George was actually Bertie before he became George VI. (Well, he was Albert Frederick Arthur George.) What was different about his ascension after Ed quit was that it shifted the whole line of the succession over to another branch of the family.
If Liz were to retire, Charles would still be next in line. If Charles dies before Liz, William will still be next. In other cases, if the king or queen died or quit, after producing an heir, that heir could still take the throne.
But Edward had no children, so the throne passed to his brother, and thence to that brother’s heir (Elizabeth), thus changing the whole royal line.
Really makes you wonder how the 10-year-old Elizabeth Alexandra Mary felt when she found out that her uncle was quitting his job and as the result thereof she’d be Queen one day.
Most probably for the better. There are all kinds of oddities about the reigning Royal Family, but Edward leaned way too much towards nazis (even the German kind) for my tastes. Good that he wasn’t King during the years of WWII.
She was already second in line to the throne before Edward abdicated. The only chance that this would change would be if Wallis had a child, which was moderately unlikely.
I suspect the hope was that he’d dump Wallis to keep the throne, and so could have married someone of child bearing years, given that spawning an heir has generally held to be one of the monarch’s jobs.
So let’s see if I’ve learned anything from this thread: While Edward was still King, she was “heir presumptive”, not “heir apparent” because Ed could still have produced a heir of his own.
When Uncle Ed quit and Pa Bertie became George VI, she was still heir presumptive and not heir apparent because George could still have had a son who would have become next-in-line.
So young Princess Lilibet was never “heir apparent” then? She was always heir presumptive until the day George died, at which point she suddenly became “heir(ess)”, neither presumptive nor apparent.
Do I have this right? (We Mericuns aren’t usually taught much of these matters.)
What would have happened if Queen Elizabeth’s mother had been pregnant with what turned out to be a male kid? Would things have been held in limbo until King Whatsis the SomeNumber was born?
Do you mean on the day that the King died? Then the Queen would have a younger brother, who would be heir presumptive until the birth of the Queen’s first child.
No. Elizabeth would have inherited the throne. The throne goes to the first in line. An unborn child is not in the line of succession.