As its only fairly recently that women have been able to take their placev in Royal line of Succession - I'm wondering when King George 6th died why he was succeeded by his daughter Elizabeth and not his next senior brother ?
It would have gone to his eldest son if he had one but as he had 2 daughters it goes to the eldest of them. It does do as you say in some countries but not here.
That isn't true. Women have always been in the line of succession.
An eldest daughter would have taken priority over a brother surely?
A younger son, however, would have jumped the queue.
Prince Andrew and Edward are above Princess Anne even though they are younger than her.
I'm sure it's only recently that gender no longer matters and so Charlotte is above Louis.
The monarch's children, if there are any, are first in line. If there aren't any children, brothers step in - as in the case of Edward VIII and George VI.
When the late queen gave birth to four children, three boys and a girl, even though the girl was second born, the boys took precedence in the line of succession. The change means that in similar circumstances today, the girl would take second place instead of fourth.
The English line of succession permits women to succeed ie, we can have queens as head of state. When William IV died Victoria was the only child of deceased George III's fourth son and was allowed to become queen of England. The Germans only allow kings so the English and German crowns separated.
It's funny that despite the previous system being very heavily weighted towards males, we have had Victoria and Elizabeth hogging the throne for such long periods.