Yes, I’m interested in both, hence my follow up inquiry whether the heads of government in Italy and Ireland have specific age requirements?
Similarly in the US, there’s no statutory age for the Speaker of the House, beyond the minimum age for being elected as a Representative, as the Speaker is chosen from within the House, much like the Prime Minister is.
I’d be curious to see if countries with separately elected heads of government (i.e. not chosen from within their legislative body like the Prime Minister) tend to have explicit age restrictions or not.
France’s 18 is their majority age.
Alfonso XIII was 0 days old, retroactive to 4 months before birth. Hard to beat.
I was going to suggest that someone might have become monarch somewhere at 0 seconds, but then I realised it was a stupid question - as far as I know in the system of Scotland/England/Great Britain, someone else would have ascended the throne if, for example, James V had died before Mary was born. So why did someone else not succeed Alfonso XII the minute he died? A cursory reading of Wikipedia doesn’t provide the answer.
I’m not sure they would have done. As has been mentioned our constitution is to a great extent unwritten and ruled by precedent, so it would take it happening to test the outcome. I think it more likely a regent would be appointed until the unborn heir was born and subsequently reached majority. Whether or not that heir subsequently ascended the throne, or conveniently died in childhood, would be another matter.
OB
Yes, I understand. However, it does seem to be unusual among countries which have a president as head of state. All of the others on the list I linked to (which is very incomplete, not including Panama, Ireland, and Italy, which also have an older age limit) have a minimum of at least 30.
Most cases where the minimum for the head of state/government is just majority age seem to be essentially parliamentary systems (even if the official title, as in Spain, is “President (of Government)” rather than Prime Minister).
But who was the Regent? And how old was the King when the regency ended?
How old was he when he entered parliament? Is there (was there) a minimum age for entering the House of Lords?
My WAG would be that it was 21, the former age of majority.
But there’s no constitutional requirement that they choose a member of the House to be Speaker, just that they choose someone.
You could try clicking the link.
President of Poland has to be at least 35
The earliest someone can become King is at birth. Just for fun I looked for specific instances of this:
[ul]
[li] Louis X King of France (and Navarre) died in 1316 leaving a brother, a daughter, and a pregnant wife. The brother, Phillip the Tall, was appointed Regent; the pregnant wife gave birth to a son Jean, but the son died at five days, making him perhaps the youngest King to die. (Assuming cognatic primogeniture, Jean’s sister Joan should have inherited, but Phillip the Tall argued successfully — in part by arguing that Joan was the offspring of an adulterous union — and established a precedent of Salic Law. Joan did, however, inherit the Kingdom of Navarre.) The brief “reign” of King Jean I was ignored until eventually the next King Jean became known as “Jean II.”[/li][li] The very young Queen Margaret of Scotland, grand-daughter of Alexander III, has already been mentioned. (She also died at an early age and was never crowned.) But Alexander III’s 2nd wife, Yolande de Dreux was pregnant; a son would have become King at birth. In fact, Yolande miscarried; the three-year-old Margaret was summoned from Norway, dying en route.[/li][li] Ladislaus the Posthumous (1440-1457) became Duke of Austria, and Kings of Bohemia and Hungary at birth, though Civil War ensued for other reasons. Ladislaus died at age 17, either by poison, bubonic plague or leukemia.[/li][/ul]
Doubtless there are other interesting examples.
They actually figured it out in advance once. When William IV was aging with no heirs, it was written into law that if he died with one on the way, Victoria would become the monarch (not regent) immediately, then would cease to be queen on the child’s birth.
No, that was Mary - different queen.
That’s quite novel. Was there a pressing reason why Victoria had to be on the throne and not just appointed regent interregnum? I wonder if she would have abdicated as expected. Might make an interesting alternative history novel.
OB
I don’t know for sure, but I imagine it was a combination of fetuses not having personhood, there always being a sovereign, and inability to detect pregnancy in an early state.
It wasn’t up to her, at least if she was obedient to the law. It would have happened automatically, “in the same Manner as if such Child had succeeded to the Crown upon the Demise of Her Royal Highness the Princess Alexandrina Victoria, and as Her Heir.”
Good job British history isn’t peppered with monarchs who thought they were above the law then.
OB
Possibly something to do with the family politics between William and Victoria’s mother (whom he loathed)? Though why making Victoria Queen ad interim would make her any more likely to withstand interference from her mother and her mother’s adviser Conroy, I’m not sure.
It might be because in English law, a fetus has no personhood until born and breathing. A Regent acts for someone who exists but is not capable of acting.
A fetus en ventre sa mère is not a person, and therefore in that situation there would be an interregnum. Victoria as regent would not have anyone to act for.
It’s interesting that that would have been a large sum of money in 1867 when the requirement was set down, but that now it’s pretty minor. $125,000 then, which is in the ‘owning a not-major-city-house outright’ vs $4000 now, which is closer to ‘only owes half on a cheap used car’. I’m guessing that the requirement is not considered important any more since the amount hasn’t been increased due to inflation.