Edward Iii Andrichard Ii

[Tarser]

I'm sure this is easy to answer for historians, please excuse my ignorance.

Edward III had five sons. His first son died before Edward and yet the crown went to his grandson, Richard II and not his other sons. Why was this?

I'm guessing that Richard II was the son of Edward's first born (The Black Prince) and the crown went to his son, but why not the next eldest son. Is that just how it worked?

Thanks

[Jackdaw33]

It's always direct descent. Richard II was second in line and when his father died (Black Prince) he became first in line. If Prince Charles were to die before his mother the throne would go to Prince William and not Prince Andrew.

[Jackdaw33]

It was the same with George III who was the grandson of George II.

[Jackdaw33]

The current line of succession is:

1 Prince Charles
2 Prince William
3 Prince George
4 Princess Charlotte
5 Prince Harry
6 Prince Andrew etc.

[ToraToraTora]

yes as JD says once born the succession is locked for males eg similarly if Charles died before the Queen the the throne passes to william not Andrew to parallel with your example.

[ToraToraTora]

before the recent change a daughter could be heir presumptive, as was the case of our existing queen.

[atalanta]

However, there have been cases in earlier English history when the crown did not always go to the grandson of the monarch if his father( the now-dead heir) pre-deceased the king.
On some occasions it depended who had the biggest army. Especially if the grandson was a small child.

[Jackdaw33]

Can you give an example, atalanta? Certainly not since the Norman conquest. Before that Saxon kings were chosen by the Witan (council), there were no automatic rights of succession.

[atalanta]

Arthur of Brittany, for a start