Posted by Lorenzo DPG (Dapragal) on 30/4/2008, 8:41:08, in reply to "Re: Succession laws revisited - for the umpteenth time"
82.52.87.114
I think that the opposition of the King to the change was mostly motivated by the fact that, even if discussions were on their way long before, the new rules were implemented when the son was already born.
So, while Victoria was heir presumptive, her brother become heir apparent at his birth and therefore he was deprived of his already exixting and established rights.
The king would prefer that the new rules were applied from the next generation onwards, without changing the rights and status of his living children. In other words, the law should not have been applied retroactively, so that the heir apparent was not "downgraded" in favour of his sister, creating the potential for hard resentment and terrible relationship within the family for the years to come. Luckily, at least, this seems not to have been the case.
