Question about royal family, (not about Harry/spare)

[Deadringer]

Hypothetical question, if William and Harry both died and Charles had another (legitimate) son, who would be the heir, new son or George. Just musing.

I didn’t know this! Goodness me.

Does anyone know when the line of succession to the throne started being formally numbered? I can see it's a very pragmatic and sensible solution to who inherits and avoids the succession disputes of previous hundreds of years, but when was it established?

@MrsDanversGlidesAgain I assume it’s always been numbered even if not acknowledged - people have always been aware of where they are in the line of succession.

@Deadringer Going back to Marie Antoinette, if there was male primogeniture and the king only had a daughter then the first male grandson would be heir presumptive. If the king then had a male child they would be heir displacing the grandchild.

current line is -
William

• George
• Charlotte
• Louis

Harry

• Archie
• Lillibet

Andrew Beatrice

• Sienna

Eugenie

• August

Edward

• James
• Louise

Anne Peter

• Savannah
• Isla

Zara

• Mia
• Lena
• Lucas

And Eugenie's pregnant so that will move Edward and those below him down a place.

Pre the revolution in the French royal family ONLY male offspring were in the line of succession and females didn't get a look in. The only way that they could become queen was to marry the king and become his consort.

Fascinating. I often wonder what the world would be like if females had always had the same rights of succession, especially Henry 8th, presumably he would have stayed married and the church of England would still be Catholic.

George is 2nd in line to the throne, but he wouldn’t be able to officially take the crown until he is 18… theoretically it would mean that Andrew as the next person in line over the age of 18 would be regent king… the chances of that happening would be slim… it would then go to Beatrice.

Interesting to speculate. But Henry VIII had an older sister, so would he have been king?

But then again, if females had always had the right of succession, it's possible that the Tudors would never have been more than minor gentry.

It would be Harry wouldn't it?

oh sorry ,Harry's met his Demise too?
Hmm Prince Andrew as regent ?
interesting🤔

As things stand now if a minor becomes monarch, Harry would be regent. But there is a requirement that the regent be domiciled in the UK so he would have to move back.

What would Meghan be known as ?would she remain the Duchess if Sussex or would they bump.her title up.,if Harry was regent?

She would remain as she is now.

Yes, her status would not change. Technically speaking, the regent's status does not change either except that he or she is an agent. The minor is the actual legal monarch, and the regent acts for him/her and in his/her name.

Charles' new son would be king.
Then that new son's children (boy or girl) then their children.

Not George.

George would be king. An additional child of Charles's would be after Lilibet.

That's not the case.

A new son would not displace George.

The only way a younger child of Charles' would become Monarch would be if William and Harry's lines were removed completely by death (or conversion to Catholicism).

Just as atm if anything happened to Charles the next King would be George, not Harry.

Ok I stand corrected.

No. Only monarchs are crowned.
Not regents (see the Prince Regent, later George IV)

Wrong. See @SenecaFallsRedux

Hi all

We're just moving this over to the royal family topic.

No, were that to happen, the Regency would almost certainly be Kate, the precedence being that Philip was the potential Regent, rather than Margaret, the next adult in line.

When Charles was still a child, I should have added.

I also think it would be Kate. They would have to change the current law, but that was done for Prince Philip so there is precedent. It was also a more likely scenario then as the first and second in line were small children.