IF PRINCE CHARLES HAD TWO DAUGHTERS WITH DIANA AND THEN HAD A SON WITH CAMILLA WHO WOULD BE HEIR to THE THROWN

Question

OBVIOUSLY IF CAMILLA WAS YOUNGER AND AFTER CHARLES DIED

Answer 1

His first born,  they changed the rules of succession with Princess Anne.

Worry about your spelling instead.  It's THRONE.

Answer 2

the son

Answer 3

I think the rightful heir would be the son...

Answer 4

i doubt it would be from camilla seeing how in the democracy of royals you cant get a divorce......so i think it would be the daughters......

Answer 5

Assuming the daughters disappeared mysteriously, while on holiday, the son.

Answer 6

The correct and best answer is from Liberty&Justice - it is not the first born - males take precedence. Look at Liberty's answer and ignore the rest!

Answer 7

Short answer:  the son would inherit the throne even if he had older  half-sisters.

Explanation:  The British throne is handed down through a system known as cognatic, or male-preference, primogeniture, which allows a female to succeed if she has no living brothers (or half-brothers) and no deceased brothers  (or half-brothers) have left any surviving descendants.  For example, of Henry VIII's three children, his son, Edward VI (1547-1553) succeeded him, even though his oldest daughter, Mary Tudor (1516-1558) would go on to rule England  after he died.  After Mary died, her younger sister, Elizabeth I, assumed the throne.  Even though each of these monarchs had a different mother, it didn't matter.  What mattered was first the child's gender--males first--and then his or her birth order.  The Queen, Elizabeth II, inherited the throne because she was the eldest of two sisters and had no brothers.

Answer 8

throne, not thrown, sorry to correct

I think the heir is the first born, no matter the gender?

Answer 9

The Bristish system is of Cognatic or male primogeniture.   This means that boys outrank girls.   If Charles had a son  after two daugthers the son would outrank his sisters.

This is why Queen Elizabeth, who was the elder daughter of a king with no sons, was the heir the throne but was not the Pricess of Wales or Duchess of Corwall.   Had a brother been born later on, he would have been the heir and would have displaced her.   Once he was born, no one could have displaced him.

This was of course not the case but this did happen in the past.   James II had two daughters, Mary and Anne.   Mary was the Heiress presumptive.   It was presummed but not certain that she would be queen.   The James had a son and he became the heir apparent .   This meant it was apparent that he would suceed and no one would be able to displace him.   Of couse the War of the Three Kingdoms happend and the displaced heiress usurped her youger brother.

Many contries do not use Male preference.   Sweeden for example prefers the first born,m then the second born and the s*x does not matter.

Answer 10

liberty&justice you are wrong, wrong, wrong!!  How did Elizabeth become queen if George VI had no sons?  Would not the throne have passed to his next brother in line, the Duke of Gloucester if you are to be believed?  If Charles had no sons but two daughters, the eldest daughter would become queen, which is EXACTLY what happened in ERII's case.  If he had two daughters with Diana and then a son with Camilla, the son with Camilla would stand to inherit before the daughters.  Think about it...this is exactly why the Edward VIII had to abdicate-the thought of his marrying Wallis Simpson and having a child that could inherit the throne was not going to be allowed to happen...

Answer 11

Thank God this would never happened.  I would hate to think that the son born to Camilla and Charles would be King of England.  (Silent prayer of thanks).  LOL.

Answer 12

His son.

Answer 13

The heir is in ranking order of birth!   It would be Diana's daughters first and then Camilla's child if the others could not take the thrown when Charles died.  

England has kings and queens until other monarchies that only accept males to rule.

Answer 14

The son would become heir apparent after Charles because all male heirs take precedent over female heiress according to the english monarchy rule. However, this rule could be exempted, if both Charles and Camilla decided not to put such a royal duty onto their youngest son's shoulders. Any royal titles could be given or withdrawn by the monarch. Queen Elizabeth II offered to give three of her grandchildren royal titles, however, both Princess Anne and Prince Edward declined by stating that they want their children to lead normal lives and away from the burden of royal duties. However, Prince Edward's daughter Lady Louise of Windsor is legally a princess, she does have the choice to change her title when coming of age.

Currently the world's only female heiress apparent to a royal throne is Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden, Duchess of Västergötland.

Answer 15

One of the daughters, or it would have jumped to one of Charles' sblings Kids

But either way any child of Camilla and Charles would actually be bumped to the back of the line or completely off the list, I think either Charles or Camilla had to sign/state something to the effect that while Camilla was his wife she and her heirs would not be 'royal', as Charles was divorced, and not a king and so unable to go 'Henry the VIII'  and decree otherwise

Answer 16

it would be his first born child because gender no longer matters for royalty (at least in england) they have moved beyond that thank god lol!!!!

Answer 17

The first born daughter would become queen. the correct spelling is throne.

Answer 18

In the British monarchy, sons have precedence over daughters so the hypothetical son with Camilla would be higher in the order of succession.t

Answer 19

I don't know. I am guessing the child with Camilla since the boy inherits over the girl.

Answer 20

Egads.  All these answers saying gender doesn't matter!  Boys inherit over girls, so in your hypothetical case Camilla's son would definitely inherit.  However, it is possible that an Act would have been pased barring her children from the succession (for the same sentimental reasons that Camilla will never be called queen even though she has the legal right to it when Charles becomes king)

The eldest boy is called the heir apparent.  Short of his own death (or the breaking of a couple of rules, such as becoming Catholic), he becomes king.  If there are no sons, the eldest daughter (such as Elizabeth when she was princess) is known as the heir presumptive, meaning that at the moment she is the heir, but that would change if she ever gained a little brother.

Answer 21

This is a difficult one, but it's not the females

England's monarchy still operates the archaic system of the male taking precedent over the female.

If you look at our current system. Princess Anne wouldn't become queen if charlie wasn't around and didn't have any sons. That duty then falls to the next male in the line. The same applies if Prince Andrew wasn't around either - still wouldn't go to Anne - it would pass down the male line again to Edward.

That has all changed with Charles having two sons. The next in line would be the sons to the heir apparent. So Anne, Andrew, and Edward don't get a look in once the sons come along.

If Charles had had a girl first and then a boy, the boy would have become the next king, even though his sister was older.

Where we have had Queens in our country, it is directly as a result of them not having had an older or younger brother. The only other situation where a female ascends to the throne to become queen is when the (only) brother has died or has abdicated.

The order is not straight forwardly linear. Eg if Charles had had two girls and no sons, then the right of ascension would be passed back to one of his brothers, or in turn their male offspring.

There has been talk of changing this antiquated system, but it hasn't happened yet.

The sooner, the better, as far as I'm concerned

oh dear tracy s.

Arent you aggressive

If you'd read my response more carefully, you might have had a different one yourself. I do bow to your superior knowledge on the girlie thing.The title to the crown is derived from the act of settlement (1700, 1707, 1800) & the law interalia gives preference to males over females and an older child takes preference over younger. Primogeniture ranks male heirs & their offspring (latter irrespective of s*x) over female heirs. My understanding of current lineage is: charles>william>harry>andrew>

beatrice>eugenie>edward>

louise>anne>peter>zara.

When sophie gives birth to 2nd child s/he will slot in between louise and anne - although i may have this wrong?

No doubt you'll jump in and tell me again in triplicate if i am

Yes,elizabeth became queen after her uncle abdicated and father died. My understanding of edward's abdication was that it happened to avoid a constitutional crisis as wallace simpson was a divorcee with living ex husbands. His brother became king and when he died the oldest of his children - elizabeth - became queen .

sorry - my law degree has obviously failed me and i don't profess to be a historian. Interesting that you singled me out when so many other people had the males down too x*x

Answer 22

That didn't happen, so why even think about it?

Answer 23

His first born child.  In this case, his daughter with Diana.

It's throne.

Answer 24

the first born would be first in line to be king or queen

Answer 25

IF Diana had had daughters, and Camilla had a son, the male heir would move to the front of the line, since Camilla is Charles' lawful and legal wife.  After the male heir, THEN the daughters would be in line, then Andrew and his kids, then Edwards and HIS kids, THEN Anne and her kids.