The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession

[HM Queen Catherine]

Originally Posted by Daz_Voz

Suppose William becomes King before he and Catherine have any children. She becomes pregnant, but he dies before the child is born. Given that there's no existing successor, does Harry become King?

No. Harry would not become king in this scenario.

If Queen Catherine is pregnant at the time of King William's death, then there would be an Interregnum of the British Monarchy until the baby's birth.

Barring any unforeseen tragedy such as stillbirth or other complications, William's child will be King or Queen from birth, and the monarchy will be governed under a Regent or Regency Council until the sovereign reaches his or her majority.

Harry would be the natural choice as Regent, and if a council is appointed then The Princess Royal, The Duke of York and The Earl of Wessex would likely be considered as members.

If, however, the child is miscarried, does not survive to adulthood or dies before producing an heir, then Harry is next in line of succession and would become King.

[Iluvbertie]

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.

[MRSJ]

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?

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by MRSJ

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.

[MAfan]

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?

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by MAfan

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.

[gilliemarie]

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.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Gabriella

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?

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by gilliemarie

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.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by gilliemarie

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.

[gilliemarie]

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.

[Zonk]

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.

[Renata4711]

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)

[Zonk]

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.

[Furienna]

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.

[Iluvbertie]

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?

[Esmerelda]

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.

[Furienna]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

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.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Esmerelda

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.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by branchg

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.