Princess Charlotte keeps her place and people are freaking out?
So, William and Kate had their 3rd born arrive and it is another son. But, what is getting people so excited for some reason is that it is the first time that a change in laws will actually have an effect. Due to a change in 2003, it means Charlotte will remain in line behind George for the thrown rather than behind her new brother as it would have been prior to 2003.
OK, that's great and all. But, the law was changed in 2003. Nothing particularly spectacular has happened here. At least, not today. And not on the day of Charlotte's birth either.
People who want to see a Queen Charlotte confuse the hell out of me. So, are you saying you want George to die young? Or father no heirs? Or that your preference for the head of state is dictated more by gender than anything else?
While George is likely to succeed to the thrown eventually, it is likely a long ways off. Charles is next in line. And even if something happens and he abdicates, William is still next in line after that. And, should William die or abdicate, then George would become King.
Now, here is where it gets uglier for those hoping that this change in law will actually make a difference for those currently alive. If George has a child, male or female, that child will take the throne ahead of Charlotte and any of her offspring.
The law would have been meaningful in the present had Charlotte and George been born in the opposite order. Had Charlotte been born first, the odds of her ascending to the thrown would have been virtually guaranteed barring some major accident. And the law would have protected that virtual guarantee after George was born.
But, that isn't what happened. William and Kate had a male heir first.
While a tragedy or other change in scenarios is possible. It is unlikely. And, by and large, those hoping that this means a future Queen Charlotte are effectively hoping for such a tragedy whether they mean that or not.
Yes, the change in the 2003 law means that, probably for the first time ever, someone in the top 10 positions has not lost their place in line for the throne. I highly doubt it is the first time ever in general though. The extended royal family is quite large. It is highly unlikely in the intervening 15 years since the law has changed that not a single son was born after a daughter.
But, in reality, it is of course completely unlikely to change the actual line of succession any time soon.
Even when humans die young, mortality rate amongst those of the average child bearing age is stupidly low. When you narrow that number down to the absurdly rich, I'm sure the number does nothing but decline further. So, the odds of George dying before both ascending the throne and having children is very very low.
And, the odds of George not choosing to have children is low as well. While there are ample people in line to fill the throne, there are a lot of things going in George's favour for having children. Even though he doesn't NEED to have children for the royal line to continue, it will likely be seen as his responsibility to do what he can to ensure it's survival (IE - pro-create). He will also attend a somewhat normal school, and likely work in some capacity as those before him and have access to all manner of celebrities. In short, he will more than enough chance to meet all manner people. And lastly, he has no need to worry about career getting in the way.
Basically, all of the pitfalls which lead to the decline in birth rates are exactly the sort of thing NOT affecting George.
So, it likely falls to George to father an heir that will make this law have any real impact. But, then the odds are less than 50/50. For it to play out right, he would have to have 1 or more girl and then a boy. It is 50/50 odds (more or less) that his first born would be female, but there is no guarantee that even he has a daughter that he'll have any further children or that any will be male. If the first born is male, we end up in much the same boat as we are now. Unlikely that the throne would ever fall to a daughter or their descendants.
OK, that's great and all. But, the law was changed in 2003. Nothing particularly spectacular has happened here. At least, not today. And not on the day of Charlotte's birth either.
People who want to see a Queen Charlotte confuse the hell out of me. So, are you saying you want George to die young? Or father no heirs? Or that your preference for the head of state is dictated more by gender than anything else?
While George is likely to succeed to the thrown eventually, it is likely a long ways off. Charles is next in line. And even if something happens and he abdicates, William is still next in line after that. And, should William die or abdicate, then George would become King.
Now, here is where it gets uglier for those hoping that this change in law will actually make a difference for those currently alive. If George has a child, male or female, that child will take the throne ahead of Charlotte and any of her offspring.
The law would have been meaningful in the present had Charlotte and George been born in the opposite order. Had Charlotte been born first, the odds of her ascending to the thrown would have been virtually guaranteed barring some major accident. And the law would have protected that virtual guarantee after George was born.
But, that isn't what happened. William and Kate had a male heir first.
While a tragedy or other change in scenarios is possible. It is unlikely. And, by and large, those hoping that this means a future Queen Charlotte are effectively hoping for such a tragedy whether they mean that or not.
Yes, the change in the 2003 law means that, probably for the first time ever, someone in the top 10 positions has not lost their place in line for the throne. I highly doubt it is the first time ever in general though. The extended royal family is quite large. It is highly unlikely in the intervening 15 years since the law has changed that not a single son was born after a daughter.
But, in reality, it is of course completely unlikely to change the actual line of succession any time soon.
Even when humans die young, mortality rate amongst those of the average child bearing age is stupidly low. When you narrow that number down to the absurdly rich, I'm sure the number does nothing but decline further. So, the odds of George dying before both ascending the throne and having children is very very low.
And, the odds of George not choosing to have children is low as well. While there are ample people in line to fill the throne, there are a lot of things going in George's favour for having children. Even though he doesn't NEED to have children for the royal line to continue, it will likely be seen as his responsibility to do what he can to ensure it's survival (IE - pro-create). He will also attend a somewhat normal school, and likely work in some capacity as those before him and have access to all manner of celebrities. In short, he will more than enough chance to meet all manner people. And lastly, he has no need to worry about career getting in the way.
Basically, all of the pitfalls which lead to the decline in birth rates are exactly the sort of thing NOT affecting George.
So, it likely falls to George to father an heir that will make this law have any real impact. But, then the odds are less than 50/50. For it to play out right, he would have to have 1 or more girl and then a boy. It is 50/50 odds (more or less) that his first born would be female, but there is no guarantee that even he has a daughter that he'll have any further children or that any will be male. If the first born is male, we end up in much the same boat as we are now. Unlikely that the throne would ever fall to a daughter or their descendants.
Comments
Post a Comment