1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Succession ( NOT BLOODY SECESSION) question

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by bhsup, Dec 3, 2012.

  1. bhsup

    bhsup Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    30,387
    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.
     
  2. Skwink

    Skwink FRIIIIIIIIIITZ

    Joined:
    May 14, 2010
    Messages:
    5,647
    Who all has to die for me to get the crown?

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

    The_J Say No 2 Net Validations Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    31,125
    Location:
    Germany / Netherlands
    Just read it today (don't ask where :mischief:) 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.
     
  4. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    45,334
    Location:
    US of A
    William's child, if it lives, is the rightful heir. Kate would be Queen Mother.
     
  5. Borachio

    Borachio Way past lunacy

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    26,698
    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!
     
  6. Synsensa

    Synsensa - Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    18,263
    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.
     
  7. Leoreth

    Leoreth 心の怪盗団 Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    33,370
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Leblanc
    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.
     
  8. bhsup

    bhsup Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    30,387
    Btw, when I said Andrew in my OP, I meant Charles' brother.

    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.
     
  9. Benefactor

    Benefactor Beneficial

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2007
    Messages:
    902
    Location:
    Rov'Rum
    Don't know, don't care. Monarchy is stupid.

    Anyway, here is my guess :p .
     
  10. Zelig

    Zelig Beep Boop

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    15,867
    Location:
    Canada
  11. Owen Glyndwr

    Owen Glyndwr La Femme Moderne

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,670
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Why worry about this stuff? Elizabeth II is just going to outlive the lot of them anyway.
     
  12. Borachio

    Borachio Way past lunacy

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    26,698
    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.
     
  13. Antilogic

    Antilogic --

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Messages:
    15,602
    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.
     
  14. Owen Glyndwr

    Owen Glyndwr La Femme Moderne

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,670
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    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.
     
  15. Trev

    Trev Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2002
    Messages:
    498
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    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.
     
  16. emzie

    emzie wicked witch of the North

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    20,696
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    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.
     
  17. Zelig

    Zelig Beep Boop

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    15,867
    Location:
    Canada
    I'm pretty sure we can amend our laws at any point in time to declare any arbitrary person as monarch.
     
  18. emzie

    emzie wicked witch of the North

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    20,696
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Only though abolishing the monarchy.

    edit:

    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.
     
  19. say1988

    say1988 Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    4,659
    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).
     
  20. say1988

    say1988 Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    4,659
    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.
     

Share This Page