The Heir to the British Throne: A Path Untaken

Had Charles not been born, the British monarchy would have taken a very different path. This article explores the scenario where Prince Andrew, Duke of York, succeeded to the throne and how the subsequent succession would have unfolded. We delve into the implications of such a path and how it would have altered the current line of monarchy.

The Absence of Charles: Prince Andrew as Heir

Suppose the late Queen Elizabeth II had not given birth to Prince Charles. Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, would have been crowned King of the United Kingdom. His daughter, Princess Beatrice, would have stood in line as the first in line to the throne after him. This would have been a significant shift, as Prince Andrew and Princess Beatrice are never prominent figures in the public eye, and their coronation would have been a different chapter in British history.

The Rules of Succession

Under the old rules of Male Primogeniture, the heir would be determined by gender and birth order. If Carles had not been born, Prince Andrew would have inherited the throne, as he was the oldest son of the late Queen. With the passage of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, the current rules of absolute primogeniture or birth order regardless of gender, would apply. Under these rules, Princess Charlotte is ahead of Prince George in line to the throne.

Princess Anne's Potential Heir Status

Under the rule of Queen Elizabeth II, the heir presumptive from 1952 to 1960 would have been the Princess Anne, currently HRH The Princess Royal. From 1960 until the Queen’s death, the heir apparent would have been Prince Andrew, currently HRH The Duke of York.

In the event that Charles had not been born, the heir apparent would have been Prince Andrew. After his death, Princess Beatrice would have assumed the role of heiress apparent. If the UK had followed the Swedish or Norwegian models, the outcome could have been quite different. Sweden's rule in the 1970s and Norway's rule change in the early 1980s led to different outcomes.

Sweden's Model: Changing the Law Retroactively

If the UK had adopted the Swedish model, which involved changing the law retroactively, Princess Anne would have remained the heir. This would have been decided relatively soon after her birth, and the change would have had far-reaching implications. In this scenario, Peter, the son of Princess Anne and Michael("- -")Toby, would have become Prince of Wales.

Norway's Model: Raised with Expectations

Alternatively, if the UK had followed the Norwegian model, where the change in the law was not retroactive, Prince Andrew would have been born as the heir apparent and would have grown up with the expectation of one day becoming King. The Norwegian model also ensured that Haakon was raised with the expectation of becoming King, despite his younger sister being born first.

Conclusion

The absence of Prince Charles would have significantly altered the current line of the British monarchy. Prince Andrew and Princess Beatrice would have assumed the roles of King and heiress, respectively. The choice of which model to follow, either the Swedish or Norwegian, would have determined the future ruler of the United Kingdom. The path such a scenario might have taken is a fascinating aspect of British kingship and succession.