Under Elizabeth, change in the line of succession expanded women’s right to the throne

A change in the rules of succession to the British throne promoted more than a decade ago resurfaced with the death of Queen Elizabeth II on Thursday (8). In 2011, members of the Commonwealth, which brings together the former English colonies, decided that male heirs do not take precedence over their sisters in the right to power.

The reform changed a 300-year-old law that dictated that the only way for a woman to ascend the throne was if the previous monarch had no sons. This was the case with Elizabeth herself, who had no brothers—only a younger sister, Margareth.

On that same occasion, a rule that prevented a potential monarch from marrying a Catholic was also abolished, although it did not change the fact that the British sovereign also becomes leader of the Anglican Church upon taking office.

The changes were announced in Perth, Australia, at a meeting of Commonwealth government leaders. According to a Washington Post report at the time, any of the more than 50 leaders could have vetoed the changes, but they were unanimously approved. It was up to each of the participating countries to change the Constitution in their country accordingly.

The reform is not retroactive. Princess Anne, for example, remains much lower (16th) than her brothers Andrew (8th) and Edward (13th) in the line of succession to the throne, although she is older than both of them.

It particularly affected Queen Elizabeth’s great-granddaughters. This was the case with Princess Charlotte, the middle daughter of William and Kate. She became the third candidate for the throne, ahead of her younger brother, Louis, the fourth.

Even so, the chance of the UK having a Queen Charlotte is slim. After all, with each child her older brother George has, the more she is pushed to the bottom of the succession chain.

Without male precedence to the throne, the history of the United Kingdom might have been different. King Henry the 8th, whose reign marked the beginning of the Anglican Church, and King Charles the 1st, who led the nation into a bloody civil war in the 17th century, would likely not have assumed power, as they both had older sisters.

The modern era of the British monarchy would also have followed another path. Queen Victoria’s firstborn, born in 1840, married German Emperor Frederick III. Had she become queen, the crown would have passed to her son, the German Kaiser Wilhelm II.

With Germany and the United Kingdom ruled by the same king, the First and Second World Wars could never have happened.