If Charles dies before the queen

[CyrilVladisla]

The queen would have to make William prince of Wales if his father would die before his grandmother (and if she wanted him to have that title); the same applies to Charles once he becomes king.

The main difference is: William will automatically be Duke of Cornwall the moment of the queen's death (as his father is the new king at that point).

William won't be Duke of Cornwall if his father dies first as he won't be the monarch's eldest son.

In both cases the title of Prince of Wales is to be bestowed upon him if the monarch wishes his/her direct heir to carry that title.

Why would the monarch not want the heir to have the title of Prince of Wales?

 

[Osipi]

Why would the monarch not want the heir to have the title of Prince of Wales?

There could be numerous reasons. The thing is though is that it's at the monarch's discretion and not an inherited title/role.

 

[LauraS3514]

Why would the monarch not want the heir to have the title of Prince of Wales?

Under normal circumstances, it would probably happen within the first year of the new reign. Under the circumstances of THIS thread, I can see HM not granting the title to William knowing that he would be King relatively soon so as to leave the POW title as a kind of "memorial" to the King Charles-who-never-was. Also, in these circumstances, William would probably become Duke of Edinburgh before he was King as well, as the current dukedom has the usual remainder to "heirs male" and William would be next in line. As Edinburgh is the older creation, it would take precedence over Cambridge, making William the Duke of Edinburgh and Cambridge.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I can see that as a very good reason for the Queen to create William as Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester - it is less of a mouthful to say HRH The Prince of Wales rather than HRH The Duke of Edinburgh and Cambridge.

 

[Claire]

Yes, that's true. I wonder if it was meant for the British forum.



In the case of British peerages, the exclusion of adopted children would be based on the letters patent of creation for each peerage. As far as I know all remainders are to the heirs of the body (and in most cases only to male heirs of the body) of the grantee, but I suppose the British sovereign theoretically has the power to create a peerage which is inheritable by adopted children.

I think this was checked by the Earl and Countess of Wessex's office in the early 2000's - if they adopted the child/ren would not be in the succession and if that was the route they needed to take - Edward would have also removed himself from the line of succession. Of course the issue was never needed to be taken up.

 

[Stefan]

I can see that as a very good reason for the Queen to create William as Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester - it is less of a mouthful to say HRH The Prince of Wales rather than HRH The Duke of Edinburgh and Cambridge.

I too and also that he has at last one of the traditional titles of the Heir as he can not become Duke of Cornwall.

 

[Roslyn]

I can see that as a very good reason for the Queen to create William as Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester - it is less of a mouthful to say HRH The Prince of Wales rather than HRH The Duke of Edinburgh and Cambridge.

I suspect that in the event that Charles were to predecease his mother, HM and her staff would have far more important things to fill their minds and calendars with than bothering about William's titles and making him Prince of Wales. We talk about the conflict in Charles when it comes to looking to filling his role of king - that it will inevitably involve the death of his mother - but the circumstances being speculated about in this thread involve a 95 year old woman losing her eldest son and having to cope not only with that loss and the plans for his funeral but also dealing with her ongoing duties as Head of State, and also worrying about her 100 year old husband and the preparation of her grandson for the job her deceased son was expecting to step into and for which he had been trained for all his life. All signs are that HM is in excellent health for her age, but unless she has iced water running through her veins I think the death of Charles and worry that Philip would soon follow (and the anguish when he finally does) would take a heavy toll and I wouldn't be at all surprised if William was never made Prince of Wales - partly as a tribute to his father who held the title for so long, and partly because I can envisage William's next title becoming HRH The Prince Regent.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[...] All signs are that HM is in excellent health for her age [...]

I often see that assumption on this forum or in mainstream media but to be honest: when one watches the Queen, she is visibly more and more frail with every new public appearance.

 

[Blog Real]

It's normal, she's very old. It may be fine for age, but I believe she may already have some age-derived health problems.
But watch out, I believe the Queen will reach 100 years.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

It's normal, she's very old. It may be fine for age, but I believe she may already have some age-derived health problems.
But watch out, I believe the Queen will reach 100 years.

I wish her many more years but not for nothing she now stands on the balcony on Remembrance Sunday and last year's reduced Trooping at Windsor Castle grounds seems perfectly suited for the frail Queen, to minimize her movements.

Anyway, let us hope that the Prince of Wales will outlive both his parents, as is the normal natural way.

 

[Mbruno]

I can see that as a very good reason for the Queen to create William as Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester - it is less of a mouthful to say HRH The Prince of Wales rather than HRH The Duke of Edinburgh and Cambridge.

Does Edinburgh come before Cambridge based on the date of creation of the title?

It's normal, she's very old. It may be fine for age, but I believe she may already have some age-derived health problems.
But watch out, I believe the Queen will reach 100 years.

I think the Queen's health is above average for a 94-year-old. Having said that, her age implies natural limitations. As I said before for example, I don't think HM is fit anymore to deliver a Speech from the Throne in full regalia and I don't think she should be forced to do so at her age. State banquets and ceremonies like Garter Day may also be too demanding for her in the near future.

 

[Denville]

Does Edinburgh come before Cambridge based on the date of creation of the title?

Why would William be made Duke of Edinburgh??? that title is supposed to be earmarked for Edward

 

[Denville]

I think this was checked by the Earl and Countess of Wessex's office in the early 2000's - if they adopted the child/ren would not be in the succession and if that was the route they needed to take - Edward would have also removed himself from the line of succession. Of course the issue was never needed to be taken up.

why would Edward have removed himself from the line of succession?? AFAIK he's legally able to adopt children, just as anyone else is.. just his adopted children would not be in line for the trhone... it does not stop him being in line...

 

[Mbruno]

Why would William be made Duke of Edinburgh??? that title is supposed to be earmarked for Edward

I think IluvBertie was assuming a scenario where Charles would outlive Prince Philip (but not the Queen) and William would then outlive Charles.

 

[Denville]

I think IluvBertie was assuming a scenario where Charles would outlive Prince Philip (but not the Queen) and William would then outlive Charles.

still no reason for Will to get the title, though. Edward was supposed to become Duke of Edinburgh....

 

[Mbruno]

still no reason for Will to get the title, though. Edward was supposed to become Duke of Edinburgh....

If Philip predeceases Charles before Charles becomes King, Charles will inherit the title of Duke of Edinburgh. In the sequel, if Charles predeceases William before the Queen's demise, William will become the next Duke of Edinburgh.


The title can only be recreated for Edward if/when it merges with the Crown. Otherwise the title follows the regular order of succession by male primogeniture.

 

[Somebody]

Yes indeed; and even if Charles would die before Philip and Philip dies before the queen, the title will pass on to William as he would be first in line to inherit the title.

As long as the Duke of Edinburgh isn't the monarch the current creation of the title will live on based on the conditions it was created with (male heirs of the body). It is extremely likely that the title will merge with the crown (on this assumption the idea that Edward will receive the title was based) - either with Charles or less likely with William or even less likely with George - as the three that are first in line to inherit the Duke of Edinburgh title are also the first three in line to the throne; only at #4 this changes as Louis is fourth in line to inherit the duke of Edinburgh title, while Charlotte is fourth in line to inherit the throne.

Current heirs:
1. Charles
2. William
3. George
4. Louis
5. Henry (Harry)
6. Archie
7. Andrew
8. Edward
9. James

So, the only way for the title not to merge with the crown is for Charlotte to become queen without Charles, William and George ever being king (after the duke's passing); as in that case Louis would be the next Duke of Edinburgh. A very unlikely scenario...

 

[Mbruno]

Yes indeed; and even if Charles would die before Philip and Philip dies before the queen, the title will pass on to William as he would be first in line to inherit the title.

Yes, that is correct. So maybe ILuvBertie was considering that scenario instead, i.e. both Philip and the Queen outliving Charles and William inheriting the dukedom directly from Philip.

 

[QueenMathilde]

Sad to say I don't think the prince will live much longer - he's already a hundred. But the queen will live for about 10 more years. I think anyway.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Sad to say I don't think the prince will live much longer - he's already a hundred. But the queen will live for about 10 more years. I think anyway.

So the Queen will become 104 years old?


I have mixed feelings about that. Personally I hope that she will live even to 114 years old, why not?


But a Queen that age also implies that being Sovereign of the United Kingdom and all other Realms can without any problem be done by a 104-years old, which indicates that this Office of State is pretty meaningless.


After all, if this is such an important and vital part of the State, why not give this High Office in the hands of a younger and more energetic successor?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Why would William be made Duke of Edinburgh??? that title is supposed to be earmarked for Edward

The succession is to the heirs male of the body lawfully begotten, so:
Charles - William - George - Louis - Harry - Archie - Andrew - Edward - James

The scenario is that the future King Charles III will make his youngest brother the 1st Duke of Edinburgh of a new creation. James will then become the Earl of Wessex (Earl of Forfar in Scotland) as heir to the Dukedom.

 

[Mbruno]

But a Queen that age also implies that being Sovereign of the United Kingdom and all other Realms can without any problem be done by a 104-years old, which indicates that this Office of State is pretty meaningless.

In the other realms, the duties of the office of Head of State are performed in practice by the Governor General, so the Queen's age is not really an issue. In the UK, on the other hand, if the Queen is declared unable to fulfill her constitutional obligations, the law automatically provides for a regency to be put in place.

There was a discussion here on TRF in the past on what would happen if there were a regency in place in the UK, not extending automatically however to Canada or Australia for example, and a new Governor General had to be appointed, which could only be done by the monarch and not by the regent. The consensus was that, at least in the case of Canada, the Chief Justice would simply serve as acting GG under the LPs of 1947 until the monarch could be in the position to appoint a permanent replacement. Incidentally, albeit in a different context, that is what is happening now in Canada following the resignation of The Rt Hon Julie Payette CC CMM COM CQ CD as Governor General.

 

[Durham]

It's not quite what the original poster meant but agnatic succession would be an interesting way to order things. First sons in seniority & then (male line) grandsons. Or even sex neutral aganatic succession. Could get very confusing!

 

[Somebody]

It's not quite what the original poster meant but agnatic succession would be an interesting way to order things. First sons in seniority & then (male line) grandsons. Or even sex neutral aganatic succession. Could get very confusing!

It would indeed be very confusing as it seemed to have depended on whether someone's father would still be alive. So, in that case for example Carl Gustaf would not have become the crown prince upon his father's death as that position would have passed on to his uncle, while he would have been the crown prince had his father survived until his ascension to the throne...

 

[Durham]

I see what you mean!

I was thinking along the lines of agnatic succession from a common ancestor. Like the Saudi system - or at least as it once operated. You'd just go through this former monarch's sons until they were all dead. And then start on grandsons. If that makes sense.

 

[Somebody]

I see what you mean!

I was thinking along the lines of agnatic succession from a common ancestor. Like the Saudi system - or at least as it once operated. You'd just go through this former monarch's sons until they were all dead. And then start on grandsons. If that makes sense.

Yes, it does; I did see the link with the Saudi system. It's a great system for those who prefer older monarchs. However, I wonder for how many generations it works to keep this pattern. Let's try to see how this would work if the British royal family would have started adopting this system with George V (but including the women as well; as that is the current British practice; and it would get queen Elizabeth on the throne at this point).

King George V (reigned until 1936)

First generation
1. King Edward VIII (b. 1894; reign 1936)
2. King George VI (Albert) (b. 1895; reign 1936 - 1952)
3. Queen Mary (b. 1897; reign 1952 - 1965)
4. King Henry (b. 1900; reign 1965 - 1974)

Second generation
5. King George VII (b. 1923; reign 1974 - 2011)
6. Queen Elizabeth II (b. 1926; reign 2011 - now)

Line to the throne:
(still second generation from oldest to youngest))
1. The Duke of Kent (b. 1935)
2. Princess Alexandra of Kent (b. 1936)
3. Prince Michael of Kent (b. 1942)
4. The Duke of Gloucester (b. 1944)

Third generation
5. The Prince of Wales (Nov 1948)
6. The Princess Royal (Aug 1950)
7. The Earl of Harewood (Oct 1950)
8. Henry Lascelles (May 1953)
9. The Hon. James Lascelles (Oct 1953)
10. The Hon. Jeremy Lascelles (Feb 1955)
11. The Duke of York (Feb 1960)
12. The Earl of Snowdon (Nov 1961)
13. Earl of St Andrew (June 1962)
14. James Ogilvy (Feb 1964)
15. The Earl of Wessex (March 1964)
16. Lady Helen Taylor (April 1964)
17. Lady Sarah Chatto (May 1964)
18. Marina Ogilvy (July 1966)
19. Lord Nicholas Windsor (July 1970)
20. Earl of Ulster (Oct 1974)
21. Lady Davina Lewis/Windsor (Nov 1977)
22. Lord Frederick Windsor (April 1979)
23. Lady Rose Gilman (March 1980)
24. Lady Gabriella Windsor (April 1981)

Fourth generation
25. Sophie Pearce (Oct 1973)
26. Rowan Lascelles (Nov 1977)
27. Peter Phillips (Nov 1977)
28. Viscount Lascelles (May 1980)
29. Zara Tindall (May 1981)
30. The Duke of Cambridge (June 1982)
31. Thomas Lascelles (Sept 1982)
32. The Hon. Edward Lascelles (Nov 1982)
33. The Duke of Sussex (Sept 1984)
34. Ellen Lascelles (Dec 1984)
35. Amy Lascelles (June 1986)
36. Princess Beatrice (of York) (Aug 1988)
37. Lord Downpatrick (Dec 1988)
38. Princess Eugenie (of York) (March 1990)
39. Zenouska Mowatt (May 1990)
40. Maximilian Lascelles (Dec 1991)
41. Lady Marina Windsor (Sept 1992)
42. Christian Mowatt (June 1993)
43. Columbus Taylor (Aug 1994)
44. Flora Vesterberg (Dec 1994)
45. Lady Amelia Windsor (Aug 1995)
46. Samuel Chatto (July 1996)
47. Alexander Ogilvy (Nov 1996)
48. Cassius Taylor (Dec 1996)
49. Arthur Chatto (Feb 1999)
50. Viscount Linley (July 1999)
51. Lady Margarita Armstrong-Jones (May 2002)
52. Eloise Taylor (March 2003)
53. Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor (Nov 2003)
54. Estella Taylor (Dec 2004)
55. Tallulah Lascelles (Nov 2005)
56. Lord Culloden (March 2007)
57. Albert Windsor (Sept 2007)
58. Viscount Severn (Dec 2007)
59. Leopold Windsor (Sept 2009)
60. Lady Cosima Windsor (May 2010)
61. Lila Gilman (May 2010)
62. Senna Lewis (June 2010)
63. Tane Lewis (May 2012)
64. Rufus Gilman (Oct 2012)
65. Maud Windsor (Aug 2013)
66. Louis Windsor (May 2014)
67. Isabella Windsor (Jan 2016)

Fifth generation
68. Savannah Phillips (Dec 2010)
69. Isla Phillips (March 2012)
70. Prince George of Cambridge (July 2013)
71. Mia Tindall (Jan 2014)
72. Princess Charlotte of Cambridge (May 2015)
73. Cloe Lascelles (2017)
74. Prince Louis of Cambridge (April 2018)
75. Lena Tindall (June 2018)
76. Ivy Lascelles (Oct 2018)
77. Archie Mountbatten-Windsor (May 2019)
78. Sebastian Lascelles (Aug 2020)

N.B. I only included children (and their descendants) born within marriage and not conceived while in a previous marriage.

UPDATED

 

[Durham]

My goodness that's quite a difference! Thank you for taking the time to come up with that.

It would I imagine become unwieldy at some point down the line. Presumably that's why the Saudis changed tack.

 

[Biri]

Yes, it does; I did see the link with the Saudi system. Especially if you prefer older monarchs. However, I wonder for how many generation it works to keep this pattern. Let's try to see how this would work if the British royal family would have started adopting this system with George V (but including the women as well; as that is the current British practice; and it would get queen Elizabeth on the throne at this point).

King George V (reigned until 1936)

First generation
1. King Edward VIII (b. 1894; reign 1936)
2. King George VI (Albert) (b. 1895; reign 1936 - 1952)
3. Queen Mary (b. 1897; reign 1952 - 1965)
4. King Henry (b. 1900; reign 1965 - 1974)

Second generation
5. King George VII (b. 1923; reign 1974 - 2011)
6. Queen Elizabeth II (b. 1926; reign 2011 - now)

Line to the throne:
(still second generation from oldest to youngest))
1. The Duke of Kent (b. 1935)
2. Princess Alexandra of Kent (b. 1936)
3. Prince Michael of Kent (b. 1942)
4. The Duke of Gloucester (b. 1944)

Third generation
5. The Prince of Wales (Nov 1948)
6. The Princess Royal (Aug 1950)
7. The Earl of Harewood (Oct 1950)
8. The Hon. James Lascelles (Oct 1953)
9. The Hon. Jeremy Lascelles (Feb 1955)
10. The Duke of York (Feb 1960)
11. The Earl of Snowdon (Nov 1961)
12. Earl of St Andrew (June 1962)
13. James Ogilvy (Feb 1964)
14. The Earl of Wessex (March 1964)
15. Lady Helen Taylor (April 1964)
16. Lady Sarah Chatto (May 1964)
17. Marina Ogilvy (July 1966)
18. Lord Nicholas Windsor (July 1970)
19. Earl of Ulster (Oct 1974)
20. Lady Davina Lewis/Windsor (Nov 1977)
21. Lord Frederick Windsor (April 1979)
22. Lady Rose Gilman (March 1980)
23. Lady Gabriella Windsor (April 1981)

Fourth generation
24. Sophie Lascelles (Oct 1973)
25. Rowan Lascelles (Nov 1977)
26. Peter Phillips (Nov 1977)
27. Viscount Lascelles (May 1980)
28. Zara Tindall (May 1981)
29. The Duke of Cambridge (June 1982)
30. Thomas Lascelles (Sept 1982)
31. The Hon. Edward Lascelles (Nov 1982)
32. Ellen Lascelles (Dec 1984)
33. The Duke of Sussex (Sept 1985)
34. Amy Lascelles (June 1986)
35. Princess Beatrice (of York) (Aug 1988)
36. Lord Downpatrick (Dec 1988)
37. Princess Eugenie (of York) (March 1990)
38. Zenouska Mowatt (May 1990)
39. Lady Marina Windsor (Sept 1992)
40. Christian Mowatt (June 1993)
41. Columbus Taylor (Aug 1994)
42. Flora Vesterberg (Dec 1994)
43. Lady Amelia (Aug 1995)
44. Samuel Chatto (July 1996)
45. Alexander Ogilvy (Nov 1996)
46. Cassius Taylor (Dec 1996)
47. Arthur Chatto (Feb 1999)
48. Viscount Linley (July 1999)
49. Lady Margarita Armstrong-Jones (May 2002)
50. Eloise Taylor (March 2003)
51. Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor (Nov 2003)
52. Estella Taylor (Dec 2004)
53. Tallulah Lascelles (Nov 2005)
54. Lord Culloden (March 2007)
55. Albert Windsor (Sept 2007)
56. Viscount Severn (Dec 2007)
57. Leopold Windsor (Sept 2009)
58. Lady Cosima Windsor (May 2010)
59. Lila Gilman (May 2010)
60. Senna Lewis (June 2010)
61. Tane Lewis (May 2012)
62. Rufus Gilman (Oct 2012)
63. Maud Windsor (Aug 2013)
64. Louis Windsor (May 2014)
65. Isabella Windsor (Jan 2016)

Fifth generation
66. Savannah Phillips (Dec 2010)
67. Isla Phillips (March 2012)
68. Prince George of Cambridge (July 2013)
69. Mia Tindall (Jan 2014)
70. Princess Charlotte of Cambridge (May 2015)
71. Cloe Lascelles (2017)
72. Prince Louis of Cambridge (April 2018)
73. Lena Tindall (June 2018)
74. Ivy Lascelles (Oct 2018)
75. Archie Mountbatten-Windsor (May 2019)
76. Sebastian Lascelles (Aug 2020)

N.B. I only included children (and their descendants) born within marriage and not conceived while in a previous marriage.

Whose child is Sebastian Lascelles?

 

[Somebody]

Whose child is Sebastian Lascelles?

The Hon. Edward Lascelles (youngest son of the 8th Earl of Harewood) and his wife Sophie (née Cartlidge).

Currently, Sebastian is 3rd in line for the Earl of Harewood title after his uncle Alexander, Viscount Lascelles, and his father.

 

[QueenMathilde]

So the Queen will become 104 years old?


I have mixed feelings about that. Personally I hope that she will live even to 114 years old, why not?


But a Queen that age also implies that being Sovereign of the United Kingdom and all other Realms can without any problem be done by a 104-years old, which indicates that this Office of State is pretty meaningless.


After all, if this is such an important and vital part of the State, why not give this High Office in the hands of a younger and more energetic successor?

I thought she was younger than that. She'll live to be 100 is what I meant. Like her mother. How's that?