I found aWiki that relates to this. Princess Caroline Matilda of Wales was born after her father died but was still given the title and style of a daughter of a Prince of Wales. Apparntly she also had succesionary rights in accordance with the Act of Settlement. So it’s still a problem if an Heir Presumptive ascends the throne then a posthumous Heir Apparent is born s/he would a superior right of succesion than the reigning monarch. Wouldn’t the infant, once born, be the senior heir of the body of the Electress Sophia? Does the UK (England, Scotland etc) have any precedent with peerage titles that might shed some light on the issue?
[QUOTE=Quartz
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). …
What would happen in between the death and the birth? William’s wife is still Regent. She is the mother of the Heir.
QUOTE]
I don’t think she automatically becomes regent, if there is any other member of the Royal Family who is better qualfied. If William’s wife was only about 20 or so (William is 22) she would hardly have the experience. Probably Anne or Andrew would do the job instead.
And as for Harry - well he is the “official” second in line. But if it ever came down to a serious possibility of his being King, there would be a lot of blood tests being done.
King Jean I of France, posthumous son of Louis X, was proclaimed king in utero. Tragically he died at the age of five days, making him the youngest crowned king in history.
It’s my understanding that the Royal Family prefers, generally, to keep their privacy when possible, avoiding the limelight. They therefore don’t seek out titles as a rule.
And under the British system of ennoblement, the children, other than the eldest son, of a peer, are technically commoners. (The eldest son is too, legally, but gets a courtesy title as heir to the peerage.)
The children of a reigning monarch are automatically princes or princesses, and generally the males get royal dukedoms as well, which are heritable. And of course this continues down the “primary line of succession” – in this case, Charles’s sons, and their children if and when.
Using Tapioca Dextrin’s list from the Royal website, then:
The Prince of Wales, eldest son of the Queen
Prince William of Wales, son of 1, heir of line (heir apparent of the heir apparent to the throne)
Prince Henry of Wales, son of 1
The Duke of York, 2nd son of the Queen
Princess Beatrice of York, elder daughter of 4 and heiress presumptive to York
Princess Eugenie of York, younger daughter of 4
The Earl of Wessex, 3rd son of the Queen
The Lady Louise Windsor, 1-year-old daughter of 7
The Princess Royal, daughter of the Queen
Mr. Peter Phillips, son of 9, no title since he is not in direct male lineage
Miss Zara Phillips, daughter of 9
Viscount Linley, son of the late Princess Margaret the Queen’s sister, ennobled as the son of the Earl of Snowden
The Hon. Charles Armstrong-Jones, son of 12, and only aged 5. He will probably have an honorary title as heir to Linley’s viscounty
The Hon. Margarita Armstrong-Jones, daughter of 12
The Lady Sarah Chatto, daughter of Princess Margaret
Master Samuel Chatto, son of 15
Master Arthur Chatto, son of 15
The Duke of Gloucester, 2nd and only surviving son of the late Henry, Duke of Gloucester, who was 3rd son of George V (and the male heir of line to the Windsor name, by the way – and also the first Richard, Duke of Gloucester, since 1483)
Earl of Ulster, son of 18
The Lady Davina Windsor, daughter of 18
The Lady Rose Windsor, daughter of 18
The Duke of Kent, elder son of the late George, Duke of Kent, 4th son of George V (The official list may possibly be in error here, as George, Earl of St. Andrews #22A, and his son Edward, Baron Downpatrick #22B, should fit in here)
The Lady Marina Charlotte Windsor, daughter of 22A
The Lady Amelia Windsor, daughter of 22A (Again there is a skip, of Lord Nicholas Windsor, 2nd son of #22)
The Lady Helen Taylor, daughter of 22
Master Columbus Taylor, son of 25
Master Cassius Taylor, son of 25
Miss Eloise Taylor, daughter of 25 (Yet another skip is possible, if Prince Michael of Kent #28A is still alive, as the website suggests he is. He is the 2nd son of George, Duke of Kent – see #22)
The Lord Frederick Windsor, son of #28A
The Lady Gabriella Windsor, daughter of #28A
Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy, daughter of George, Duke of Kent (see #22)
Mr. James Ogilvy, son of #31
Master Alexander Ogilvy, son of #32
Miss Flora Ogilvy, daughter of #32
Mrs. Paul Mowatt, daughter of #31
Master Christian Mowatt, son of #35
Miss Zenouska Mowatt, daughter of #35
The Earl of Harewood, heir of line of Mary, Princess Royal, only daughter of King George V (I believe this is her grandson)
Does anyone know why the three possible skips noted above are there?
Polycarp, I think the Earl of St Andrews is married to a Catholic. If so, he’s ineligible to succeed to the throne. His children are probably being raised as Catholics too, making them ineligible.
Prince Michael of Kent is definitely married to a Catholic.
I’m puzzled here… I suppose I can see why the Heir of the Heir (William, #2) would be high in the list, but why would the second son of the Heir (Henry, #3) be ahead of the second son of the Monarch (York, #4)? It seems to me that you would want any second-son branching to be as close to the Monarch as possible.
Good question, but not as helpful as you might think. There have certainly been cases where a posthumous child inherited a peerage, although I can’t think of an example where there was a rival claimant.
But there is a crucial difference between a peerage and the Crown. Peerages can go into abeyance or become dormant, only to be revived at a later date. It is not as if there is any big deal if there is a gap in the succession to a peerage. At most, all it means is that someone doesn’t get to use the title and, until recently, would have been prevented from taking their seat in the Lords. It is not as if a fetus would have much use of a title or a seat in Parliament.
In contrast, there are strong reasons why succession to the Crown should be unbroken. And there are other complications if you assume that succession to the Crown must parallel that of peerage successions. In contrast to the absence of any discussion about posthumous heirs, one issue that was raised by some lawyers during the latter years of George VI’s reign was whether, on the parallel with some peerages, the succession should pass to Princess Elizabeth and Princess Margaret as the late king’s co-heiresses, with the Crown thus going into abeyance. (Neither of the two obvious precedents, Mary I and Elizabeth I, and Mary II and Anne are quite as straightforward as they may seem.) The general reaction was ‘Don’t be so silly’. The rules for succession to the Crown are necessarily different.
I’d give the job to Zara Phillips as she’s a babe (and you just know whe’d be utter filth in bed - horsey chicks usually are.)
I’m also a bit miffed to see that Lady “Melons” Windsor has fallen off the list.
It is possible (just) for a child born after the death of it’s father to inherit the title. It could have happened in Lord Lucan’s case.
If he had impregnanted a woman (with no previous children to his name) and then went missing, the child could inherit the title once he had been declared legally dead (after 7 years) as no one would be sure exactly when he died.
This wouldn’t happen in the case of the Monarchy as we tend not to mislay our Queen very often.
There was the case of the Nepalese Royal Family who’s eldest son was a headcase and wiped out all sorts of nobles, and they pretty much ended up picking the last man standing
The last man standing being the former king’s brother who happened to be in strong political disagreement with him, resulting in all sorts of suspicions (especially since the killer didn’t survive, either).
You’re missing a point there – suppose the Queen trips over a corgi or something and dies tomorrow. Charles then becomes king. Now, his heir is William, his eldest son – but the next in line should be his other son, not his brother.
Just apply that principle backward – heirs of body, males first, over siblings and their heirs, and you come out with the line of succession as T.D. listed it. (Thanks for reminding me about marriage to Catholics, Cunctator – though there is a strangeness about the Kent listing nonetheless – the Earl of St. Andrews is skipped over as you explain, but his daughters, though not his son, are listed, as is his sister and her children but not his brother. *Wass giebt?[i/i])
The skips are people either married to Roman Catholics or who are Roman Catholics. Princess Beatrice is not the heiress presumptive to York. The letters patent gave the title to Prince Andrew and the heirs male of the body. Except for the anceint English baronies and some Scottish titles women are usually excluded from succesion. The have been some exceptions (Countess Mountbatten of Burma, Viscountess Roth, etc) The Queen could issue a remainder changing the letters patent letting Breatrice inheirit the dukedom if it looks like Andrew won’t remarry or have a son. Victoria did that with one of her grandsons.
Hey, I do have a 0.00000001-assed claim to the throne as possibly a multi-illegitimate descendant of the House of York, though it’s definitely either crackpottery or “King Ralph” material to do anything more than joke about it!
