Who will be the king of Great Britain. How a newborn prince changes the line of succession to the British throne. "If you dream of a cucumber, then there will be a son"

Kings and queens are a little different than they were 100 years ago. They are more like representatives of show business. The monarchs of our time rather have aesthetic functions, they do not have to govern the state ...

Kings and queens are a little different than they were 100 years ago. They are more like representatives of show business. The monarchs of our time have rather aesthetic functions; they have nothing to do with government.

Charles "out of business"

On August 20, the Queen of England confirmed that she had stripped her son, Prince Charles, of the throne. He is now losing his right to inherit the throne, although it was previously believed that he should take the place of the monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

Representatives of the royal house announced that Elizabeth II would not in the future request an Act of Regency, which implied the actual reign of the queen's son.

The monarch, who set the world record for sitting on the throne, and also the oldest female politician, said she did not want her son Charles to inherit her throne. After the Queen leaves her post, her eldest grandchild, Princess Diana's son William, will take her place.

The statement says that Elizabeth II decided to give way to the young, because the crown will be transferred to William and his wife, Duchess Kate Middleton.

According to her, the reason for this decision was that the new generation, younger than her son, will be able to bring prosperity to the royal House of Windsor, and will also become a positive example for all Britons for many years to come.

Her Majesty added that she had been "at the helm" for 65 years and realized that William and Kate were the future. It is they who have the energy and all the qualities that are necessary to fulfill the public duty of the British august family in modern world.

How her son Charles reacted to the decision of the head of Buckingham Palace is unknown. Most likely, he was not very happy.

But the Queen said she was doing all this for the "long-term health of the monarch." Such a decision may be dictated not only by the fact that Prince Charles himself is already at an advanced age and is deprived of progressive ideas, but also by the fact that he does not have a very positive image in the eyes of the British, as he was known as a traitor, the culprit in the death of his wife Diana.

Later, he even married Camilla, who was his passion for many years and during marriage. It turns out that Charles compromised the royal family, which was always supposed to be a model of benefactor and decency.

Freedom in the sky

The queen, apparently, loves her eldest grandson very much, since Charles was not limited to one “excommunication”.

She allowed William to fly together with his wife Kate, children and servants. Prior to that, they were not allowed to fly together. This is because air travel is considered life-threatening.

In the event of an air crash, the heir, who would have been in another airliner, was not injured. Thus, Buckingham Palace had previously decided not to risk the lives of members of the royal family. But due to permission from the Queen, such joint flights have already been made.

Queen Elizabeth II has already begun to take the necessary steps to become king. For three years, until Her Majesty turns 95, she will mentor her eldest son. After the 69-year-old prince will become regent and will actually rule the state until the death of his mother, the site reports.

Elizabeth II prepares to leave the throne

According to Robert Jobson, an expert on royal affairs, if she falls ill or dies, it is important for her to know that her heir is ready to take on such an important initiative.

Prince Charles will become Her Majesty's Regent in 2021, when Queen Elizabeth II turns 95. The current Queen of England will mentor her son until her death - that's when the coronation of the father of Princes William and Harry will take place.

Royal family of centenarians

The decision to pass the throne to the eldest son has nothing to do with the queen's health problems. Today, the monarch feels great. Experts believe that Her Majesty will live to be 100 years old, just like her mother. The Queen Mother Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon lived to be 102 years old and passed away in March 2002.

Today, Her Majesty is 92 years old - the sweet old woman feels great, although she complains of pain in her knee. At the same time, at such an honorable age, the queen performs a huge number of public exits. She tries not to miss official events and gladly hosts foreign guests in her home at Buckingham Palace.

Her husband, Prince Philip, now 97, is also in good health. Earlier this year, the Duke of Edinburgh underwent hip replacement surgery. He retired a few years ago, but still occasionally attends ceremonial events.

Is Prince Charles ready to be king?

Charles, first in line to the throne, is confidently preparing to become a monarch. Despite the fact that his wife does not want it, the Prince of Wales is convinced that she will change her mind.

Today, His Highness works 14 hours a day and fulfills over 600 commitments a year.

Recall that in 2015 she was recognized as the longest-reigning monarch of Great Britain. In 1952, at the age of 25, Princess Elizabeth took the throne. Today, she has ruled the country for 66 years.

Queen Elizabeth II on her 85th birthday (photo: TT)

No matter how sad it may sound, but Her Majesty Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions Overseas Queen, Defender of the Faith cannot live forever.

Since her ascension to the throne in 1952, Queen Elizabeth II has seen 12 British prime ministers and outlived 12 US presidents. Now she is 88 years old. At some point, hopefully not soon, the reign of Queen Elizabeth II will come to an end.

But what happens next?

For at least 12 days (death, funeral and wake) Britain will stop. This will cost the state billions in losses in the economy. Stock markets and banks will close indefinitely.

The funeral and the subsequent coronation of the first heir will be officially declared holidays, each of which will be a powerful blow to the UK's GDP, not to mention organizational costs.

The grief that gripped the inhabitants of Britain in 1997 was dubbed by journalists as the “Princess Diana Syndrome” (photo: telegraph.co.uk)

National mourning for the Queen will be a shock that Britain has not seen in the last 70 years. There will be both trivial events (the BBC will cancel all comedy shows, for example) and events of cultural significance (Prince Charles will be able to change his name, and the lyrics of the national anthem will be amended).

The death of the Queen Mother and the death of Princess Diana at one time caused waves of public hysteria. But the death of the first person in British society for many decades will be a real tsunami.

The vast majority of Britons simply cannot imagine their life without Queen Elizabeth II.

It will be a strange, vague period of time.

The first hours after the Queen's death

Buckingham Castle (photo: travellingandfood.com)

Much depends on the cause of the queen's death. If they are predictable (prolonged illness, for example), then a detailed plan of action and an official statement will be prepared in advance. But if it happens unexpectedly, as in the case of Princess Diana, then the course of events can easily get out of hand.

In any case, most employees of Buckingham Palace and related institutions will be sent home immediately. The Crown Court has a list of instructions for employees in this case.

It is assumed that the news of the Queen's death will be distributed through the main British television channels. All BBC feeds will show one live broadcast. Independent TV channels will not be required to interrupt their regular broadcasts, but they will certainly do so.

The Air Force had to come to a conclusion after being caught off guard in 2002 by the news of the death of the Queen Mother. Host Peter Sissons was subsequently heavily criticized for delivering the mourning tidings while wearing a red tie. Since then, the Air Force wardrobe has always had black ties and suits ready to be worn at any time.

BBC TV presenters regularly go through "drills" in which they are suddenly asked to make harsh, deliberately false statements. These recordings, of course, are not broadcast anywhere.

BBC History Video: News of the death of the Queen Mother, 2002

All entertainment programs will be canceled

last death British monarch took place in 1952. For the period of mourning, the BBC has suspended all entertainment programs and is ready to do the same at any time.

CNN already has a series of documentaries from the Queen's life ready to go on the air immediately, especially on the occasion of mourning.

If the Queen's death is announced in work time, then the London Stock Exchange is likely to close immediately.

The mournful message will have to be voiced by the Department of Culture (although it is not excluded that it will come directly from Buckingham Palace). international reaction and the flow of condolences is still hard to predict.

Whatever happens formally, on the day of the death of Queen Elizabeth II, the whole of Great Britain will be in shock and will in fact cease to function as a state.

Brief resurrection of the British Empire

Half-mast flag of Great Britain. Buckingham Palace, death of Margaret Thatcher, 2013 (photo: stuff.co.nz)

Given the international position of the queen, the news of the royal death is likely to be the number one news in the world. The UK has its representations in every corner of the globe, and not only through consulates, but also thanks to the former colonies and Commonwealth countries, which informally, but swear allegiance to the British crown. The British Empire once covered a quarter of the earth's landmass and the death of the Queen will be a brief surreal period when the British can once again feel like part of the empire thanks to the attention of absolutely all their former subjects.

Of course, in all British consulates will be half-mast state flag and canceled the reception of citizens. Officials will dress and behave according to the procedures during the period of national mourning. Visitors will be able to leave their words of condolences in special books.

But there is still a lot of uncertainty as to what will actually happen. In the 60 years that have passed since the last death of the British monarch, society has changed dramatically.

Behind closed doors in the palace

Royal Chapel at St. James's Palace (photo: dailymail.co.uk)

After the majority of Buckingham Palace staff have gone home and local tourist attractions have closed to the public, a meeting of the Accession Council will be held at St James's Palace, at which, in the absence of unforeseen circumstances, the name of the Queen's successor, Prince Charles, will be announced. The meeting will be attended by members of the Privy Council, the Lords, the Mayor of London and the High Commissioners of some Commonwealth countries.

At the council, the new monarch (presumably Charles) will utter the words of the oath of allegiance to Parliament and the Church of England. He will also become the new Supreme Governor of the Church (Catholics cannot take the throne). At the end of the oath, the council will make a "Proclamation of Accession", after which Britain will officially have a new monarch.

Prince Charles may change his name

Charles, Prince of Wales (photo: onenewspage.com)

It is also worth paying attention to the possibility of Prince Charles giving up the crown in favor of his son, Prince William, by changing his own name, which has been repeatedly discussed in the media.

Such a bold but thoughtless move could well lead to a constitutional crisis in the UK. But, most likely, this will not happen. Yes, and Prince William himself has repeatedly stated that the transfer of the crown in this way is unacceptable. William will simply become the new Prince of Wales (his father's current title).

Prince Charles will not necessarily become "King Charles". Upon ascension to the throne, members of the royal family may choose a "throne name" from any of their Christian middle names. Thus, Prince Charles Philip Arthur George may take the name "King Philip", "King Arthur" or "King George".

Farewell to the Queen

Farewell to the Queen Mother, 2001 (photo: zimbio.com)

While discussions continue, the Queen's coffin will be prepared for public access so that those who wish can pay their respects.

The deceased queen will lie in Westminster Hall. Upon the arrival of the coffin, a short ceremony will take place, after which the public will be able to say goodbye to the queen and pay her respects. Access to the farewell hall will be open only for one hour a day.

When the Queen Mother's coffin lay in Westminster Hall, her grandchildren stood guard at the coffin for some time. This ritual is called the Vigil of the Princes. Something similar happened during the farewell to King George V. Although the “Vigil of the Princes” is not an official part of the ceremony, it will rather be included in the farewell program for Queen Elizabeth II.

Prince Charles at the funeral of his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth, 2002 (photo: telegraph.co.uk)

More than 200,000 members of the public honored the memory of the Queen Mother with their presence. The scale of mourning for Elizabeth II will easily overshadow these figures.

The period of farewell to the queen will be a massive hysterical outpouring of grief. It will not be a gloomy moment of silence - it will be a blow to the psyche of the nation. When Princess Diana died, hundreds of thousands of people came to Buckingham Palace to lay flowers. According to some estimates, the number of bouquets exceeded a million.

At least 20 million entries will appear in condolence books. The lines to them will stretch for hours and kilometers. On the streets, people will become visible, losing touch with reality. Store owners will be forced to close their premises to avoid incurring the wrath of the grieving crowd.

Queen's funeral

Princess Diana's coffin (photo: Daily Mail)

The body of Elizabeth II will lie in Westminster Hall until the day of the funeral. The Daily Mail believes that they will take place 12 days after the Queen's death.

It will probably be the largest funeral of all time. Most world leaders will honor the Queen's memory with their presence.

On the day of Princess Diana's funeral, more than a million people lined the route of the funeral procession and 30 million Britons watched the funeral on TV. Worldwide, the audience totaled 2.5 billion viewers.

The ceremony at Westminster Abbey will be officiated by Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the second most senior figure in the Church of England after the monarch.

Television audience of mourning ceremonies

Queen's final resting place

If Elizabeth II has already decided on the place of her rest, then in this case it is either the Sandrigem estate or Balmoral Castle in Scotland. These two places are remarkable in that they belong to the queen personally, and not to the palace.

The queen is at rest, the new king is on the throne. This is all? Of course not

Coin with the image of Queen Elizabeth II sample 2015 (photo: gmanetwork.com)

In the days, weeks and months following the funeral, a lot of changes will take place in the country.

New coins will immediately begin to be minted, for which the British Mint already has the corresponding blanks with a portrait of Charles. Of course, it will not be possible to replace the entire supply of currency overnight, but within a few years it will certainly happen.

The British national anthem "God Save the Queen" will be replaced by "God Save the King".

There will be a new inscription on police helmets. They currently contain the Queen's initials. In addition, an update of military symbols will be required.

British police helmets will get new royal symbols (photo: telegraph.co.uk)

All Britons will have to change their passport as it contains lines mentioning Her Majesty.

Postage stamps with the image of the Queen will be out of circulation.

These changes actually mean more than meets the eye. When Elizabeth II was crowned, her number on the throne - II - caused discontent among the Scots, since Elizabeth I never ruled Scotland.

After the traces of the reign of Elizabeth II are gradually erased, the queen will be immortalized in monuments. The fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square is currently home to temporary statues and works of art, but former London mayor Ken Livingston has repeatedly said that the plinth is reserved for Queen Elizabeth II.

How will it all end for the Commonwealth?

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott is a staunch monarchist (photo: 2gb.com)

The Queen's death will no doubt have far deeper implications than new postage stamps. However, it is quite possible that it will spell the end for the Commonwealth as we now know it.

The Commonwealth is an organization of 53 countries where the British monarch is officially head of state, including Australia, Canada, Jamaica, New Zealand, and Barbados. These are the remnants of the British Empire, which in the modern world has remained in the form of trade and political relations between the former British colonies. Many of these countries became part of the British Empire against their will, and almost all of them have long since declared their independence.

The death of Elizabeth II may be a reason for some Commonwealth countries to end their alliance with England once and for all.

Another supporter of the monarchy, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (photo: citynews.ca)

Australia, for example, in 1999 held a referendum on the republican status of the state. Ultimately, the Republicans won 45% of the vote. Australian support for the monarchy may have come from a personal attachment to the queen herself, but if there is no object of adoration, then a decision to part ways can easily arise.

The exit of the Commonwealth countries from the union with England also largely depends on the time period of the death of the queen. Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper are staunch monarchists and do their best to suppress any manifestations of republicanism before their very eyes. But if the queen leaves this world after the aforementioned prime ministers leave their seats, then the resurgent Republicans may find a more receptive audience.

Republican UK?

Depending on the manner in which Charles ruled, the Republicans could also become more active in Britain. But there is still no chance that the UK will become a republic in the foreseeable future. Support for the monarch is deeply rooted in the psyche of the people: 66% of respondents see their state as a monarchy, and only 17% choose a republic.

Long time to live!

On September 9, 2015, Queen Elizabeth II will break the record set by her great-great-grandmother Queen Victoria to become the longest-lived British monarch of all time!

Queen Elizabeth II is the world's oldest reigning monarch (photo: Wikimedia)

Image copyright Peter Macdiarmid Image caption How is the British Crown inherited?

Some time ago we addressed our readers with the British royal family.

There were a lot of questions, and we answered almost all of them.

But in preparing the responses, we noticed that many of the questions concerned the British succession to the throne.

Many of you have wondered if the Queen can pass the crown to her grandson, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, overcoming her own son, Prince Charles of Wales?

Of course, one can simply answer: "it is impossible", adding that the order of succession to the throne is determined by laws, and the power of Parliament stronger power monarch.

But, perhaps, it is quite interesting to delve into the topic and explain why it is actually impossible.

Image copyright Hulton Archive Image caption Stefan and Matilda fought each other for a long time with varying success. At one point, Matilda even managed to capture Stefan. In the image, his wife begs Matilda to spare her husband.

"There is no peace to the crowned head"

The current succession laws in Britain are the result of a natural evolution of the respective laws of England and Scotland.

And at first there were no clear rules at all. The throne could be claimed by persons with close or rather weak ties to the reigning king, those who managed to enlist sufficient support from the nobility, those to whom the king, for example, transferred power by will, or those who simply had enough troops to seize the long-awaited crown by force.

And there are many examples of this. In the 11th century, Edward the Confessor, for example, died without leaving children. Before his death, as some sources write, he "looked with significance" at Harold, the son of the Essex magnate. Harold thought that was enough, but William the Conqueror had his own plans, and we all know that as a result of the Battle of Hastings, the Saxon dynasties came to an end, and power migrated to the Normans.

Image copyright Hulton Archive Image caption This is how they split up: the Lancasters chose a red rose, and the Yorkes chose a white one.

In the 12th century, King Henry I tried to leave the throne to his daughter Matilda, to which his nephew Stephen categorically objected. flared up Civil War, which surprisingly ended in a compromise: Stephen was allowed to reign until natural death, but in response he agreed to admit that after him the throne would be taken by Matilda's son Henry Plantagenet, who later founded the dynasty of the same name.

In the 15th century, there was a civil war of the Scarlet and White Roses, during which the Yorks and Lancasters, who have more or less equal claims to the throne, cut, poisoned, betrayed and killed each other for 30 years, as a result of which more than 50 thousand people died ( as you can imagine, the statistics of that time were rather inaccurate), despite the fact that the population of the country barely exceeded three million.

However, even in these troubled times, one rule developed that everyone agreed to a certain extent: the birthright.

Image copyright Hulton Archive Image caption Under Henry VII, Parliament decided for the first time who would inherit the crown.

"I have reached the highest power"

In 1485, Henry Tudor, the legitimate heir of the House of Lancaster, although through the female line, took the throne, taking the name of Henry VII. To finally calm the bloodless country, tired of continuous strife, he married the heiress of the house of York, Elizabeth.

The first parliament he convened in the same year passed a law according to which: "The crown should be placed and remain on the head of our royal sovereign, King Henry VII, and heirs, who will be the legitimate fruits of his body." It is easy to see that in the 15th century they liked to express themselves quite figuratively.

Henry VII was all right with the "fruits of the body", and although the eldest son Arthur died in a fairly early age, the second, Henry, succeeded to the throne, becoming the eighth king to bear that name.

Image copyright Hulton Archive Image caption Henry VIII is not the most pleasant character in English history

"If you dream of a cucumber, then there will be a son"

France passed a law depriving women of the right to the throne at the beginning of the 14th century. England, although it did not officially adopt such a law, was not particularly enthusiastic about the prospect of a woman on the throne. Henry VIII desperately needed a male heir.

Even serious historians admit through gritted teeth that if the first son of the King and the Spanish Infanta had survived, there would have been neither Anne Boleyn, nor the conversion of England to Protestantism, nor the bloody quarrels that representatives of these two different branches of Christianity staged with each other.

Parliament, which at that time did not yet have the current power, had more work to do. First, he had to declare illegitimate the first daughter of the king, the Catholic Mary. Then the second - the Protestant Elizabeth. Although both continued to be considered illegitimate, Parliament, just in case, and, presumably, with the approval of the king, restored their rights, deciding that: "The king must and can give, transfer, limit, assign or take away the right to the crown and other rights in relevant letter or will.

And the will did not stay: the first candidate for the throne was Henry's son Edward (the future Edward VI), followed by Mary, Elizabeth, then the heirs of his deceased sister Mary Tudor, Duchess of Suffolk. However, Henry excluded from the line of succession the children of his second sister, Margaret, who was married to the King of Scotland.

Image copyright Thinkstock Image caption In the reign of Elizabeth I, Parliament decided that in the event of a dispute, the question of who would be king would be decided by him.

Lionesses on the throne

Mary's reign did not end in anything good either for her or for the country. Throughout her not too long reign, she stubbornly tried to do two things: give birth to a male heir and restore England to Catholicism.

There is evidence that before her death, the courtiers persuaded her to transfer the throne, either to one of the nobles of the Catholics, or to her husband, the Spanish king, or to anyone in general, but not to the Protestant Elizabeth.

However, Mary was a pious woman, and no matter how she treated her despot father, she could not go against his will. The throne was taken by Elizabeth I.

Elizabeth, on the other hand, went against the established rule, and until the very end of her reign, she refused to name an heir.

During her reign, in 1571, Parliament passed the Act of Treason, in which it assumed the right to resolve disputes over the succession to the throne, and refusal to recognize this right for him was considered treason. In order to finally protect themselves from possible troubles and applicants (especially since several assassination attempts were made on the good Queen Bess), Parliament passed another law according to which any person trying to kill the monarch was automatically deprived of the right to the crown.

It is good that this law was not retroactive, otherwise the fact that Elizabeth's grandfather killed the former king Richard III would automatically excommunicate all Tudors from the throne.

Image copyright Thinkstock Image caption The Scots were lucky: for several centuries on the throne, the son succeeded his father, and everything was in order

North of Hadrian's Wall

I would say that the Scots were unforgivably lucky with the succession to the throne: from 1371, they were ruled by the Stuart dynasty, and the throne passed smoothly from father to son in accordance with strict observance of primogeniture rights, until 1567, when the Scots dethroned Mary Stuart, but they immediately put it on the forehead of her son James, who later became the first king who simultaneously wore the crowns of both England and Scotland.

Image copyright Hulton Archive Image caption Charles I, who quarreled with Parliament, and as a result lost both his throne and his head. The inscription on the engraving: "Oh, terrible murder!"

The king is dead, the king is executed, long live the king!

James, who became King James I of England, ruled with the approval of Parliament, which decided in this case to ignore the will of Henry VIII, reasonably deciding that the king on the throne was still better than some Lady Anne Stanley, who was just a descendant of Mary Tudor, and, in theory, the rightful heir of Elizabeth.

The eldest son of James I, Charles I, quarreled with parliament, which, as we all know, ended for him in the loss of both the throne and the head.

After him, the country was ruled for some time by the Lord Protector (de facto king) Oliver Cromwell, who, in the best traditions of birthright, tried to transfer power to his son, but his son was a weak man, and the British quickly put the son of the executed Charles, Charles II, on the throne .

Image copyright Thinkstock Image caption Charles II: there were many children, but not one from the legitimate queen

When parliament became the main

Fate, however, decreed that the numerous favorites of the loving king race with each other gave birth to sons (what's the point?!), while his queen, as luck would have it, remained barren.

At the end of his life, Charles was faced with a dilemma: to ask Parliament to legitimize and enthrone his illegitimate son, the Duke of Monmouth, or to act according to the law and transfer the throne to his younger brother, another Jacob?

Karl decided to act according to the law. Apparently in vain, since Jacob was a Catholic. And most of the British by that time had developed a real allergy to Catholics. They were considered the "fifth column", which is primarily loyal to the Pope, and only then to their king.

In 1688, the Protestants forced Jacob out of the country. Parliament also decided that since Jacob fled the country, he thereby abdicated, which means that parliament can now dispose of the crown.

Image copyright Hulton Archive Image caption Queen Mary and King William: Britain's first (and last) co-rulers on the throne

However, he offered this crown not to the son of the deposed king, but to his daughter Mary, who had two main advantages: she was a Protestant and she was married to a Protestant ruler, the Duke of Orange from the Netherlands.

In 1689, the English Parliament adopted the famous "Bill of Rights" - a law establishing the order of succession to the throne in England, Scotland and Ireland, which is still in force with minor changes.

It clearly stated that only Protestants could sit on the British throne. If, for some reason, a Protestant decided to marry a Catholic, then the crown will have to say goodbye once and for all.

The fact is that sensible Englishmen realized that a Catholic wife would easily lead a Protestant husband to a change of religion (as happened with James II), and this is no good.

After that, and until the beginning of the 20th century, everything went pretty smoothly. Monarchs succeeded each other in strict accordance with the rules. Parliament intervened only once, in 1811, when it became clear that King George III could no longer rule due to mental illness. Since he was still alive (although obviously not healthy), it was impossible to make his son king, and he became prince regent.

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Duke of Windsor, former king Edward VIII and his wife, the former Mrs. Simpson

Crown or marriage

The next time the question of succession arose only in 1936, when Edward VIII abdicated. This story is well known: the young king wanted to marry the twice-divorced American Wallis Simpson.

The Church of England at that time categorically refused to recognize marriage with a divorced partner. Edward was hinted that he could continue to meet with Simpson even as king, but to do it non-publicly, since there were plenty of precedents in English history, but Edward rested and recanted.

Parliament passed another bill, which was called: "His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act, 1936". The law stated that neither he nor his heirs would have any rights, titles or interests in accession to the throne. "As a result, it turned out that the abdicated king died childless in 1972. At this time, his niece Elizabeth II was on throne for 20 years.

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Mom, dad, son: if a daughter were born, she would become the heir to the throne. Who is the first - to that and the crown

Don't fix what isn't broken

The order of succession in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is still determined by the "Bill of Rights" adopted in the 17th century.

Some changes were made only by the "Succession to the Throne Act 2013", which abolished the preference of a male heir. Now the crown will be transferred in accordance with the right of "absolute birthright" regardless of the sex of the first child of the royal couple.

The same law stated that while Catholics were still not allowed to inherit the throne, Protestants married to Catholics were still allowed to.

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Her Majesty and three heirs

So who is the future heir?

There is a definite answer to this question: Charles.

Given, however, that the supreme power in the country belongs to Parliament, and not to the Queen, in theory Parliament could pass a law that would decide that William should be the next king.

The question, however, is not so much whether William will be king, but whether he is ready to become one? So far, the future monarch clearly lacks the experience that his father has in full.

And therefore, for now, the succession to the throne will take place according to the pattern established for centuries: the queen, her son, her grandson.

This material was prepared as a response to questions sent by our readers aboutBritish royal family. Ask questions on other topics you can follow these links , , ).

The Act of Succession was passed by the Parliament of England in 1701 and provides that the throne passes first to male heirs.

Queen Elizabeth II only came to the throne because her father, King George VI, had no sons; if she had a brother, even a younger one, then the crown would have passed to him. In addition to the priority of male heirs, the Act of Succession provides that a Catholic or a person who is married to a Catholic cannot become King or Queen of England.

At the same time, the law does not formally prohibit members of the royal family from marrying adherents of other religions or atheists.

There has been talk of changing the order of succession in the UK since the early 1980s. However, this idea did not find support from the British government.

In 2011, in order to bring the law into line with modern social norms of gender equality and freedom of religion, the question of the reform of the succession to the throne was brought up for discussion. For the final approval of the new law, it was necessary to obtain the consent of all 16 member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, where the British monarch is formally the head of state.

On October 28, 2011, at the Commonwealth Summit, the heads of state and government of the organization approved the New Rules to cancel the tradition british monarchy male succession. Now the first child born to the royal couple, regardless of gender, will be considered the heir. Also annulled was the principle that a future British monarch could not marry a Catholic.

In April 2013, in the UK, the Succession to the Throne Act giving effect to the reforms was passed into law. But it will not take effect unless all 16 Commonwealth countries agree to the same changes by writ of Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg as Lord President of the Privy Council.

In the long term, changes in the rules of succession to the British throne will mean that the first child of William and his wife Catherine, regardless of gender, may become third in line to the British throne after Prince Charles of Wales and Duke William of Cambridge. In this case, the youngest son of Prince Charles, Prince Harry, will only take fourth place.

On June 7, 2013, Professors Genevieve Motard and Patrick Taillon, experts in constitutional law at the University of Laval in the Canadian province of Quebec, filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Quebec. They allege that the Canadian government acted unconstitutionally by not obtaining the approval of each of the country's ten provinces before agreeing to changes to the succession law. Their case, which is expected to take six months to five years, threatens to derail efforts by Commonwealth leaders to quickly change the law.

Due to a lawsuit, the first child of Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge Catherine may not inherit the throne if a girl is born.

Currently (data as of July 20, 2013), under the current Act of Succession of 1701, after Queen Elizabeth II succession to the throne occurs in the following order:

1. Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales (Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales), born in 1948, eldest son of Queen Elizabeth II, heir to the throne (future King Charles III);

2. William Arthur Philip Louis, Duke of Cambridge (William Arthur Philip Louis, Duke of Cambridge), born in 1982, son of the Prince of Wales (future King William V);

3. Prince Henry (Harry) Charles Albert David (Prince Henry (Harry) Charles Albert David), born in 1984, son of the Prince of Wales;

4. Andrew Albert Christian Edward (Prince Andrew), Duke of York (Andrew Albert Christian Edward, Duke of York), born in 1960, son of Queen Elizabeth II;

5. Princess Beatrice of York (Beatrice Elizabeth Mary of York), born in 1988, daughter of the Duke of York;

6. Princess Eugenie of York (Eugenie Victoria Helena of York), born in 1990, daughter of the Duke of York;

7. Edward Anthony Richard Louis (Prince Edward), Earl of Wessex (Edward Antony Richard Louis, Earl of Wessex), born in 1964, son of Queen Elizabeth II;

8. James Windsor, Viscount Severn (James Windsor, Viscount Severn), born in 2007, son of the Earl of Wessex;

9. Lady Louise Windsor (Lady Louise Windsor), born in 2003, daughter of the Earl of Wessex;

10. Princess Royal Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise, born in 1950, daughter of Queen Elizabeth II;

11. Peter Phillips (Peter Mark Andrew Phillips), born in 1977, the son of a British princess;

12. Savannah Phillips (Savannah Phillips), born in 2010, daughter of Peter Phillips;

13. Isla Phillips (Isla Phillips), born in 2012, the daughter of Peter Phillips;

14. Zara Phillips (Zara Anne Elizabeth, Mrs. Michael Tindall), born in 1981, daughter of a British princess.