I have a hypothetical question as to who would king of England in a certain situation. Let's say that A is King of England. He has two sons, B and C. B is oldest, and C is the youngest. B is the heir. B gets married, and a while later his wife becomes pregnant with D. While his wife is pregnant, he suddenly dies. Car accident, drowning doesn't matter. When D is born, will he/she become heir, or will the title of heir go to C? And what would have happened if B had been king at the time of his death?

quote:

Originally posted by Leppi:
A is King of England. He has two sons, B and C. B is oldest, and C is the youngest. B is the heir. B gets married, and a while later his wife becomes pregnant with D. While his wife is pregnant, he suddenly dies. When D is born, will he/she become heir, or will the title of heir go to C?

And what would have happened if B had been king at the time of his death?

Part one: the older son, B, takes precedence over the younger son , C. When the older son, B, dies without succeeeding to the throne the younger, C, become first in line to the throne and so will succeed his father, the King, if he survives him. The pregnancy of the widow of the elder son at the time of his death is immaterial.As soon as the old king dies the new king succeeds, hence the old French cry 'Le Roi est mort. Vive le Roi!' ('The King is dead. Long live the King!')The rule also makes sense if only because the pregnancy might not be discovered until after the younger son had succeeded and if it were discovered before then we'd all have to wait, without a monarch, until the baby was delivered alive and not stillborn, miscarried or aborted .The line of succession then runs from the younger son, C, and so his oldest son will be next in line to him. If C has a daughter as his first child and then a son then the son takes precedence over the daughter and the line passes though that son and his children.

Part two: B being King when he dies he is immediately succeeded by his younger brother. The next in line to the new King will be that King's oldest son or, if he has no son, the eldest daughter

okay, how about a different situation. B dies, and now C becomes heir. Where is D in the line of succession? Before or after C's children? Or is D no longer at all in the line of succession?

quote:

Originally posted by Leppi:
okay, how about a different situation. B dies, and now C becomes heir. Where is D in the line of succession? Before or after C's children? Or is D no longer at all in the line of succession?

He or she in the line of succession but they and their line of descendants will rank below those the line of the younger brother who became King. Where he or she, or anyone in their line, lies depends on how many descendants the King has and whether or not they are Roman Catholic or marry a Roman Catholic. In the line, just to add to the fun, a daughter always ranks below her brothers.Children who are illegitimate do not rank either (Nobody knows for sure whether the subsequent marriage of their parents would entitle them to a place in the line. Under our law relating to legitimacy of children that would legitimate any child but we have never had to settle the question of any conflict between that law and the law establishing the line of succession to the throne ) Each new one pushes D further down the line of succession. The line of succession to the throne is a long one. In it there are over 1,200 people who hold a true claim :

Line of succession

Okay, lets see if I get this, so there is king A, eldest son B, second son C, and B's son on the way to D. C's kinds are E and F. So once B dies, the link of succession is C, E, F, D? Did I get that right?

A, the King dies after his son B but is survived by his son C.
C is then King
C has two children E and F
C dies
Either E or F becomes King or Queen
IF
Both E and F die childless or with no living direct descendant, or none living who is eligible (i.e. is not a Roman Catholic or married to one )

then the line from King A through C, the younger son, dies out and the new King (or Queen) is taken from the line of King A, through his elder son B (deceased) to B's son or daughter (D) and his or her children.

(If you scroll down far enough in the link I gave you'll find that some claims would take effect only if whole lines of descendants of Queen Victoria all died out first )

In earlier times such claims as these were regularly being raised. The "rightful" heir, the one with "the best claim in law" of those claiming,almost always turned out to be the one whose armies, or whose backers, were toughest Strange, that! Of course, it's the victors who write the official histories. Now and again a rightful, but weak, contender did make it to the throne. Sadly they tended to die not long after , by some means or other, and get succeeded by the " rightful" candidate from some strong faction.

As a footnote to the above:

If any such problem arose now we would be certain that Parliament would decide the succession. It has happened before.Events then marked the end of any monarchy having a final say in affairs of state.

King James II had succeeded to the throne by right of inheritance. Parliament regarded him as a danger. When he showed terminal signs of wanting a Roman Catholic monarchy, Parliament promptly contrived to have William of Orange invade the United Kingdom, which the worthy William did (not wishing to appear impolite and un-British, though he was Dutch ).This was 'The Glorious Revolution' of 1688. James fled into exile soon after.William was chosen because A) he was protestant and B) was a proven military commander who also had control of a very large fleet of warships (the main interest to the British, who could always do with a good man in times of trouble). He had no immediate claim to the throne and wasn't a prince in the Netherlands, but who cared? (That's politics and national interest for you ) But C) he was married to a daughter of James,Mary, so, using that as their justification, Parliament appointed her as Queen to reign as joint sovereign with him.

On their appointment, Parliament had them both agree to a law, as a contract of employment, which severely restricted their powers as sovereigns; ever since then the monarch's powers, such as veto, still held by that pseudo- monarchy, the Presidency of the United States, have been of no true effect; and confirmed that no Catholic was to be allowed to be monarch or married to one.

When the survivor of the pair, William, died, Parliament ensured that they'd get a suitable successor.They chose Anne, a protestant daughter of James II. When she died they'd already ensured there were new rules for succession. Then they chose George , Elector of Hanover, from no less than 57 candidates with equal or better claims under the old rules, because he was the son of Sophia of Hanover. They'd carefully passed a law that only her line could succeed,considering her a safe protestant bet, but she predeceased Anne so they got George instead

Hey, Americans appointed a Catholic as President once. What went wrong ? Never mind. They might appoint a woman next time, like e.g Mary II and Anne (and 'Queen' Margaret Thatcher ). They may catch up eventually.