The Mechanics of Abdication and of Succession to the Throne

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Royal Fan

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.

[Royal Fan]

So its probably gonna be the same with the Prince of Wales Correct? any Oath Taken??
Interesting will his sons play a role?

[Iluvbertie]

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.

[King Kiwi]

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?

[iowabelle]

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.

[wbenson]

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.

...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...

[Vecchiolarry]

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

[Iluvbertie]

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.

[King Kiwi]

So in that situation, Victoria would've acted as some sort of regent, or rather something alike?

[wbenson]

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.

[Elspeth]

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.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

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.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Vecchiolarry

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.

[Vecchiolarry]

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

[branchg]

Originally Posted by wbenson

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.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by branchg

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.

[Kotroman]

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)?

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Kotroman

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.

[Kotroman]

So, everything I said was true. Thank you for confirming my theory!