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.

It's
William
George
Charlotte
Louis
Then
Harry
Archie
Lilibet

Then Andrew is next

I think it would be Kate, or Anne/Edward on the basis of them being working royals.

I think it would depend how young George was. If he was very young I think it would be more likely a "proper royal" (as the papers would work it), but if it was just for a year or two then Kate.

I think back in the 50's Philip being male, and the fact he'd been a Prince, just made him more acceptable than Margaret the party girl.

if its not Harry because he's no longer a working royal then it wouldn't be Andrew as he has also stepped back from royal duties

I think back in the 50's Philip being male, and the fact he'd been a Prince, just made him more acceptable than Margaret the party girl.

Plus Margaret was quite young. She was only 21 when her sister became Queen.

@ConfusedNT - Both Harry and Andrew are still in the line to succession. Irrespective of if they have stepped back, they are still in that line.

The only way a new son of Charles (born legitimately) could become King would be if William, George, Charlotte, Louis, Harry, Archie and Lilibet all died or abdicated. Obviously this a moot question given Camilla's age, but if Charles were to marry a third time to someone of child-bearing age that is a theoretical possibiliy.

I understand that

My point was that some posters are saying that Andrew would be regent, when Harry is next in line. I wondered if they thought that was the case because Harry has stepped back, hence my point

I probably wasn't very clear though, I'm in the grips of covid and feeling a bit shit!

I think their point was that Harry isn't resident in the UK, whereas Andrew is.

Not that he could ever be king, OP, but you might be interested in what this chap has to say - he has convinced himself he is the illegitimate son of Charles and Camilla.

www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/charles-secret-son-slams-criminal-29036700

Going off on an tangent ,had Diana lived and was still alive when William became king ,would she have been given a special.title given she was the mother of a monarch?
I understand why The Queen mother had her title as she was Queen Consort ,previouslybut Diana was never Queen ,?

Ah makes sense. I was assuming Harry would come back. I would think that Harry, having lived through losing a parent as a child, would be inclined to come back to support George at that point

Depends I guess on whether Kate is still alive and how much further they have all fallen out by then

Idk if he was really told this because he frequently asked about his parentage but I see zero likeness to Charles and eye colour is the only thing in common to Camilla. Odd.

When Diana lost her HRH, William was quoted as saying 'When I am King, I will give it back to you.'

The divorced wives of other aristocrats retain their married titles, even if their ex-husband remarries (so both wife and ex-wife would hold the same title). I imagine there would have been intense discussion and negotiation about how Diana would style herself in that event. If she had styled herself Queen upon Charles becoming King, she might then have styled herself Queen Mother.

I agree, he bears little resemblance to his supposed parents 😁

I think that it's possible that William would have made her a princess of the United Kingdom in her own right so that she would have been HRH Princess Diana.

Just to add, had Diana remarried she would have lost all titles belonging to Charles and reverted to being Lady Diana New-surname (unless she remarried someone with a superior title).

New son would be the heir, with George being second in line, unless new son had a child

On who is potential regent - it's decided in accordance with the Regency Act

Harry could be excluded on grounds of residency overseas, Andrew I hope would have the good sense to decline the role, and Beatrice and Eugenie aren't working Royals. So best outcome would be for them in their role as Counsellors of State to petition Parliament to install Edward and Anne as co-Regents for formal Royal duties with Catherine retaining responsibility for upbringing and education.

Remember that the regent does all sorts of legal and formal things (Royal Assent, dissolution of Parliament, appointing PM, diplomatic stuff, honours and other senior appointments) so that's another reason why I think and Edward/Anne co-Regency would be the best outcome

No, he would not. Think about it - Charles already has a second son, Harry. He comes after George, Charlotte and Louis. The new son would come after Harry, Archie and Lilibet.

Whose new son? Charles' if he is widowed and remarries someone of child-bearing age?

If so, then that would be the third DC of the monarch, so would fit in after 1st son and his issue, and then 2nd son and his issue. ie after Lilibet

There was nothing in English law to say a woman couldn’t inherit the throne of England (as it did in France), it had just never occurred (other than a brief ill-fated try by Matilda c. 1141). It was perceived that a female ruler would not be as stable as a male one. But in and of itself, it wasn’t disallowed. Which is why Mary and then Elizabeth did take the throne.

Perhaps the balance could be redressed by giving females precedence for a few decades. Charlotte for Queen!

Nope. See discussion above.
The line of succession would be the se until Lilibet. New son after her.

same that should read.
pp have explained the line of succession above.
George will not be usurped.

I'm confused how anyone could think this given that George is next in line after William and not Harry