer to a second born brother.

With The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge already in the loop, plans are afoot by Prime Minister David Cameron’s government to change existing rules so that if the couple have a baby girl, she can one day claim the crown and be queen. As current law stands, if William and Kate’s first child is a daughter but their second is a son, the boy would inherit the throne. Cameron is hoping to change this and other ancient rules in order to bring the monarchy up to date. He has already written the governments in the Commonwealth of countries with Queen Elizabeth, 85, as their monarch. The rule change would have to be ratified by all of them. “We espouse gender equality in all other aspects of life, and it is an anomaly that in the rules relating to the highest public officer we continue to enshrine male superiority,” Cameron wrote. He also proposes lifting the ban on anyone marrying a Catholic succeeding to the throne, and is reportedly suggesting that only the first six in line to the throne need to get permission from the reigning monarch to wed. The Palace had no formal comment.

I have to say, I am fascinated by this kind of thing. The rules of royal succession fascinate me … but, yes, many of them are archaic. It makes NO sense for a male heir to rule over a female heir just because he is male. IMHO, the first born child should be the royal heir. Now, I’m not saying that I personally would like to be ruled over by a monarch (because I believe the US democratic process is the best ruling government in the world) but I can’t help but be intrigued by this kind of thing. I’m certain attention will be totally fixed on Kate Middleton‘s baby bump if she gets pregs … everyone’s gonna wanna know if their first born child will be a girl or a boy. I, for one, would love for Wills and Kate to have twin girls … WHO WILL BATTLE ONE ANOTHER FOR THE CROWN! Now that would be awesome.

[Source]

Share:
| Posted under: ,
pink-is-the-new-blog
  1. Meghan

    Even though the monarch is a just a figurehead, I do believe this rule should be changed. It should go to the first born regardless of sex.

  2. Panti Christ

    “for them to have twin girls … WHO WILL BATTLE ONE ANOTHER FOR THE CROWN!” LMAO

  3. It would be nice to see some of the rules updated. I would be SO bitter if I was firstborn but my younger brother would be King!

  4. Kim

    OMG I wonder if they had twins if it’d be like that Leo DiCaprio movie “The Man in the Iron Mask” where they lock one up and the other one gets to be king, or queen in this case. I’m totally hoping for twins now LOL

  5. Krissy

    It is about time for the rules to be updated! Especially considering they had a female Prime Minster decades ago.

  6. Trez

    So we’re assuming Prince Charles and Camilla aren’t adopting then? =p

  7. what if they have twins..and ones a boy and ones a girl? would it go to whoever popped out first?

    • Ama

      Yep. Since twins can’t be born at the same time, the one that comes out first is technically “older”-even if by only a few minutes-so it would probably be that way.

  8. Ama

    The whole thing is interesting to me too, I always thought it should be the first born that was the heir and never really understood that and never really looked into the whole thing either, ha.

    With the rules as they are now, what would happen if they never had a male child and only had female children? Would the title of the heir/inheriting the throne go to another relative that is male(example: if his brother-completely forgot his name-had a child, that was male, would he be the one to inherit the throne?

    I apologize for my ignorance on this, but now I’m curious. Hm. I think I’ll look into that later.

    • ChristineLA

      No, Ama, that is how Queen Elizabeth II became Queen in the first place. She and her sister, Margaret, were the only children of King George VI and Elizabeth. Actually, it is all really interesting as George VI was not supposed to be King in the first place, but his brother, King Edward VIII, abdicated the throne to marry a twice divorced American, Wallis Simpson. I minored in English History in college, I am endlessly fascinated by the British royal family, they are far better than any soap opera.

    • ChristineLA

      I forgot to add, this is why Prince Philip (Elizabeth’s husband), is not KING Philip. He could not be given the title of King and still be “lower” than Elizabeth in the monarchy, as any King is automatically the ruling monarch. Additionally, he is descended from two other European royal families, and he had to renounce his right to both of those monarchies in order to marry Elizabeth in the first place. Like I said, they are better than any television show.

    • Ama

      @ChristineLA-Thanks for the information! That’s really interesting, definitely sounds better than any soap opera(or television show) I’ve seen/heard of.

  9. jessica

    Yay!

  10. Definitely time to update that rule. Besides, the most popular (for the most part) and longest reigning monarchs have been female. Elizabeth 1, Victoria and now Elizabeth 11

  11. Holly

    I feel like this would of been changed probably when William was born or even earlier had it actually been a problem. Will was first born and male, Charles was too, the Queen only had a sister and she was older, and her father and his older brother were in order/only ones I think. There just hasn’t been an actual need to change this.

    • ChristineLA

      Yes and no, Holly. I think perhaps they would have considered changing the rules of succession if William had not been a firstborn son, but the fact remains that as boys were born to Queen Elizabeth after Charles and Anne were born, Princess Anne has dropped further and further down the line of succession. She has fallen even lower than Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, by some strange rule of succession that I’m certain no one understands anymore. Bad for England, since Princess Anne is the most productive working royal, after the Queen, by far.

      I don’t actually envision Charles not standing up for a daughter, had he and Diana had one first, or at all.

  12. AmandaPalmina

    This is old news, it was mentioned during the Royal Wedding.

  13. Jodi

    IDK, I’m a woman, but I sort of think whoever would be best a ruling the country should be the ruler of the country, right? What if the first born hates dealing with that BS? What is the second or third born child would be awesome at it? I guess they can abdicate the thrown? Personally, I’d be just fine being a princess without all the extra pressure of being queen.

Leave A Comment