How far down the line has a British monarch come up from?

When Elizabeth was born in 1926, George V was king, and she was at least third in line to the throne, after her uncle (Edward VIII) and her father (George VI). Prince Harry is now fourth in line, after Charles, William, and the newborn prince, but conceivably could become king.

My question: Has there ever been a person who was fourth in line at some point in his life, and then did become the monarch? What about fifth? What is the distance record?

Just wondering.

I think the record is George I, who became King based on the 1701 Act of Settlement which disqualified all Catholics from the throne and established the line through the descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover. IIRC, about 50 superior claimants were bypassed in George’s favour.

When the Revolution occurred, the convention — not a parliament — brought in James II & VII’s son-in-law and nephew ( a grandson of Charles I, married to James’ daughter ) as pretend King along with his wife, as this meant futurely parliament would be sovereign and the King it’s hireling. When they died they substituted James other daughter, Anne, although she was not the direct heir.

When she died they were in a bind, and had to bring in a great-grandson of James I from Hannover, since the 70 odd people in line before him were either catholic which was now against Revolution Rules, or if protestant, refused.

So the line went from descendants of Charles I, of whom there are many still, to descendants of his father, James I. And the lady you mention will now be about 7000th in line from the true monarchy.

Factually correct, Jacobite scum :wink:

I don’t think the rules of succession were as formalized then, but William the Conqueror was something like Edward the Confessors second cousin once removed through a female branch of the family. And he was illegitimate to boot. Which is probably why he was “William the Conqueror” and not “William the Inheritor”.

I’m fairly certain that if you exclude the fully or nearly illegitimate conquests by force ( i.e. William I ) it is ~seventh for Stephen of Blois. See this more or less identical old thread where I go over Stephen in post #36. It’s a contentious argument, but if you put him after William Audelin, William Clito and Mathilda, which seems reasonable to me, he still at one point had three older brothers technically ahead of him.

As a subset of this question, then, I’d be interested to know which monarch, having attained the throne through an unbroken line of uncontested succession, was at some prior date furthest from succession? So if the line goes Elizabeth II - Charles - William - Unnamed infant, that would count as 3, or if some tragic series of events caused all the aforementioned people to predecease Harry, that would count as 4.

Basically I’m discounting any sidesteps, and only curious about sequential passage to an heir.

It’s not a British example, but Louis XV was the third son of Louis XIV’s grandson. That’s pretty far back for a direct inheritance.

When Victoria was born in 1819, her grandfather George III was king. Her father, Edward, and three uncles - George, Frederick, and William - were ahead of her in the line of succession, making her fifth in line at the time of her birth. But all of her uncles died childless so she eventually became Queen at the age of eightteen.

And he was a sickly infant and nearly died. Which would have been a European disaster as it would have left the Spanish Bourbons the only direct heirs by blood and essentially abrogated the long War of Spanish Succession. If Louis XV had kicked it, no way would Philip V of Spain have abided by the Treaty of Uthtecht which forbade the union of the crowns. A War of French Succession would have been inevitable.

…and did a dainty little fist-pump, whispering, “We rule!”

wow! thanks, all!

Interesting note about George III. He himself had fifteen children. But his children didn’t carry on his trait of fertility (at least not with their spouses). At the time of his death at age 81, he only had three grandchildren.

Three legitimate grandchildren.

His son William, Duke of Clarence, had at least 10 children with his mistress, Mrs Jordan, giving George III 10 more grandchildren.

See wiki article on the FitzClarence family: Category:FitzClarence family - Wikipedia

The rightful king of england: Franz, Duke of Bavaria

And if poor little Charlotte (d.1817) had hung on 2 more years, Victoria would have been sixth at one point.

If Charlotte had lived two more years, it’s likely Victoria wouldn’t have been born.

In 1817, Charlotte was the only legitimate daughter of Prince George, the regent and heir apparent, and the only legitimate granddaughter of King George III. So when she died during her first childbirth (the child also died) everyone suddenly realized their was no fallback heir. George III had twelve living children but none of them now had a legitimate heir.

His five daughters were all too old to become mothers. So there was a scramble among the sons to produce a new heir. Five children (one of whom was Victoria) were born in the three years following Charlotte’s death.

Amazing. And weird, judging by all the “[sic]”'s required by a non-weird interpreter of his people’s statements.

And he and his family were in Dachau, when it was in full throttle as a killing machine (as opposed to its original and old use–and meaning of the tem–as a political concentration camp), only to liberated b the Americans.

Now there must be some story on that.

She also had a cousin Elizabeth who was ahead of her for a while, but died in infancy. Elizabeth was born after the deaths of George III and Edward, so didn’t affect Victoria’s lowest ordering. BTW, George IV had a legitimate daughter who married the future King of the Belgians. Their son might have been heir to U.K. and Belgium, but died with mother at birth.

I’d call it an exaggeration to say Victoria’s uncles died childless. King William IV, in particular, fathered several children, at least ten just by the famous and beautiful actress Dorothy Bland. These heirs were, of course, disallowed (whether Catholic or not) due to a rule against bastards.

ETA: On review, I see most of this has been posted already. Oh well …

And Prince Earnest , Duke of Cumberland, had a son, as did Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge. Cambridge also had a daughter, whose daughter, Mary, married George V, and was Elizabeth’s grandmother.