The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #801  
Old 05-15-2011, 08:58 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,602
The best guide to this would be the Regency Act 1830 which covered this scenario with Victoria - and it clearly says that Victoria would be Queen but that the child would succeed Victoria.

As for who would be Regent - under the current Regency Act - Andrew - followed by Beatrice and Eugenie as they are both over 21 and closer to the throne then their uncle and aunt.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #802  
Old 05-15-2011, 09:55 PM
MRSJ's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 1,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie
As for who would be Regent - under the current Regency Act - Andrew - followed by Beatrice and Eugenie as they are both over 21 and closer to the throne then their uncle and aunt.
Why Andrew and not Harry?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #803  
Old 05-16-2011, 12:24 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by MRSJ View Post
Why Andrew and not Harry?

Because I made a mistake and forgot about Harry.

Of course if a child of William's was a minor and was monarch Harry would act as sole regent until that child reached the age of 18.

The Regent is the next adult in line to the throne - no need for a council as another poster thought there might be.

The 1953 Regency Act is the one still in existance and the way it is worded I would suggest that there is no need for any changes. It also picks up the clauses from the 1937 and 1830 Acts about CoS and inheritance of an unborn child and the legislation that a Regent isn't able to sign.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #804  
Old 05-16-2011, 08:29 AM
MAfan's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: N/A, Italy
Posts: 4,409
And in case of miscarriage or a stillborn child, since when would Henry be King? Since the moment of King William's death or since the miscarriage/delivery of stillborn child?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #805  
Old 05-16-2011, 05:38 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAfan View Post
And in case of miscarriage or a stillborn child, since when would Henry be King? Since the moment of King William's death or since the miscarriage/delivery of stillborn child?

The only precedent we have is Victoria and the Regency Act that covered that scenario clearly stated that Victoria would be Queen the instant William IV died - regardless of whether or not Queen Adelaide was pregnant.

Based on that precedent Harry would be King instantly and the legislators would have to deal with the situation of the about to be born child - if they hadn't already passed legislation to cover that eventuality in advance as happened with Victoria - so in the unlikely event of Kate getting pregnant in the next couple of years and both the Queen and Charles dying in that same time period the government would have to pass legislation to cover that scenario - or use the 1830 legislation as a precedent legislation.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #806  
Old 06-21-2011, 12:38 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Lubbock, United States
Posts: 2
My sister and I have a question. If Prince Charles dies before The Queen who is next in line for the throne? She says Prince Andrew and I say Prince William! Does anyone more familiar with the lines of sucession have any idea in that scenario? Thanks.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #807  
Old 06-21-2011, 01:29 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabriella View Post
hmmm...interesting. Thanks. Next question, it seems as if the line of succession is determined by birth order, then why whas Princess Anne bumped down below Andrew and Edward?
Easy.. Wrong side of the blanket, wrong religion and wrong sex. Its very interesting to see it laid out and the wherefores and whys though although antiquidated.

One name I didn't see anywhere in the list was the name of DeVere. Or did I miss it?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #808  
Old 06-21-2011, 02:43 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by gilliemarie View Post
My sister and I have a question. If Prince Charles dies before The Queen who is next in line for the throne? She says Prince Andrew and I say Prince William! Does anyone more familiar with the lines of sucession have any idea in that scenario? Thanks.

The line of succession is very clear:

Charles
William
Harry
Andrew
Beatrice
Eugenie
Edward
James
Louise
Anne
Peter
Savannah
Zara

These are the descendents of Elizabeth which is why I have stopped there with her children in bold and great-grandchild in italics.

The order is determined by each line downwards before back to the top so Charles, as the eldest son comes before his younger siblings with the boys before the girls so Andrew and Edward before Anne.

Then the lines go downwards so all of Charles descendents before those of his siblings so William before Harry and then Andrew followed by his daughters in birth order. Edward is followed by his son before his daughter because boys come before boys and that is why Anne - the Queen's second child - and her descendents some after her younger brothers' lines.

After the descendents of the Queen the line moves to the descendents of the Queen's sister in the same order - Viscount Linley and his descendents ahead of his sister and then back to the descendents of George V.

If you remember that the order is boys before girls but one line downwards has to be exhausted before the next one downwards can begin it becomes easier.

So if say all of the Queen's children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren died in the present reign then the line would pass to her sister's children with Princess Margaret's son being the heir - because he is both the elder of the princesses two children and also because he is male.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #809  
Old 06-21-2011, 04:04 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by gilliemarie View Post
My sister and I have a question. If Prince Charles dies before The Queen who is next in line for the throne? She says Prince Andrew and I say Prince William! Does anyone more familiar with the lines of sucession have any idea in that scenario? Thanks.
It would be William as he's his father's heir.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #810  
Old 06-21-2011, 02:46 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Lubbock, United States
Posts: 2
Thanks for the responses . . . "I" was right! My sister thought she remembered reading that if Charles died the 'line of sucession' skipped his family and moved to Andrew. We had quite a debate about it and I will be happy to pass on the info to her.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #811  
Old 06-21-2011, 03:10 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,267
Maybe your sister read something about a Regency?

This scenario would be if the Queen dies, Charles is dead and William is under the age of 18, than the possibility exists that Andrew could serve as Regent or on the regency council for William.

According to Wikipedia A regent, from the Latin regens, "[one] reigning", or regency council is a person or group of persons selected to act as head of state because the ruler is a minor, not present, or debilitated.[1] The period of rule of a regent or regents is referred to as a regency.

But Andrew is still NOT the King. Back in the day (think Henry VI or Edward VI) a regency could lead to war or a change in power.

There was a saying (and I am paraphrasing) woe is the day when a child is the king. I can't find the accurate quote.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #812  
Old 06-21-2011, 03:46 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,500
Zonk, I have chosen the New English and the New American Standard Bible translation:

Woe to you, O land, whose king is a lad and whose princes feast in the morning.

It's based on a passage from Isaiah: I will make boys their officials; mere children will govern them. (Is. 3:12)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #813  
Old 06-21-2011, 03:53 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,267
Thank you Renata....is the first one Shakespeare?

I think there is another version as well but that is the basic jest of the thought. I think I read it in the book about Richard III.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #814  
Old 06-25-2011, 01:59 AM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,222
I think it's a shame though, when a generation gets skipped over, which also is what happened here in Sweden. Our king's father died in an accident very early on, and thus, Carl Gustaf had to succeed his grandfather, not his father, to the thrown. Because four princes had been thrown out of the succession for marrying "the wrong woman", the succession was uncertain while Carl Gustaf was a little boy and his grandfather, Gustaf VI Adolf, was our king. Prince Bertil, who was CG's only uncle, who hadn't married a commoner and lost his place in the succession, was supposed to lead a regency, if something happened to the king before the crown prince was off age. That never happened though, and thus, one generation was skipped over.

I know that was almost off topic, as this is a British Royals section, but I really hope, that Charles will become king one day, so his generation won't be skipped over. I believe that hasn't happened in Britain either since George III, who succeeded his grandfather, not his father.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #815  
Old 06-25-2011, 02:19 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,602
I think there is a difference between being 'skipped over' and not having monarch in a particular generation.

If Charles dies before his mother then William will be the next King. I don't see that as being 'skipped over' as it follows the normal course of events. The alternative would be that Andrew succeeds his mother and then who - William or Beatrice??

If something were to happen and the parliament pass the legislation to strip Charles of the right to be King - then I would call that 'skipping over' and would think it was definitely the wrong thing to do as there is no valid reason for Charles not to succeed his mother.

I also wonder about the people who make this call. What do they think William would think about this? We know William loved his mother - and no issue there - but do people really think he hates his father to that extent? That he would accept his father's birthright while his father is still alive?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #816  
Old 06-25-2011, 03:10 AM
Esmerelda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,215
I think William would accept the throne while Charles is still alive only if the alternative would be the end of the monarchy. That's unlikely so Charles will most probably be King if he outlives his mother.

There's another example for a generation being skipped over: King Juan Carlos of Spain became King after Franco died although his father was still alive. That was a very unique situation, though.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #817  
Old 06-29-2011, 02:55 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I think there is a difference between being 'skipped over' and not having monarch in a particular generation.

If Charles dies before his mother then William will be the next King. I don't see that as being 'skipped over' as it follows the normal course of events. The alternative would be that Andrew succeeds his mother and then who - William or Beatrice??

If something were to happen and the parliament pass the legislation to strip Charles of the right to be King - then I would call that 'skipping over' and would think it was definitely the wrong thing to do as there is no valid reason for Charles not to succeed his mother.

I also wonder about the people who make this call. What do they think William would think about this? We know William loved his mother - and no issue there - but do people really think he hates his father to that extent? That he would accept his father's birthright while his father is still alive?
Hmm... You make some good points. But some monarchies have practiced another kind of succession, where every (male) member of the royal family got their chance to sit on the thrown, as long as they lived enough. This kind of succession hasn't existed in Europe though, but it did in the Mayan empire and in the Ottoman empire. And here, a monarch was more likely to be succeeded by his younger brother than by his oldest son.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #818  
Old 07-01-2011, 06:36 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esmerelda View Post
I think William would accept the throne while Charles is still alive only if the alternative would be the end of the monarchy. That's unlikely so Charles will most probably be King if he outlives his mother.

There's another example for a generation being skipped over: King Juan Carlos of Spain became King after Franco died although his father was still alive. That was a very unique situation, though.
The only way William would become King while his father was still alive after The Queen's death would be for Charles to willingly abdicate with Parliament agreeing by passing an Act of Abdication.

I can't see that scenario playing out unless The Queen lives to an extraordinary age and Charles is too old and infirm to be able to discharge his duties as The Sovereign. Even then, he could still become King and William would immediately become The Prince Regent until his father's death, like George IV did as Prince of Wales for his father, George III.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #819  
Old 07-01-2011, 06:53 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
The only way William would become King while his father was still alive after The Queen's death would be for Charles to willingly abdicate with Parliament agreeing by passing an Act of Abdication.

I can't see that scenario playing out unless The Queen lives to an extraordinary age and Charles is too old and infirm to be able to discharge his duties as The Sovereign. Even then, he could still become King and William would immediately become The Prince Regent until his father's death, like George IV did as Prince of Wales for his father, George III.

Not 'could' but 'would'.

If Charles is alive when the Queen dies he automatically becomes King. If he is unable to carry out the duties of King then you are right William would become Regent.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #820  
Old 08-20-2011, 01:44 AM
Super Baroness's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: West Coast, United States
Posts: 99
Sorry for bumping this thread, but I was looking at the line of succession on the British Monarchy’s official website (royal.gov.uk), and was surprised to see that it was incorrect.

For #30-36, it lists:

30. The Lady Helen Taylor
31. Master Columbus Taylor
32. Master Cassius Taylor
33. Miss Eloise Taylor
34. Miss Estella Taylor
35. The Hon. Albert Windsor
36. The Hon. Leopold Windsor

Now what caught my eye was that there are Taylors ahead of Windsors, which should not be true (excluding Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella). Albert and Leopold Windsor should definitely be listed ahead of Lady Helen Taylor and her children, because their father was until he lost his place, which probably was the source of the confusion. Not to mention the multiple exclusions in the Earl of St. Andrew's family. Someone just probably added Albert and Leopold after the Taylors when they were born and didn’t think too much of it.

It’s a little sad that the Monarchy’s own website has the line of succession wrong. I know it’s a human error, and not a very important one, but still you would think the official site would have correct information. (Also, the site calls the Duchess of Cambridge “Catherine” in her biography – making it obvious they just copy and pasted from the bio released before the wedding. Every other royal on the site is referred to in their bios by their title or by HRH! (The Prince of Wales’ site is updated though, good for them!)
[A little off topic, but I’m still curious as to why Nicholas’ children have The Hon. in front of their names. There’s really no reason for them to be, so I wonder if it is a mistake along the same lines as the succession mixup. We’ll have to see if Frederick’s children are The Hon. too I guess.]
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
act of settlement, catholicism, line of succession, succession


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympics ottoman poland president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess mabel princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:40 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]