Succession ( NOT BLOODY SECESSION) question

[bhsup]

So Prince William and Princess Kate are going to be parents, it seems.

What if, God forbid, The Queen, Prince Charles, and Prince William all tragically died of spontaneous combustion tomorrow? Would Andrew become king? Would Harry become king? Would Kate become regent until her baby was born and then grown sufficiently old to accept the crown?

What if only the Queen and Charles died? Does Andrew step up, or does it go to William still?

I thought about putting this in the many questions thread, but this is about the British Monarchy and worthy of its own thread. It's not some question about how many scoops of flour in a cookie recipe.

 

[Skwink]

Who all has to die for me to get the crown?

EDIT: To any governments reading, that is not a threat.

 

[The_J]

Just read it today (don't ask where ) that the order is Charles -> William -> the kid -> Harry.
EDIT: Oh...if they die before the kid is born...good question. Harry, I'd assume.

It goes the direct blood line first, and then to the sides.

 

[Cutlass]

William's child, if it lives, is the rightful heir. Kate would be Queen Mother.

 

[Borachio]

The current first 20 individuals in the line of succession are:

Spoiler :

Charles, Prince of Wales, has been first in the line of succession since 1952.
Charles, Prince of Wales (b 1948), eldest son of Queen Elizabeth II
Prince William, Duke of Cambridge (b 1982), elder son of Charles, Prince of Wales
Unborn child of the Duke of Cambridge[6]
Prince Harry of Wales (b 1984), younger son of Charles, Prince of Wales
Prince Andrew, Duke of York (b 1960), second son of Queen Elizabeth II
Princess Beatrice of York (b 1988), elder daughter of Prince Andrew, Duke of York
Princess Eugenie of York (b 1990), younger daughter of Prince Andrew, Duke of York
Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex (b 1964), youngest son of Queen Elizabeth II
James, Viscount Severn (b 2007), son of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex
Lady Louise Windsor (b 2003), daughter of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex
Anne, Princess Royal (b 1950), daughter of Queen Elizabeth II
Peter Phillips (b 1977), son of Anne, Princess Royal
Savannah Phillips (b 2010), daughter of Peter Phillips, son of Anne, Princess Royal
Isla Phillips (b 2012), daughter of Peter Phillips, son of Anne, Princess Royal
Zara Phillips (b 1981), daughter of Anne, Princess Royal
David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley (b 1961), son of Princess Margaret, the late younger sister of Queen Elizabeth II
The Honourable Charles Armstrong-Jones (b 1999), son of David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley
The Honourable Margarita Armstrong-Jones (b 2002), daughter of David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley
Lady Sarah Chatto (b 1964), daughter of Princess Margaret the late younger sister of Queen Elizabeth II
Samuel Chatto (b 1996), elder son of Lady Sarah Chatto, daughter of Princess Margaret
Arthur Chatto (b 1999), younger son of Lady Sarah Chatto, daughter of Princess Margaret

But who cares? The Jordanian royal family had a major cull (when was it?), losing the top whatever number. Monarchies just pick the next down the line.

But what a subject! There's that whole male primogeniture thing. Arghh!

 

[Synobun]

Don't know, don't care. Monarchy is stupid.

It would go to Prince Charles' child (William). If William died, then it would go to Henry. If Henry died, then it would go to Andrew.

 

[Leoreth]

Usually the succession runs through the firstborn child (son before female heirs were given equal status) of every generation no matter if their parent actually held the title. So always Harry > Andrew. Charles dying before Lizzie -> William is the heir.

 

[bhsup]

Btw, when I said Andrew in my OP, I meant Charles' brother.

Don't know, don't care. Monarchy is stupid.

It would go to Prince Charles' child (William). If William died, then it would go to Henry. If Henry died, then it would go to Andrew.

So then the one cooking in Kate's belly, if they died before it was born, is out of the picture?

EDIT: wait, nevermind, Borachio's list says it is in line already.

 

[Benefactor]

Don't know, don't care. Monarchy is stupid.

It would go to Prince Charles' child (William). If William died, then it would go to Henry. If Henry died, then it would go to Andrew.

Don't know, don't care. Monarchy is stupid.

Anyway, here is my guess .

 

[Zelig]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Line_of_succession_to_the_British_throne&oldid=432432937

You're welcome.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Why worry about this stuff? Elizabeth II is just going to outlive the lot of them anyway.

 

[Borachio]

What all of them? Just getting older and older and more and more decrepit?

Pfftt! Her face still appears on stamps and currency, you know. And they update the image every 10 years.

 

[Antilogic]

Regnal names and numbering is also a bit of an issue for old Charlie. Charles I and II didn't fare too well, so some people speculate he may take his grandfather's name and become George VII when Elizabeth passes away. William would become William V if he kept his first name.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Regnal names and numbering is also a bit of an issue for old Charlie. Charles I and II didn't fare too well, so some people speculate he may take his grandfather's name and become George VII when Elizabeth passes away. William would become William V if he kept his first name.

Charles II wasn't too bad. A little Frankophilic but otherwise not too bad. At least he kept his papist leanings to himself for the most part, and he was smart enough to not run afoul of Parliament like his father did. It's James II that was the problem child.

 

[Trev]

My understanding of the succession is that if Charles dies before Elizabeth then Andrew will become King at Elizabeths death, not William as the line thru Charles is only relevant if Charles becomes King.

 

[emzie]

Under current laws, if Kate's first child is a daughter, then she is only in line for succession if she does not have a younger brother.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/12/03/royal-succession-commonwealth-canada_n_2233615.html

That's true both in the UK and the commonwealth countries. It does create an interesting pickle though: if the UK changes their laws but a commonwealth country does not before Kate's child is born, then succession could pass to the eldest son in those commonwealth countries. EG: Kate's firstborn daughter might become Queen of the UK, but her second child, a son would become King of say, Canada.

 

[Zelig]

That's true both in the UK and the commonwealth countries. It does create an interesting pickle though: if the UK changes their laws but a commonwealth country does not before Kate's child is born, then succession could pass to the eldest son in those commonwealth countries. EG: Kate's firstborn daughter might become Queen of the UK, but her second child, a son would become King of say, Canada.

I'm pretty sure we can amend our laws at any point in time to declare any arbitrary person as monarch.

 

[emzie]

I'm pretty sure we can amend our laws at any point in time to declare any arbitrary person as monarch.

Only though abolishing the monarchy.

edit:

Canada also agreed not to change its rules of succession without the unanimous consent of, and a parallel change of succession in, the other realms, unless explicitly leaving the shared monarchy relationship; a situation that applies symmetrically in all the other realms and has been likened to a treaty amongst these countries. Thus, Canada's line of succession remains identical to that of the United Kingdom. However, there is no provision in Canadian law requiring that the king or queen of Canada must be the same person as the king or queen of the United Kingdom; if the UK were to breach the convention set out in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster and unilaterally change the line of succession to the British throne, the alteration would have no effect on the reigning sovereign of Canada or his or her heirs and successors.

I'd be willing to bet a lot that the Supreme Court of Canada would consider that agreement as law and not allow for a unilateral change unless it's abolishment.

 

[say1988]

So Prince William and Princess Kate are going to be parents, it seems.

What if, God forbid, The Queen, Prince Charles, and Prince William all tragically died of spontaneous combustion tomorrow? Would Andrew become king? Would Harry become king? Would Kate become regent until her baby was born and then grown sufficiently old to accept the crown?.

The death of an individual does not affect the standing of his or her children (except for everyone below moving up one spot, obviously). Leaving Charles' children and the rest of the line of succession in the current order.

I believe the unborn child will assume the throne, but not sure of the exact method to deal with the time in between. At one point the unborn Elizabeth I was made the heir apparent by removing Mary I from the line of succession. Spain had a period without a Monarch while waiting for Alfonso XIII to succeed to the throne upon birth as he was unborn when his father (Alfonso XII) died, whether the mechanism in the UK is the same or not I do not know.

So William's unborn child should become king when he is born.

In your situation Harry would become the Regent as the next person in the line of succession over the age of 21 (this procedure is established by an Act of Parliament).

 

[say1988]

That's true both in the UK and the commonwealth countries. It does create an interesting pickle though: if the UK changes their laws but a commonwealth country does not before Kate's child is born, then succession could pass to the eldest son in those commonwealth countries. EG: Kate's firstborn daughter might become Queen of the UK, but her second child, a son would become King of say, Canada.

I suspect the law will be changed by the time a second child is born (as far as I can see the only people actually speaking out about it complain it doesn't go far enough by not reforming religious requirements or abolishing the Monarchy altogether).
If not they will most likely just make it apply retroactively.

And there won't likely be any country that changes the succession laws without including a "this doesn't go into effect until everyone else passes a similar law" provision. So I don't think there is much risk about the monarchy splitting.

It is theoretically possible since each country has control of their own line of succession but I seriously doubt any country would do that. There is a slim chance some may look to adopt a local monarch but that is the only way I see it happening.