I don't quite understand the question. The rule of succession did not stipulate that the heir had to be male. Do you mean if had stipulated the heir had to be male?
Not really relevant. That allows females to precede their younger brothers. As I have said, if the princesses Elizabeth and Margaret were forbidden by law, the next in line was the Duke of Gloucester.
Fascinating to speculate bywhat the history of the 20C might have been if the change had been in force over 100 years ago. Victoria would have been succeeded by her eldest child, who would have reigned as Victoria II. As she was dying of cancer she would have been succeeded by her son, Kaiser Wilhelm II. Would two world wars have come about then?
If women were forbidden by law to be monarch, as they were in Germany, then Victoria would not have become queen but her uncle Ernest Augustus would have, as he did in Hanover.
as a q clear enough - who was the nearest male in line of succession ( you have gathered 25A38 that you dont accede to a throne but succeed)
first you have to decide if Edward VIII re inherits - as sort of Edward VIII pt 2 = otherwise it would be the next brother to George VI ( henry duke of gloucs)
actually the only problem is that we know he carried the gene for porphyria and passed it onto his son - the one that died in an air crash
the only thing about who would have succeeded questions is - - - the protestant succession by act of parliament in 1701
which basically established Parliament can enact the succession to whomever it likes .....