If the queen an heirs (up to will)all die tomorrow ... What happens?

(87 Posts)

I know it'd then go to Harry but what if Kate were pregnant, would it then go back to the child once he/she were born?

Think I was supposed to write this in chat... blush

YABU. grin

Dprince Tue 05-Jun-12 09:37:17

if Kate was pg either her or harry would be 'caretaker' until baby was born I think.

Pooka Tue 05-Jun-12 09:40:46

Oooh. Interesting.

Is Harry higher in succession than prince Andrew? If it were a freak accident killing all higher up in line of succession at the same moment, would it be Harry as son of the eldest son of the queen, or Andrew as the eldest living son of the queen?

And if Kate was pregnant, would her unborn child count? Would Andrew/Harry become king but then if the baby was born before the coronation (likely) what would happen then? I think it'd be Andrew as king and the baby would not then 'overtake' him, because would be baby of the eldest son or the eldest son of the queen rather than the eldest son of the reigning (but dead) queen.

Pooka Tue 05-Jun-12 09:42:10

Shit. Would it be Harry as the eldest living son of the eldest dead son of the then queen? Or Andrew as the eldest living son of the dead queen.

That's what I meant to say.

Portofino Tue 05-Jun-12 09:43:47

It would be Harry - then Andrew, then Bea and Eugenie....

Hulababy Tue 05-Jun-12 09:43:48

Harry's above Andrew.

Harry comes before Andrew.

fedupofnamechanging Tue 05-Jun-12 09:44:35

I think it would be the baby, with a caretaker in place until the child is of age. Succession passes from elder son to elder son, so the moment William was born, Andrew became almost irrelevant.

If there was no baby, then Harry would succeed.

Andrew is after harry.

But a (hypothetical) unborn child of William...dunno where that fits in...

babybythesea Tue 05-Jun-12 09:47:15

As things stand, assuming no baby with Will and Kate, it goes:
Charles
William
Harry
Andrew
Beatrice
Eugenie (or the other way round -can't remember which one is older)
Edward
Edwards kids
Anne
Annes kids

Basically, once it has started down a family line (eg Charles) it carries on down that line until you run out of people, then it goes to the next family line (Andrew) and starts again.
Anne is at the bottom because she's a woman, and therefore so are her children even though she has a son and he is number one grandchild for the queen.

That whole idea has been changed now (but for the future, not retrospectively) so if Will and Kate have a girl she will come in above Harry, and not be displaced by any younger brothers, and her children will similarly take priority in the succession.

No idea where an unborn child stands though.

spammertime Tue 05-Jun-12 09:52:06

There isn't a strict rule I don't think
But they did have plans in place incase William IV got queen Adelaide pregnant and then died - queen victoria would have been a kind of temporary queen and then "died" in terms of legal monarchy things, with the child becoming king / queen.

Jenny70 Tue 05-Jun-12 09:54:14

I would imagine unborn children would be excluded from the succession - in times gone by they were a bit unclear on the mechanics of it all, and I think the child needs to be accepted by the monarch as their own. If it were a Queen's baby, then she would have lived long enough to deliver the baby, so that would be OK (just), but a King could die when his wife is only 4w pregnant. In olden days it would have been assumed to be fathered by the butler giving the widow some comfort (I would imagine).

So unless Kate was ready to pop and gave birth the following week (when public opinion might kick in that their golden child should have entitlements), I think it would be taken out of the succession. Awkward though.

And to be practical noone wants a newborn baby as King or Queen - they would need someone to stand in for ?18 years and then what decisions of state will an 18 year old make?

But funny if Kate was pg and her unborn child was already King/Queen and she waddled around in late pregnancy!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_Norwegian_throne

In Norway an unborn child takes his or her correct place in the line of succession as soon as born.

I suspect that the UK line of succession would be the same.

Fantail Tue 05-Jun-12 10:06:31

Any unborn child, male or female, of Kate and William's would inherit ahead of Harry. Not sure who would act as regent, could be Harry, but more likely it would be a council - perhaps including Andrew and Edward.

The law hasn't been changed yet to allow a first born daughter of William and Kate to inherit ahead of any younger brothers. It isn't as simple as just the UK changing a law, all the members of the Commonwealth have to change any acts, constitutions etc too and this has to happen at the same time so that I guess if in your scenario Kate was pregnant with twins, girl and boy and the girl is first born, girl baby would be Queen of some countries and boy baby king in others.

Whatmeworry Tue 05-Jun-12 10:09:47

If they all go don't we just import more from Germany?

The commenwealth have all agreed.

There was a BBC article linked ages ago stating that (or similar). It was an unclear article tho. In one place stating that the first born would take the throne. In another it implied that it had been decided (end of last year) but the laws need changing starting with the UK which would be done as soon as parlimem opened. So I think it may all be sorted now.

sashh Tue 05-Jun-12 10:12:36

Isn't this the plot of King Ralph?

Aquarium Tue 05-Jun-12 10:20:06

The new rules are already in effect according to Nick Clegg here

Speaking in the Commons, Mr Clegg said: “If the birds and bees were to deliver that blessing to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and indeed the nation, then that little girl would be covered by the provisions of these changes of the rules of succession because they operate from the time of the declaration of the Commonwealth summit last October.
‘It is very important to remember that the rules are de facto in place, even though they have yet to be implemented through legislation in the way that I have described.’

Fantail Tue 05-Jun-12 10:22:49

Yes, everyone has agreed, but laws etc haven't been changed yet. New Zealand is leading the work on this. They are also changing the law that means you can't succeed if you marry a Roman Catholic.

babbashouse Tue 05-Jun-12 10:22:58

What amuses me is the mumsnet submission of JazzAnn's details to the appropriate authorities if this were now to happen. I particularly like the 'up to Will' detail - and the idea you just wanted to check with mumsnet the outcome you'd get is what you wanted - if not you'll update the plot to pluck off more or fewer accordingly... grin

edam Tue 05-Jun-12 10:24:21

The birds and the bees, FFS? How twee is Nick Clegg?!

Kayano Tue 05-Jun-12 10:26:35

It's so annoying all of this 'let's import more from Germany'

Grow up.

You wouldn't say a 2nd or 3rd generation child of an immigrant wasn't British

That would be Racist...hmm

....any one else idly pondering what sort of accident / chain of events that could contribute to such a demise confused

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now