If Charles dies before the queen

[Gaogier]

Hello
New here, and want to ask a question I have with royalty.

If Charles dies before the queen, William would be next inline correct? Why, how long has this been in place as I thought it was the oldest child (boy until recently) would become king/queen. Has this changed, or is this always been true?

 

[TLLK]

Yes should Charles pass before his mother then his eldest child, William, is first in line to the throne followed by his three children: George, Charlotte and Louis. After that it continues with Harry, Archie, Andrew, etc...The new succession rules were put into place in 2013.

 

[Countessmeout]

Hello
New here, and want to ask a question I have with royalty.

If Charles dies before the queen, William would be next inline correct? Why, how long has this been in place as I thought it was the oldest child (boy until recently) would become king/queen. Has this changed, or is this always been true?

It has always been the way. If the heir dies,a brother only inherited the throne, if the heir was unmarried and had no legal heirs.

And a throne could pass to a sister if they had no children or brothers.

It has happened before. George III succeeded his grandfather George II in 1760 as his father Frederick had died 1751. Despite the fact Frederick had a living younger brother William, Duke of Cumberland (as well as 2 living sisters).

Further back we have Richard II who came to the throne after the death of his grandfather Edward III in 1377. His own father Edward the Black Prince had died the previous year. This is despite the fact that his Uncles John of Gaunt, Edmund of Langley and Thomas of Woodstock were all alive and could have succeeded their father instead.

The throne passes to the closest blood kid in a direct line. So if the eldest son of the monarch has a legal child, they are in the direct line. It only branches off when the direct line dies out. If Charles had died before he married, then Andrew would have succeeded the throne when his mother died.

That continues. If Charles and William were to die in a freak accident next week, George would be heir.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Hello
New here, and want to ask a question I have with royalty.

If Charles dies before the queen, William would be next inline correct? Why, how long has this been in place as I thought it was the oldest child (boy until recently) would become king/queen. Has this changed, or is this always been true?

Welcome to the forum, Gaogier. That is a good question.

Since you mention Charles and William I presume you are referring to the British queen. As a matter of fact, she is not "the (only) queen" at the moment, as a queen also occupies the throne of Denmark.

As it stands now, the rules of succession in all hereditary European monarchies are determined by two essential principles. As you stated, the first is the rule that birth order determines precedence. The second is that a child is the heir of their parent (or any other direct ancestor), and upon the death of a parent, his or her rights to the throne are transferred to his or her descendant(s).

Thus, if Charles dies while he is the heir to the throne, his dynastic rights as the oldest son pass to his own oldest son William, who will inherit the throne as if he himself were the oldest son of Queen Elizabeth.

I am not sure how long this system has been in place in the UK, but I recommend researching the laws of property inheritance in England as they are the foundation of the laws of succession to the British crown.


There is a thread dedicated to British line of succession here: https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/line-of-succession-to-the-british-throne-44513.html

It has always been the way.

No, not always. As with much of British common law, the laws of inheritance developed over time.

See this research briefing for information.

The new succession rules were put into place in 2013.

The bill was passed in 2013 but only came into force in 2015.

 

[Gaogier]

Ah, so if say Charles had a child out of wedlock before William, say joe, even though joe is Charles oldest son, it will be William who would still become king. Would joe be able to contest this?

And yes I mean the queen of the United Kingdom and other commonwealth nations as I am british when I say queen I mean Queen Elizabeth II

 

[Mbruno]

Ah, so if say Charles had a child out of wedlock before William, say joe, even though joe is Charles oldest son, it will be William who would still become king. Would joe be able to contest this?

No, he would not. Illegitimate children are excluded from the line of succession to the Crown.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Ah, so if say Charles had a child out of wedlock before William, say joe, even though joe is Charles oldest son, it will be William who would still become king. Would joe be able to contest this?

I am not aware of any rule which would immediately disqualify Joe from filing a lawsuit to contest the Act of Settlement (the statute which formalized the limitation to children born in wedlock), although my knowledge of this subject is limited.

However, I think his probability of success would be dim. The similar rules which regulate succession to British peerages have not been successfully contested so far, whether in court or in Parliament.

 

[Gaogier]

Thank you all from answering my question... if I think of anything else or another question I shall be back

 

[Countessmeout]

Welcome to the forum, Gaogier. That is a good question.

Since you mention Charles and William I presume you are referring to the British queen. As a matter of fact, she is not "the (only) queen" at the moment, as a queen also occupies the throne of Denmark.

As it stands now, the rules of succession in all hereditary European monarchies are determined by two essential principles. As you stated, the first is the rule that birth order determines precedence. The second is that a child is the heir of their parent (or any other direct ancestor), and upon the death of a parent, his or her rights to the throne are transferred to his or her descendant(s).

Thus, if Charles dies while he is the heir to the throne, his dynastic rights as the oldest son pass to his own oldest son William, who will inherit the throne as if he himself were the oldest son of Queen Elizabeth.

I am not sure how long this system has been in place in the UK, but I recommend researching the laws of property inheritance in England as they are the foundation of the laws of succession to the British crown.


There is a thread dedicated to British line of succession here: https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/line-of-succession-to-the-british-throne-44513.html




No, not always. As with much of British common law, the laws of inheritance developed over time.

See this research briefing for information.




The bill was passed in 2013 but only came into force in 2015.

Did I say that the gender laws had not changed

What I was talking about was the line of succession. In that a son of the Prince of Wales does not lose his place in succession if his father dies before ascending the throne. He simply moves up a place into first in line for the throne. This has been the practice for centuries. And nothing about the 2013 laws changes this, except allowing women to be infront of men if born before them.

The question was why is a grandson of Queen Elizabeth ahead of a son.

 

[Osipi]

Just an interesting tidbit should Charles die before Queen Elizabeth II. William then would become the Queen's heir apparent but he would not be able to inherit his father's Duke of Cornwall title. In order to be the Duke of Cornwall, he would have to be the eldest living son of the monarch and the heir apparent. William is the Queen's grandson. He also would not automatically inherit the Prince of Wales title either. The Queen would have to invest William to that role.

So, at the time of Charles' death, William would most likely remain The Duke of Cambridge. If things go as things normally do with the Queen passing and Charles becoming King, William would automatically then become The Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge. Charles most likely would invest him as Prince of Wales also in due time. ?

 

[QueenMathilde]

Yes I got in a bit of an argument with some Brits who insisted that Andrew would become next in line if Charles died or abdicated. I didn't think that was right.

 

[Osipi]

It's kind of nice to know that Andrew is quite far down the line. Charles, William, George, Charlotte, Louis, Harry and Archie would all have to meet their maker before Andrew would sit on the throne.

We can all breathe a collective sigh of relief now.

ETA: Ooops. Forgot George!!! How could I forget George!

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Did I say that the gender laws had not changed

[...]

The question was why is a grandson of Queen Elizabeth ahead of a son.

I was not talking about gender in my response to you, but about the common-law rule of a grandson by an older son inheriting ahead of a younger son.

If you read the link in my response, you will see that it is about the general subject of succession to the crown.

 

[QueenMathilde]

Just an interesting tidbit should Charles die before Queen Elizabeth II. William then would become the Queen's heir apparent but he would not be able to inherit his father's Duke of Cornwall title. In order to be the Duke of Cornwall, he would have to be the eldest living son of the monarch and the heir apparent. William is the Queen's grandson. He also would not automatically inherit the Prince of Wales title either. The Queen would have to invest William to that role.

So, at the time of Charles' death, William would most likely remain The Duke of Cambridge. If things go as things normally do with the Queen passing and Charles becoming King, William would automatically then become The Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge. Charles most likely would invest him as Prince of Wales also in due time. ?

Interesting. Would William become the Prince of Wales if Charles died before the queen? Not that any of us are wishing Charles dead.


ETA Oh I see you answered my question. Charles would have to make William Prince of Wales then?

 

[Mbruno]

As it stands now, the rules of succession in all hereditary European monarchies are determined by two essential principles. As you stated, the first is the rule that birth order determines precedence. The second is that a child is the heir of their parent (or any other direct ancestor), and upon the death of a parent, his or her rights to the throne are transferred to his or her descendant(s).

In the southern European monarchies, the first principle you described is called the rule of primogeniture while the second is referred to as the principle of "representation". Is the latter term also used in northern Europe?


Examples

Portuguese constititution of 1838


ARTIGO 96º — A sucessão da Coroa segue a ordem regular de primogenitura e representação entre os legítimos descendentes da Rainha actual, a Senhora D. Maria II; preferindo sempre a linha anterior às posteriores; na mesma linha, o grau mais próximo ao mais remoto; no mesmo grau, o sexo masculino ao feminino; e no mesmo sexo, a pessoa mais velha à mais nova.

Spanish constitution of 1876


Art. 60 – La sucesión al Trono de España seguirá el orden regular de primogenitura y representación, siendo preferida siempre la línea anterior a las posteriores; en la misma línea, el grado más próximo al más remoto; en el mismo grado, el varón a la hembra, y en el mismo sexo, la persona de más edad a la de menos.

 

[Osipi]

Interesting. Would William become the Prince of Wales if Charles died before the queen? Not that any of us are wishing Charles dead.


ETA Oh I see you answered my question. Charles would have to make William Prince of Wales then?

Yeps. Prince of Wales is not a title that is automatically inherited. One has to be created and invested to that role. Charles was created Prince of Wales at a young age in 1958 but actually invested as Prince of Wales in a investiture in Wales in 1969.

 

[Stefan]

Interesting. Would William become the Prince of Wales if Charles died before the queen? Not that any of us are wishing Charles dead.


ETA Oh I see you answered my question. Charles would have to make William Prince of Wales then?

If Prince Charles died before the Queen he can not create William Prince of Wales but it is likely that the Queen will then do it. This wase the case for the future George III. He was created Prince of Wales by his grandfather George II. after the death of his father.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

In the southern European monarchies, the first principle you described is called the rule of primogeniture while the second is referred to as the principle of "representation". Is the latter term also used in northern Europe?


Examples [...]

The Dutch Constitution employs the term "plaatsvervulling", which I believe would directly translate as "representation", although the official English translation uses a more liberal translation of Article 25.

25. Erfopvolging

Het koningschap gaat bij overlijden van de Koning krachtens erfopvolging over op zijn wettige nakomelingen, waarbij het oudste kind voorrang heeft, met plaatsvervulling volgens dezelfde regel. Bij gebreke van eigen nakomelingen gaat het koningschap op gelijke wijze over op de wettige nakomelingen eerst van zijn ouder, dan van zijn grootouder, in de lijn van erfopvolging, voor zover de overleden Koning niet verder bestaand dan in de derde graad van bloedverwantschap.

Yeps. Prince of Wales is not a title that is automatically inherited. One has to be created and invested to that role. Charles was created Prince of Wales at a young age in 1958 but actually invested as Prince of Wales in a investiture in Wales in 1969.

Which was atypical, since most eldest sons of British monarchs in modern times have been created Prince of Wales much sooner after becoming first in line to the throne.

 

[Somebody]

Interesting. Would William become the Prince of Wales if Charles died before the queen? Not that any of us are wishing Charles dead.


ETA Oh I see you answered my question. Charles would have to make William Prince of Wales then?

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.

 

[Somebody]

In the southern European monarchies, the first principle you described is called the rule of primogeniture while the second is referred to as the principle of "representation". Is the latter term also used in northern Europe?


Examples

Also of importance: an unborn child is included in the line of succession (especially important if said child would be the eldest child (or eldest son, depending on the law) of the monarch) but if he/she dies before birth is presumed to never have existed.

 

[Denville]

If Prince Charles died before the Queen he can not create William Prince of Wales but it is likely that the Queen will then do it. This wase the case for the future George III. He was created Prince of Wales by his grandfather George II. after the death of his father.

well it woudl be a litlte hard for Charles to do it when he himself was dead....

 

[QueenMathilde]

This is off the topic but could a member in line for the throne adopt a child and would that child be in line for the throne? Say if William adopted a child?

 

[TLLK]

This is off the topic but could a member in line for the throne adopt a child and would that child be in line for the throne? Say if William adopted a child?

As far as I know that would not be possible for the British throne or any other European one. However I will defer to any member with more information on specific monarchies.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

This is off the topic but could a member in line for the throne adopt a child and would that child be in line for the throne? Say if William adopted a child?

Assuming that you are talking about Britain (this thread was posted in the General Royal Discussion forum, but you mention "William"), there is no law to prevent members of the line of succession to the British throne from adopting a child. There are individuals who are probably in line to the British throne, albeit quite far down, who are adoptive parents.

The child would not be in line for the British throne owing to the Act of Settlement (1700), which entails a limitation of the line of succession to the so-called heirs of the body of Sophia of Hannover. "Heirs of the body" is a term originating from British common law, and it does not apply to adoptive descendants.


In contrast, Japan is a monarchy in which members of the royal family are, since 1947, prohibited by law from adopting.

https://www.kunaicho.go.jp/e-kunaicho/hourei-01.html

 

[QueenMathilde]

Assuming that you are talking about Britain (this thread was posted in the General Royal Discussion forum, but you mention "William"), there is no law to prevent members of the line of succession to the British throne from adopting a child. There are individuals who are probably in line to the British throne, albeit quite far down, who are adoptive parents.

The child would not be in line for the British throne owing to the Act of Settlement (1700), which entails a limitation of the line of succession to the so-called heirs of the body of Sophia of Hannover. "Heirs of the body" is a term originating from British common law, and it does not apply to adoptive descendants.


In contrast, Japan is a monarchy in which members of the royal family are, since 1947, prohibited by law from adopting.

https://www.kunaicho.go.jp/e-kunaicho/hourei-01.html

Sorry. The thread was about "If Charles dies".

 

[Mbruno]

This is off the topic but could a member in line for the throne adopt a child and would that child be in line for the throne? Say if William adopted a child?

No, he/she would not. Adopted children are not included in the line of succession to the Crown. They cannot inherit peerages either.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Sorry. The thread was about "If Charles dies".

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

No, he/she would not. Adopted children are not included in the line of succession to the Crown. They cannot inherit peerages either.

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.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The best example to explain a few of the issues is George III.

George III was the eldest son of Frederick, Prince of Wales. When he was born, like our Prince William, he was 2nd in the line of succession behind his father. When his father died, George moved up to 1st in line even though his father had a living younger brother.

George III immediately inherited his father's title of Duke of Edinburgh but within a month or so George II bestowed the titles Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester on him and he held those titles until he became King.

George III, as heir apparent, did not have the income of the Duchy of Cornwall. That has now changed. In the Sovereign Grant Act it was determined that the heir apparent, regardless of gender, would have the income of the Duchy so it Charles were to predecease The Queen, then William would have the income of the Duchy, even though he would be Duke of Cornwall or hold any of Charles' Scottish titles.

The easiest way to explain it is 'down first and then across'. While there are no grandchildren the line goes simply from one sibling to another according to the laws at the time of their birth - so until Charles became a father Andrew followed Charles in the line of succession just as until William became a father Harry followed William in the line of succession. As both Charles and then William became fathers their siblings were then moved down the line. In time, when George becomes a Dad then Charlotte will move down.

In 1936, Princess Margaret was 2nd in the line of succession. If she was alive today she would be 21st and within a few months would be 23rd as both Eugenie and Zara have their babies pushing everyone below them down either one or two places (those between Edward and Lena will move one place and those after Lena will move down two).

 

[victor1319]

The easiest way to explain it is 'down first and then across'. While there are no grandchildren the line goes simply from one sibling to another according to the laws at the time of their birth...

Got it! Very well explained!

On a more abstract level: I remember to have read somewhere, that this custom comes from the Orient and was adopted into Europe to avoid the permanent Divisions of the Lands between all the heirs - Is this true? (I don't want to hijack the thread, it just came to mind. Sorry!)

 

[kathia_sophia]

Assuming that you are talking about Britain (this thread was posted in the General Royal Discussion forum, but you mention "William"), there is no law to prevent members of the line of succession to the British throne from adopting a child. There are individuals who are probably in line to the British throne, albeit quite far down, who are adoptive parents.

The child would not be in line for the British throne owing to the Act of Settlement (1700), which entails a limitation of the line of succession to the so-called heirs of the body of Sophia of Hannover. "Heirs of the body" is a term originating from British common law, and it does not apply to adoptive descendants.


In contrast, Japan is a monarchy in which members of the royal family are, since 1947, prohibited by law from adopting.

https://www.kunaicho.go.jp/e-kunaicho/hourei-01.html

Quite interesting indeed. I didn't know that about Japan. As for other monarchies, as far as I know King Hussein of Jordan and his late wife Queen Alia adopted Abir Muhaisen.