If Princess Charlotte had been born before Prince George...

[Thatsshallot1967]

If Charlotte had been born before George and was heir to the throne, would she have had a active 'page' or attendant role in the coronation or would that have gone to George? Anyone know?

I'm a fan of the RF and interested in all things ceremonial, first post on this board.

I realised a 'page' is traditionally male but could Charlotte have taken on this role if she had been heir to the throne?

I noticed (slightly disappointed) that the Queen Consort has a number of pages too, all male minor relatives and I wondered again why there are no female children, eg grandchildren featuring, if not as 'pages' but attendants.

True. Queens (regnant and consort) traditionally had Maids of Honour attend them at coronations.

Apparent is next in line, Presumptive can be bumped down the line.
E.g. George is heir apparent, Charlotte is heir presumptive as George may have children, pushing Charlotte further down the line of succession.

Re your question, it's an interesting point to wonder. None of them had a role in the Queen's coronation and William has no role in this one. I think the only reason George is in it is because there are roles available for fairly young boys.
Had Charlotte been born first, I wonder whether they would have changed the nature of the page boys to be for boys and girls, and so including her that way.

Camilla doesn't have ladies in waiting. She calls them companions these days. They don't have to come from certain families, they don't do administrative duties or get paid. I think they're more her friends really.

Charlotte reminds me of Hermione from Harry Potter - she’s just lovely 😊

They'd have created something for her. Attendant of some kind. They probably would have done also if she were older.

No presumptive is when you are the first in line but someone could unseat you.

So Eliz 2nd was only ever heir presumptive because technically if her mother had died her father could have remarried and had a son.

George is heir apparent because no one can get in his way. You have one kind of heir or the other, not both.

For example, Princess Leonor of Spain is heir presumptive because Spain still has male preference primogeniture, but Princess Catharina Amalia of the Netherlands is heir apparent because the Netherlands, like most European monarchies, has absolute primogeniture.

I think Charlotte would have been a proper kick-ass Queen.

I feel a bit sorry for George, he looks more cowed and nervous than his sister who seems to take it firmly in her stride. Although I'm not sure the monarchy will exist in the same way when it's his turn.

I feel a bit sorry for George, he looks more cowed and nervous than his sister who seems to take it firmly in her stride.

I don't think he looks cowed, I think he's easy going and just goes along with her. He looks to me like he takes it all in and wants to get it right.

No, George is not yet heir apparent but he will be once William is king. William is currently heir apparent as he is the actual heir to the king.

If William becomes king before George has children, then Charlotte will be second in line and heir presumptive, and then pushed down the list of heirs if George has children.

what happens if say George becomes King.

and has no kids born and dies - Charlotte is next in line. But say George's wife is pregnant at the time of his death - does that child become king/queen. (and would they do a DNA check if say they were born 9 months later)

But say George's wife is pregnant at the time of his death - does that child become king/queen.

Yes. It's the reason widowed queens in some monarchies were sequestered in the old days to find out if they were pregnant, and if they were not, to make sure that no random men could get to them and impregnate them.

Except for the sequesterors! 😉

Who would be the henchmen of the Regent - therefore people with a really strong vested interest in there being no pregnancy!

Charlotte is in charge, there's lots of examples of her telling her brothers what to do. 'Arms down George!' and saying bow on the carriage ride during the jubilee and telling the other bridesmaids at Eugenie's wedding, 'No, we can't go yet.' Telling paps at Louis christening they were not coming and so on.

For some reason, I have a strong feeling that if it all still exists we will have Queen Charlotte, rather than George VI. I think George will be like Uncle James and want to live a nice private life in the country. Not sure why, perhaps because Charlotte seems very like the late Queen.

Yes, she seems to be a very confident little girl. It was good that the Queen recognised that the rules of primogeniture needed to change and, as sweet as Prince George appears to be, it's a pity that we've got two more male monarchs ahead of us after Charles and potentially a long wait for another Queen; it certainly won't be in my lifetime.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Unless one fancied being father to a king.

Except you wouldn't be.

If known as the father, then the child cannot inherit (and in times gone by both parents and probably the child too) would be put to death.

If not known as the father, what's the point?

And why would newly bereaved Queen consent? She'd presumably still has her Ladies around her, reducing/removing possibility of rape. or at least rape not recognised for what it was.

If this was house if the dragon, the soon to be ex queen would definitely do anything to "keep in power" with an heir.

But we are not really like that!

There is currently no heir presumptive. The late queen was the last heir presumptive due to male primogeniture. Had her parents had another child after her that was male that child would have become heir apparent. Both Charles and William became heir apparent as they were both already born and male when their parent became monarch. George will become heir apparent when William takes the throne, and unless the letters of patent get changed again the title of heir presumptive will now die out as its firstborn child of any gender.

Maybe there were no children and the widowed queen needed one to keep power. Or maybe she was the second wife and the children from the first marriage were girls so she was hoping to try for a boy. Maybe she had a lover before the King died. Or maybe she seduced one of the seqestors. Maybe the baby's father could never reveal himself as the true father but he was happy to see his scion ruling. Maybe his son didn't know he was his father but because they were related he felt a connection and raised him through the ranks.
Or, maybe the queen was a lesbian and she had one of her female lovers, one of the ladies in waiting, bring a turkey baster, I don't know what the equivalent would be in medieval times, with semen from one of her sequestors who she promised to promote after the baby was born.
Maybe the Queen was the sister of a foreign king who wanted influence over this country. So he arranged for her to be visited by a "brother" so they could be alone. But he was no brother, he was, in fact, the love of her life and he impregnated her there and then. Then when the young king grew up, he paved the way for a foreign invasion.
Or maybe the Queen would be sent home after the sequestered period and she loved it here too much. So she had a quick fumble with one of the musicians and then pushed him off the battlements, thus removing all evidence of her crime.
Plotlines need filling out a bit but it's important at this,stage that nothing's off the table.

Queens didn’t really risk that for heirs as the penalty if suspected or denounced was burning at the stake.

Were queens burned? Anyway, people risked their lives all the time back in medieval times in the pursuit of power.

Years ago, I read somewhere that when George VI died, discreet enquiries were made regarding the Queen Mother and the possibility of her being pregnant, before any announcement was made regarding her daughter Elizabeth being pronounced Queen, because the possibility of a male heir would have thrown everything into chaos.