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
 
  #101  
Old 03-30-2009, 03:45 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal Fan View Post
Does the Accession Council happen on the day of the Monarchs passing?

Queen Victoria's did but she was at Kensington Palace when she got the news so it was possible - William IV died at 2.12 a.m so an accession council that day was possible.

Victoria died at 6.30 p.m. on 22nd January and Edward's accession council was held on the 23rd.

Edward died late at night so his council was held the next day. The same thing happened when George V died - again late at night so Edward VIII's was held the next day.

Edward VIII abdicated on 11th December and George VI's council was held on the 12th December.

George V and Edward VIII's would have been the next day due to the hour at which their father's died - late at night.

Elizabth II had two councils. Due to her being in Kenya the council met and proclaimed her Queen before she returned from Kenya. That coucil was held later on the day on which George VI died (in the early hours of the morning on 6th February, 1952). When she returned to London it met again for her to take the oath.

From my research the council meets as soon as possible after the new monarch succeeds.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 03-31-2009, 03:17 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Monterey, United States
Posts: 2,325
So its probably gonna be the same with the Prince of Wales Correct? any Oath Taken??
Interesting will his sons play a role?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 03-31-2009, 04:29 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,368
Depending on the time of day when the Queen passes it will either be that same day or the next.
Part of the accesion council is the taking of the oath, which is why there were two for the Queen - one to proclaim her Queen and one for her to take the oath.

George V did swear allegiance to his father at Edward VII's accesion council (of course he came down with measles or something between the council and Victoria's funeral and couldn't attend the funeral).
As they are both of age they may very well do the same.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 04-03-2009, 08:06 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 4
How would this work?

This is an imaginary situation, but could very well come up in the future.

Say a Monarch has 2 daughters, and his wife is pregnant with their next child, they scan for gender, and it's a boy.

Before the new baby boy is born, the Monarch dies.

What happens then? Does the eldest daughter ascend the throne, or can they wait for the baby boy to be born?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 04-03-2009, 08:48 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
That's an interesting scenario!

I wonder if that ever happened before, before it was possible to scan. Was a monarchy ever held up by a birth? Of course, it's only a problem if the monarch dies with only a daughter surviving.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 04-03-2009, 09:57 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,232
When Victoria was proclaimed Queen, the proclamation implied that a hypothetical child of the late William IV would get the crown. I don't know how it would work in practice, though.

Quote:
...the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is solely and rightfully come to the high and mighty Princess Alexandrina Victoria, saving the rights of any issue of his late Majesty King William IV. which may be born of his late Majesty's consort...
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 04-03-2009, 10:22 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 237
Hi,

Didn't this happen in Spain??
Queen Maria Cristina was pregnant when Alphonso XII died and everyone waited some weeks until Alphonso XIII was born.
However, I do not know for sure whether there were any daughters. Did Alphonso XIII have any older sisters?

Larry
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 04-03-2009, 10:50 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,368
As the proclamation about Victoria implies - she was Queen but if Adelaide had had a child within the first nine months of that reign then Victoria's reign would end and the new baby take over as it would have a stronger blood cliam - being the child of the king rather than the neice.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 04-03-2009, 11:13 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 4
So in that situation, Victoria would've acted as some sort of regent, or rather something alike?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 04-03-2009, 11:35 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,232
According to the Regency Act 1831, Queen Adelaide would have acted as a regent for the infant monarch. Incidentally, that Act also states that if a child of William IV had been born to Adelaide after Victoria's accession, it would have been treated exactly as if Victoria had died, to add to your earlier question. What I wonder is if this is the way it would have been anyways, and Parliament just wanted to be sure everyone knew, or if there was no way to undo succession without such an act.
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 04-03-2009, 11:56 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
It might have been interesting to see what would have happened if a child had been born after William's death and had then died young (not an unlikely occurrence given Queen Adelaide's history). I assume they'd have had to "resurrect" Victoria since there were so few other heirs.

I assume the naming of the Duchess of Kent as regent designate for Victoria also took into account the lack of other heirs, because I thought the usual practice was to name the nearest adult in the line of succession as regent designate, as they did with the Duke of Gloucester (rather than the Queen Mum) as regent designate for Princess Elizabeth.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 04-04-2009, 01:48 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
It might have been interesting to see what would have happened if a child had been born after William's death and had then died young (not an unlikely occurrence given Queen Adelaide's history). I assume they'd have had to "resurrect" Victoria since there were so few other heirs.

I assume the naming of the Duchess of Kent as regent designate for Victoria also took into account the lack of other heirs, because I thought the usual practice was to name the nearest adult in the line of succession as regent designate, as they did with the Duke of Gloucester (rather than the Queen Mum) as regent designate for Princess Elizabeth.

However the Duke of Cumberland and the Duke of Cambridge at least had sons by the time Victoria became named as Regent.

I think part of the reason for naming the Duchess as Regent Designate was the William IV knew that the Crowns of Britian and Hanover were to be separated on his death and therefore having the King of Hanover, a Sovereign in his own right as Regent for another monarch could have created a problem. It was all right for the same person to hold both crowns but to be king of one and regent for the other wasn't seen all that well, I suppose.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 04-04-2009, 09:22 AM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 2,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vecchiolarry View Post
Hi,

Didn't this happen in Spain??
Queen Maria Cristina was pregnant when Alphonso XII died and everyone waited some weeks until Alphonso XIII was born.
However, I do not know for sure whether there were any daughters. Did Alphonso XIII have any older sisters?

Larry
Yes Alfonso XIII. had 2 older sisters. Maria de las Mercedes and Maria Teresa. If the the Queen would have given birth to a third daughter Maria de las Mercedes would have became Queen.
__________________
Stefan

Royal Travel and Events

Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 04-04-2009, 10:57 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 237
Hi,

Thank you Stefan...

I thought Alphonso XIII had older sisters but I'm not really "up" on my Spanish royals as I should be.
Thanks for clarifying all that!!

Larry
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 04-04-2009, 12:42 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
According to the Regency Act 1831, Queen Adelaide would have acted as a regent for the infant monarch. Incidentally, that Act also states that if a child of William IV had been born to Adelaide after Victoria's accession, it would have been treated exactly as if Victoria had died, to add to your earlier question. What I wonder is if this is the way it would have been anyways, and Parliament just wanted to be sure everyone knew, or if there was no way to undo succession without such an act.
Correct. The Act was designed to address the issue of William's age, the fact his niece, Victoria, was not yet an adult, and the possibility of The Queen being pregnant with a child when William died. Remember there was much consternation at the time, given all of his illegitimite children and the failure of his brothers to produce heirs, except for Victoria.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 04-04-2009, 06:52 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
Correct. The Act was designed to address the issue of William's age, the fact his niece, Victoria, was not yet an adult, and the possibility of The Queen being pregnant with a child when William died. Remember there was much consternation at the time, given all of his illegitimite children and the failure of his brothers to produce heirs, except for Victoria.

Actually, as I stated earlier, both the Dukes of Cumberland and Cambridge had sons about the same age as Victoria.

There were times when it appeared that Victoria might even have been married to one of these cousins rather than her mother's family. George of Cumberland was born 27th May, 1819, George of Cambridge on 26th March, 1819, Augusta of Cambridge on 19th July, 1822 and Mary-Adelaide on 27th November, 1833 - this is the mother of Queen Mary.

So by the time William IV died there were 4 other grandchildren of George III alive and three of them not a lot younger than Victoria meaning close to being able to rule in their own right if necessary. The fact that both their fathers were still alive well into Victoria's reign meant that had she died young the succession was secure at that point anyway.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 05-06-2009, 04:13 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 463
I need your opinion about this hypotethical (but entirely possible) situation.

1. Let's say that Prince William of Wales marries a Roman Catholic tomorrow and thus forfeits his right to succeed to the British throne.

2. His brother, Prince Henry of Wales, would become third in line of succession and eventually heir apparent upon death of his grandmother or father.

3. Now, when Henry is the heir, his elder brother who has forfeited his succession rights becomes a father. His child is not brought up as Roman Catholic, so (s)he is eligible to succeed to the throne.

4. Now a problem arises: according to the rules of primogeniture, William's child would take precedence over Henry in the line of succession. Would this child indeed replace Henry as heir to the throne?

Perhaps Henry wouldn't become heir apparent if his brother forfeits his succession rights, but only heir presumptive, since losing a place in the line of succession doesn't prevent a person from producing children who are eligible to succeed. In other words, Henry would be an heir until William fathers a legitimate child. Right?

But then again, what if William's child is born after Henry's accession? Would that child's birth end Henry's reign and would the child automatically become monarch (like Queen Victoria's reign would have ended if her aunt gave birth to a live child)?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 05-06-2009, 05:27 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
I need your opinion about this hypotethical (but entirely possible) situation.

1. Let's say that Prince William of Wales marries a Roman Catholic tomorrow and thus forfeits his right to succeed to the British throne.

2. His brother, Prince Henry of Wales, would become third in line of succession and eventually heir apparent upon death of his grandmother or father.

3. Now, when Henry is the heir, his elder brother who has forfeited his succession rights becomes a father. His child is not brought up as Roman Catholic, so (s)he is eligible to succeed to the throne.

4. Now a problem arises: according to the rules of primogeniture, William's child would take precedence over Henry in the line of succession. Would this child indeed replace Henry as heir to the throne?

Perhaps Henry wouldn't become heir apparent if his brother forfeits his succession rights, but only heir presumptive, since losing a place in the line of succession doesn't prevent a person from producing children who are eligible to succeed. In other words, Henry would be an heir until William fathers a legitimate child. Right?

But then again, what if William's child is born after Henry's accession? Would that child's birth end Henry's reign and would the child automatically become monarch (like Queen Victoria's reign would have ended if her aunt gave birth to a live child)?

Any child of William's would replace Harry in the line of succession - regardless of William's own position.

In the scenario you outline - William would lose his place but his children wouldn't lose their place until their were either baptised Roman Catholic or were confirmed. Look at the Duke of Kent's grandchildren where some of them are in the line, despite their parents being RC but as each one is confirmed RC they are out.

In the scenario you envision the line would go - Charles, William's children, Harry.

Harry could only ever be heir presumptive. He would only become the heir apparent if William died without legitimate issue. Even if William had no children but was married to a Roman Catholic, Harry could only ever be heir presumptive as any child of William would replace him. If the child was born after Harry's accession it would replace Harry in the same way that a child of Adelaide's would have replaced Victoria.

A simple way to work out whether or not a person can be heir apparent is to ask the question: Is there any way that another person can replace your chosen person in the line of succession e.g. no one can replace Charles or William so Charles is The Heir Apparent to the British throne, and William is Charles heir apparent but Harry is only the heir presumptive to William as any child of William would replace Harry.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 05-07-2009, 03:29 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 463
So, everything I said was true. Thank you for confirming my theory!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 09-14-2010, 04:34 PM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 2,791
How interesting! I read the whole thread. Thanks for creating the discussion.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
abdication, accession, british monarchs, british monarchy, civil list, crown estate, finances, line of succession, monarchy versus republic, protocol


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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Queen: would she consider abdication or retirement? sara1981 Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh 838 07-13-2014 05:25 PM
Abdication Issues & Rumours (2008-2013) Marengo Princess Beatrix 166 01-30-2013 05:46 AM
The Abdication, 11 December 1936 gaoshan1021 British Royal History 163 08-26-2012 05:02 PM
Succession issues in the Royal Family of Jordan SemiPatriot83 Royal House of Jordan 388 12-19-2011 07:57 PM
Are the Orleans-Braganza in the line of succession to the French throne? Lecen Royal Families of France 5 02-01-2008 12:17 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman palace pom president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince frederik prince laurent prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia spain state visit wedding william winter olympics 2014


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:25 PM.

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]