Order of succession in BRF

[NoviceDisher]

Hallo !

Have a few questions about the succession order in BRF.

1. Was Princess Anne the "spare" before Prince Andrew was born or was Princess Margaret ?
2. If Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice were the daughters of Prince Charles instead of Prince Andrew and Harry and William were the sons of Prince Andrew, who would be the next in line to the BRF after Prince Charles ? In case I did not frame my question properly, it is if Prince Charles had two girls instead of two boys who would the next in line be ?
3. If Charlotte has a brother instead of a sister will it push her down in the order of succession ?

TIA for answering

[Elissa]

AFAIK :

1. Yes Anne was the 'spare' . She was the daughter of the heiress to the throne. Margaret ceased to be the 'spare' the minute Charles was born.
2. If William and Harry had been girls, they still would have been right after Charles in the line. They are always ahead of any of Andrew's children, as the Heir apparent's children.
3. Not sure if Charlotte will be pushed down by a younger brother 

[Olya]

Charlotte will not be pushed down by a younger brother. The "boys before girls" rule was changed in 2012.
The other two questions have been correctly answered above.

Btw, when the new Act came into effect in 2012, it did not change the line of succession, meaning even though Anne is older than Andy & Ed she and her children are still behind those two and their children in line. The Act of 2012 only affects all people in line to the Brit throne born in and after it started its effect in 2012.

[NoviceDisher]

Thank you Elissa and Olya for answering

[Olya]

You're welcome!

[whiplashhx]

Sorry for rehashing this old thread but I can't sleep and randomly thought of this:

Let's say William had a daughter in a prior situation that somehow warranted that daughter to be apart of the succession (use your imagination), would the daughter have gotten knocked down the line by George (followed by Charlotte and Louis) considering the wording of the Perth Agreement replaced male-preference primogeniture with absolute primogeniture for those in the line of succession born after 28 October 2011?


Edit:
I'm sure the wording might have been different so she wouldn't have been effected if this was the case, probably just answered my own question within seconds of posting this lol. sorry it's 2am

[luvcharles]

If William somehow had a legitimate daughter before the 28th October 2011 they would have started the process to change the law to cover that daughter.

If William had an illegitimate daughter it wouldn't matter as illegitimate children can't inherit the throne.

In 1981/2, when Diana was expecting William, there was talk of changing the rules to allow a first born daughter to inherit. However, when William was born a boy they decided to do nothing.

It wasn't until the possibility of a new generation of children being born, and thus the possibility of a first born daughter being replaced by a younger brother, rared its head again, after William married, that the relevant leaders decided it was time to do something. It took them nearly 3.5 years however so even though the agreement had been made until all the realms had passed the law and it had been gazetted in the UK - in March, 2015, it wasn't actually the law.