Would Harry become king in these circumstances?

[Landseer]

Say William and all 3 kids walked away from the royal family (or god forbid, something happened to all of them)

would Harry be king?

Well, he would become the heir, yes. Then when Charles died he would become king. I'm not sure though whether William can really legally abdicate on behalf of his children. That would need to be decided by the courts if George decided he would like to become king and sued.

Yes, following Charles' death.

If he was removed from the line of succession, as so many call for, we would get Andrew.

Most of the time when someone has abdicated on behalf of both themselves and their families, that's been in the context of a revolution of one kind or another. Not simply because the heir didn't fancy the job. Edward VIII is a slight exception, but he didn't already have children and didn't expect to (Wallis was 41 and may have been infertile following a botched abortion).

I'm not sure though whether William can really legally abdicate on behalf of his children.

I've seen that even abdicating on your own behalf - requires first that the incumbent dies when you automatically become king and then an act of parliamnet like the Declaration of Abdication Act 1936.

This is because when we ran out of Stuarts - parliament was involved in choosing the next monarch . They wanted to skip Catholics - but also they skipped several protestant claimants. They avoided all of Charles I children and when to back to James I (VI of Scotland) daughter - I always assumed Sophia of Hanover was only child or eldest - but no she had ten older siblings.

The line of succession is regulated by parliament first by Act of Succession 1700 and then Succession to the Crown Act 2013 and can be changed only by parliament.

So he'd have to inheritance crown - then work with parliamnet to get act though to disinheritance and then they'd have to take legal advice as to whether they could take crown from his children. Give Harry current low popularity and his lack of sense round security can't see parliament really wanting to work to put him in the main spot.

So William would have to die - and all three of his children and Kate not be pg with any other heirs then Harry could get the crown as he is still in line of succession - provided parliamnet didn't amend the act to avoid him but currently after Harry and his two children there is Andrew who would be even more unpalatable.

Apart from the fact that William wouldn't be able to abdicate on behalf of his children "in normal circumstances"... If the King had passed and William abdicated or also had passed most likely Harry (or another senior royal) would be Regent for George until he was 18.

Don't forgot this is how Elizabeth II became queen - her father was the "Spare" and Edward Viii abdicated.

His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936

I don't know how reliable a source this is but it say the 1936 excludes any possible future descendants of Edward from the line of succession.

So while it was unlikely he'd have any it may well have been considered.

However I can't see parliament being so keen to get rid of William and all his children.

Historically Lady Margaret Beaufort - who founded Tudor dynasty was supposed to be barred from Royal succession and she manged to get her son on the throne - though those were exceptional times and pre constitutional monarchy. Succession does jump around for political reasons - The glorious revolution and 1700 act of succession. Harry was always going to further from the throne as time passes bar a huge catastrophe.

“I don't know how reliable a source this is but it say the 1936 excludes any possible future descendants of Edward from the line of succession.“

I think this was because he had no children at the time of the abdication. Whereas in this instance there are already George & co.

Harry Styles or Rednapp ?

King Harry and Queen Consort Meghan!

King Henry IX. We've never had that high a number before.

Would the 2011 primogenture ruling not apply to Anne? Or was it a going forward only applying to Charlotte.

To be frank, I feel like Anne would do well in the position.

Would the 2011 primogenture ruling not apply to Anne?

It didn't change her position as it only applies to line of succession born after 28 October 2011.

No I really don't think he would because even the staunchly Royalists would demand Parliament amend the sucession or at worst dissolve the Monarchy. Parliament can, and has, changed the Line of Succession (re above posts ontge Stuart line) and that traitorous lying buffoon will never get near the throne no matter what happens. We have Anne's family, Edwards family, Bea and Eugenie all able to take the Crown if Parliament okays it so that's what would happen.
Our Royals have a grace and favour position that is essential in the running of our country but we don't have to accept them if we don't want them

Maybe we should just put it to a vote...

If harry became king and queen consort meghan ascended the throne, we would be a republic by the next day.

It would be fairly telling if anyone who went so far as to call for the removal of Harry didn't also propose the removal of Andrew as well!!

Anyway, removing Harry would not remove his existing heirs; they would have to be removed individually. Which would be a difficult call especially for the child that was born before the unpleasantness. If so stated, an Act of Parliament COULD disinherit any FUTURE children, as with Ed 8 and with the supposed psoposal for Princess Margaret that would have allowed her to marry Townsend.

I don't think he can abdicate for anyone other than himself, and and DC born after the abdication.

So it would be King George VII at an early age (and I really don't see William inflicting that on his son) with a Regent.

It would normally be Harry (next adult in the line of succession) but he is resident overseas, which is a bar. Andrew hopefully would have an outbreak of common sense and decline the role, and then the York Princesses (as non-working royals and with their own young families) would probably decline too.

So then we could have a joint Edward/Anne regency (with Catherine retaining responsibility for education and upbringing) until George came of age and ruled in his own right

Parliament could amend the Regency Act and make Catherine regent for George. There is precedent; the applicable Act was amended in the 1950s to displace Princess Margaret in favor of Prince Philip as potential regent.

The Regency Act of 1953 named Prince Philip as potential regent for Prince Charles. So I expect we'll see the act amended again in due course and Catherine named as regent if any of her children need one.

Maybe he would just go by H. King H I

Very friendly. Hi, King HI. 😄

It's the new, more accessible monarchy.😂

If William can’t be king then it should go to Anne

I’m pretty sure Harry wouldn’t be picked to regent..