Suppose, in an alternate universe, some tragedy had befallen the royal family and Liz, Charles, and William had all died while new baby prince George was still in utero.
Who is king then? Does the fetus get the crown virtually, with someone acting as regent until he’s born and comes of age? Does it go to Harry until the baby is born? or once it goes to Harry, is the baby out of luck, having missed his window of opportunity?
Different country, but Alfonso XIII of Spain was king before birth. If he’d been a girl, then once the newborn’s gender had been determined, the queen would have been the eldest of his five sisters.
When does the Anglican Church say a foetus becomes a person?
Sorry, I got mixed up between the two Alfonsos: the XIIIth had two sisters and five daughters (the eldest sister stayed as “presumptive heiress” to their father until the child was born, at which point she became his presumptive heiress).
Presumably it’s the same deal as if it happens now: the baby is presumed king/queen and Harry becomes Regent. If for whatever reason the baby is miscarried/stillborn, then Harry becomes King. No one gets to be monarch “temporarily” ; that’s what the Regent’s job is for.
Where it could get awkward is if the accident happened early enough in the pregnancy that it wasn’t known about. That would be an interesting state of affairs - Harry would be King (albeit not crowned in that short a time) until the pregnancy was confirmed then would have to relinquish the title to the zygote.
Of course. If your father died before you were born that wouldn’t stop you from being his heir.
When Alexander III of Scotland died his heir was unborn, but his widow had a miscarriage and his granddaughter succeeded ( and died aged 7: then there was a succession war, but no-one disputed either the baby’s or the granddaughter’s right according to primogeniture and the treaties that had established his succeeding heirs ).
John I of France died 5 days after being born, but he was still King.
The last time a legal opinion was sought on the matter, that was the best guess.
King Henry IX. George would be out of luck. The Victoria exception was created by virtue of the 1830 Act and applied only to her.
If they had died in the same accident, unless who died when could be positively established, the crown succession would have been deemed to have been. Elizabeth—Charles----William----Harry. he would have been considered Williams successor.
Similarly, if Elixabeth and Charles had died during Diana’s pregnancy with William, Andrew would have become King.onlyi stead of being up a Kenyan Tree, he would have been pretending to be an aircraft carrier.
Incidentally, both Andrew and Harry fought in a war and were displaced by a sprog shortly after return. That has to be fixed. Some gratitude.
There is a presumption in some American states - don’t know if it’s true in the UK - that if multiple heirs die in the same accident, and their order of death cannot be established with any certainty (usual example: airplane crash), they are presumed to have died simultaneously. If that were British law, I think the Crown would pass directly from Elizabeth to Harry; Charles and William would never have had the chance to reign.
Adelaide was born in 1792 so at 42 in 1830, another heir was not impossible but I guess Willy wasn’t up for it, so to speak?
I assume the act gave Victoria’s mother Regency rights and the right to determine marriage because they were worried about any other person/regent forcing a marriage that was to their own benefit?
Remember too, that it was up to a year between the death of a monarch and the next coronation. So it’s not as if the baby will be a surprise popping out to spoil the ceremony.
Plus, the law presumes, IIRC any child born up to 300 days after death is the issue of the marriage and an heir.
At common law this was not clear, however since 1925, the deaths are supposed to have occured in order of seniority per section 184 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (different rules in Scotland)
As for the Victoria Act, the reason was that Parliament did not trust either Vicky’s uncles nor her mother.
So in that hypothetical, Charles and William might have been, for a nanosecond each, in that order, Kings of England and Wales but not of Scotland?
There has not been a separate crown for home nations since 1707. Going by that theory, Charles and Williams would have held the crown in turn until it passed to Harry.
All of this is legal tosh at the end of the day. It is a political issue. Parliament could step in and declare that George would be King and the Prince was just keeping the seat warm until George arrived.
Either way whatever happens, Harry would be in for a sudden change in career plans.