Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

A question for you to answer

26 replies

dibbleandsibble · 10/02/2022 22:32

I have a question that I would like to ask

If the heir to the throne and their spouse decides they did not want children, should they be forced to have kids because of the need for an heir. By this I mean if they are not willing to try for a baby they should renounce their place in the line of succession ?

I definitely don’t think so but I’m interested in what other people think.

OP posts:
Bosephine · 10/02/2022 22:33

The throne would just go to the next in line, no biggie.

Redshoeblueshoe · 10/02/2022 22:33

Surely that's why they have an heir and a spare

NuffSaidSam · 10/02/2022 22:34

No, it just passes to the next in line.

SliceOfCakeCupOfTea · 10/02/2022 22:35

Well...no.
There is a whole thing about positions to the throne so if a monarch had no kids, their sibling would take over, or a niece, or a cousin, or a second cousin etc. There is always someone 'available' to step up

PurpleDaisies · 10/02/2022 22:36

Of course not.

How could you force them to have children anyway? What an odd question.

Wingedharpy · 10/02/2022 22:36

How would you "force" any couple, Royal or otherwise, to have a child if they didn't want any?

Wingedharpy · 10/02/2022 22:37

Snap @PurpleDasies!

SliceOfCakeCupOfTea · 10/02/2022 22:41

@PurpleDaisies

Of course not.

How could you force them to have children anyway? What an odd question.

Very worrying images entering my head now
ErrolTheDragon · 10/02/2022 22:45

No. By that logic, Queen Elizabeth the First should have been compelled to marry so that she could attempt to have an heir. As far as I can see, she was a good monarch as monarchs go, better than her father with what he did in his quest for a male heir.

CatJumperTwat · 10/02/2022 22:55

Why on earth did you post this?

Raquelos · 10/02/2022 22:55

No there is whole set of rules around the line of succession to deal with exactly this scenario.

user1471604848 · 10/02/2022 22:58

I always think it would be strange if the heir's firstborns were twins. One twin would be future king/queen, by a matter of minutes.

ClariceQuiff · 10/02/2022 23:03

Obviously not.

There's always a next in line. Even if all the Royals the average person could name were to drop dead, there'd be an obscure Lord or Lady Someone-or-Other further down the line of succession who the crown would pass to.

Bunty55 · 10/02/2022 23:16

@ErrolTheDragon

No. By that logic, Queen Elizabeth the First should have been compelled to marry so that she could attempt to have an heir. As far as I can see, she was a good monarch as monarchs go, better than her father with what he did in his quest for a male heir.
What did he do?
Useranon1 · 10/02/2022 23:19

Her father was Henry 8th @Bunty55.

WhyMeLord · 10/02/2022 23:20

@user1471604848

I always think it would be strange if the heir's firstborns were twins. One twin would be future king/queen, by a matter of minutes.
You'd have to mark twin one in some way to make sure they didn't accidentally get mixed up at some point and create a constitutional crisis. An 'H' for heir drawn on its head like Rimmer from Red Dwaf maybe?
Aroundtheworldin80moves · 10/02/2022 23:22

Why? There can all sorts of reasons children don't happen for a couple. There's plenty of other relatives usually. The British Queen has four children, 8? Grand children, and 12? Great grandchildren so far. So George, the next childless person in line has two siblings, 2 cousins and then the more distant cousins after him.

Bunty55 · 10/02/2022 23:23

@Useranon1

Her father was Henry 8th *@Bunty55*.
Oh sorry.. being dim. I thought it was the present queen...doh
TimeForTeaAndG · 10/02/2022 23:24

@ClariceQuiff

Obviously not.

There's always a next in line. Even if all the Royals the average person could name were to drop dead, there'd be an obscure Lord or Lady Someone-or-Other further down the line of succession who the crown would pass to.

As demonstrated in the John Goodman film: King Ralph 🤭
RainbowMum11 · 10/02/2022 23:28

As demonstrated in the John Goodman film: King Ralph 🤭

And what a brilliant film it was

SpidersAreShitheads · 10/02/2022 23:45

I just have visions of trying to force them to copulate like the pandas at the zoo that don't want sexy time that appear on the news from time to time.

Stompythedinosaur · 10/02/2022 23:48

Clearly there is not provision for forcing people to procreate against their will.

They would have an heir whether or not they had dc - a sibling, and niece, a nephew, a cousin etc.

newnameforthis76 · 11/02/2022 00:56

Are you maybe misunderstanding how the line of succession works? If the heir doesn’t have any children the throne simply passes the next relative in line. It’s usually one of the heir’s siblings or niece/nephews I think. So the heir not having children is, certainly in this day and age, neither here nor there. So even as a hypothetical question, it’s meaningless.

cuno · 11/02/2022 04:44

Honestly OP, were you seriously expecting people to answer this and go, yeah they should be forced to procreate to produce an heir so the woman should be forced into a pregnancy and childbirth against her will? It's a bit akin to rape, no? That is really not a normal thought process and no-one right in the head would think that is okay.

FakingMemories · 11/02/2022 05:03

And how would you suggest we deal with an infertile monarch?