If Prince William were to marry, impregnate his wife, and suddenly die along with his father and grandmother, does the fetus inherit the throne? If how does that work? In the UK all laws are in enacted in the monarch’s name, but the monarch wouldn’t even have a name. What about all the institutions that reference the monarch’s sex eg Queen’s Counsel, Her Majesty’s ____, etc. Has this ever happened before? What happens if it’s not know if Princess William is pregnant when her husband and inlaws die? Could Prince Harry become King Henry IX then be deposed?
It would’nt be a full house,I would bet it all on the royal flush!! 
I don’t think a foetus can be monarch. In the event of a royal widow who was known to be pregnant I imagine that a Regent would be appointed, pending the birth of the child. The Regency would then continue until the new king/queen turned 18. If it was not known whether the royal widow was pregnant, I’m sure a quick pregnancy test would be arranged.
There are no laws that cover this type of situation. It’s never happened in Britain before, and there aren’t cabals of British law makers huddled around fireplaces passing laws regarding the Royal Succession in order to cover every single remotely possible eventuality.
However, the situation did occur in Spain in 1883,
I guess the UK would just muddle through somehow, as usual.
When Alfonso XII of Spain died before the birth of Alfonso XIII, it is regarded that there was an interregnum during the seven months between Alfonso XII’s death and Alfonso XIII’s birth.
Alfonso XIII was crowned immediately after birth.
Isn’t that what a Regency is for? The government sets up a “regent” or proxy to handle the royal functions until the heir to the throne reaches his/her legal majority. An unborn heir, ISTM, would be pretty much in the same position as any other minor heir.
Historically child monarchs tendend to not last very long - qv Tutankhamun and Pu Yi, even Lady Jane Grey.
By virtue of marriage, William’s wife becomes Princess or Queen. However, she would only be Princess Regent or Queen Regent until the heir became of age (she’d only be Queen Regent if William had been crowned). This is not the same as being King or Queen, and one of the few situations where there are effectively two Monarchs (q.v. King George III). There are undoubtedly many precedents for this amongst the lesser nobility - and it was a commonplace that when the husband was off at war, the wife was in command of the castle.
What would happen in between the death and the birth? William’s wife is still Regent. She is the mother of the Heir.
Historically, not being born is no reason to not inherit. Read Shakespeare’s Macbeth! Although Scottish Law and thus precedent is still seperate from English Law, and there is no English precedent at the Royal level (not sure though - need to check about Queen Anne), so England and Scotland could have seperate monarchs again.
If the Heir is stillborn or dies before reproducing, succession would pass to Harry.
I don’t believe the Regency act would apply in this case since the presumptive monarch’s mother would be automatically Regent by right of blood and marriage - the Duchess of Kent cited only qualifying by blood.
It happened in France too , during the 14th century, with Jean 1st the posthumous who actually only reigned for some days.
Five days, IIRC. He was the only King of France to reign from his birth to his death, short as his reign was.
Laws concerning the gender of the monarch might also be a factor. Suppose a country’s succession laws dictated that the king’s eldest male heir would accede to the throne, or his eldest daughter if he had no sons. Now suppose the king, who has one daughter, dies a month into his wife’s pregnancy. If the baby is male, he will become king at birth (if the laws allow for this). If the baby is female, her older sister will become queen. For eight months, no one will know who their monarch will be, except that it might end up being the king’s daughter, who’s been around waiting the whole time. Of course, if they hadn’t thought of this situation there might be a civil war or something.
According to some sources in 1952 there was a short delay in announcing George VI’s death due to fears that Queen Mary might be pregnant. She wasn’t and they announced Elizabeth as Queen.
Queen Mary, the grandmother of Elizabeth II? She was 84 when her son, George VI, died! Even Queen Elizabeth, the consort of George VI and the mother of Elizabeth II, was 51 when George VI died.
George VI’s death was announced within hours. In fact, it was announced before Princess Elizabeth had been informed. It is true that there was a delay in proclaiming her as queen, but that was because she was in Africa. She got back to London late on the afternoon of the following day. As it was thought better to hold the public proclaiming during daylight, the Accession Council did not reconvene until the morning after that and she was then proclaimed. But the Accession Council had actually signed the accession proclamation on 6 February, the day of the late king’s death.
Given that many of the official papers are now available and many of those involved have spoken in detail about those events (there was a glut of interviews and memoirs by surviving courtiers in 2002), it is now clear that the possibility that Queen Elizabeth might have been pregnant was simply a non-issue. The liklihood is that the inner circle knew that she had already passed the menopause.
Incidentally, the assumption had been that if Princess Elizabeth had succeeded while still underaged, it would have been her uncle, the duke of Gloucester, not her mother, who would have been regent. As the obituary of his wife in this morning’s Times points out, Gloucester’s military career was curtailed because it was felt that he should be around in the event of the king’s death.
As for the OP, there are no legal precedents on the matter, but there is the strong principle that the king never dies. It would be easier to recognise the heir presumptive on condition that he/she subsequently abdicate. If it was a case of a unborn son and an existing elder sister, Parliament would probably just legislate to remove the priority given to sons, assuming that is that the law hadn’t been changed already anyway.
It would be so cute in its little teeny crown!
The crown has to sit on a living head - so there is no possibility of an in-utero monarch.
If William were to die, then Harry would be king, if they both were to die; Andrew, then andrew’s kids, then edward, then edward’s kids, then Anne and her kids, if they were all wiped out it would go to the highest surviving family member (who ever it is from Gloucester and Kent).
But not Henry III, Henry VI or Edward III.
King Ralph! 
Heh. I see a functionary in the delivery room crouched at the end of the mother’s bed with the crown: “Right here, little prince!” 
Close, except you’re forgetting Margaret’s kids.
I think the line of succession is:
[ol][li]The Prince of Wales[/li][li]Prince William of Wales[/li][li]Prince Harry of Wales[/li][li]Andrew, Duke of York[/li][li]Beatrice of York (is she officially “Princess”?)[/li][li]Prince Edward (whatever title he has)[/li][li]Any kids he may have[/li][li]Princess Anne[/li][li]Her son (sorry I forgot his name)[/li][li]Any kids he may have, sons first[/li][li]Anne’s daughter[/li][li]Any kids she may have, sons first[/li][li]the Gloucesters[/li][li]the Kents[/li][li]the Ogilvy family (Princess Alexandra’s offspring)[/li][li]King Harald of Norway (heir of line of George V’s oldest daughter, so he comes next)[/ol][/li]…and so on
Strangely enough, Prince Philip is in line to inherit the throne in his own right, about 120 down on the list, as a descendant of Queen Victoria through his mother.