# How soon the Crown?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-soon-the-crown/664230
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [July 22, 2013, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-soon-the-crown/664230 "2013-07-22T19:01:15Z")
**Posts on this page:** 15
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)
#### Post date: [July 23, 2013, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-soon-the-crown/664230/21 "2013-07-23T17:45:39Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#):
>
> Henry VI became king at the age of nine months and was declared of age at 11.
No, he was declared of age in 1437 when he was ~16 ( you might be thinking of when he was crowned king of France in 1431 ). Still young though.
> [@](#):
>
> Technically, Richard II reigned from age 11; there was no regent, though his advisers held the real power.
Yeah, this really is just a technicality. There was no regent declared because the best-qualified figure was John of Gaunt, who was deeply unpopular at the time of Edward III’s death. So instead a group of councilors exercised real power. Richard II chafed repeatedly against this domination and began to try to assert himself after 1381 when he was a teenager, but he could not quite shake their control ( and was batted down firmly in 1387 ) until he declared his own majority in May 1389, at age 22.
The takeaway I guess is that until Parliament formalized the matter in the 20th century, the age of majority was an unsettled issue that varied depending on expediency.
---
### Author:  [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2013, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-soon-the-crown/664230/22 "2013-07-24T00:13:11Z")
> [@Quartz](#):
>
> Yes, but we’ve had a regent for an adult monarch before: King George III. Are you really going to expect the Monarch to fit in a part-time degree at the Open University while performing all his official duties? Of course not. In the posited scenario, I can see a Regent being in place until the King has attended university and a tour in the Armed Services
There’s no way a reigning monarch would actually serve in the Armed Forces. There’s too many security issues (& bizarre legal issues) involved for that to happen. I don’t even think he’d even attend school as has been the custom for post-WWII royals; his guardians would revert back to the old ways of governesses and tutors at the palace.
BTW it’s possible in theory for someone to inherit the crown \*before \*they’re even born. It’s happened with peerages and with other monarchies (Spain & Persia for example) Say the Queen, Prince Charles, and Prince William all died in a freak accident last month; the Cambridges’s unborn child would’ve ascended the throne in utero, with Uncle Harry serving as regent until his 18th birthday (Kate would remain his legal guardian). And in the event of a stillbirth his reign would’ve been expunged and King Henry IX’s reign backdated to that freak accident.
---
### Author:  [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2013, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-soon-the-crown/664230/23 "2013-07-24T00:39:02Z")
> [@Quintas](#):
>
> Prince Andrew would be my guess.
If the Queen, Prince Charles, and William all died, I would think that perhaps Harry would become the one in charge until baby-future-king hits 18.
Andrew makes some senses, but wasn’t Harry next in line if Will dies(until yesterday, of course)?
---
### Author:  [@Cazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cazzle)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2013, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-soon-the-crown/664230/24 "2013-07-24T00:54:49Z")
It could happen. William’s job is not without risk, the Queen is 87 and Charles is 64. All three could die before 2031, and it may not even need three freak accidents.
---
### Author:  [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2013, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-soon-the-crown/664230/25 "2013-07-24T04:10:59Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#):
>
> BTW it’s possible in theory for someone to inherit the crown \*before \*they’re even born. It’s happened with peerages and with other monarchies (Spain & Persia for example) Say the Queen, Prince Charles, and Prince William all died in a freak accident last month; the Cambridges’s unborn child would’ve ascended the throne in utero, with Uncle Harry serving as regent until his 18th birthday (Kate would remain his legal guardian). And in the event of a stillbirth his reign would’ve been expunged and King Henry IX’s reign backdated to that freak accident.
AFAIK, only people can inherit the crown. Harry would become King immediately, and if the baby was born alive, it would immediately replace him as monarch.
At least, that’s how the law officers _thought_ it would work when they were asked about it in the 30s. They weren’t 100% sure IIRC, and they basically said that it didn’t matter a whole lot because the magic of an unwritten constitution is the ability to make stuff up as you go along. I’ll see if I can find the documents.
---
### Author:  [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2013, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-soon-the-crown/664230/26 "2013-07-24T04:40:20Z")
[Found it.](http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/TNA/HO_45_23509.htm)
> [@](#):
>
> OPINION OF THE LAW OFFICERS OF THE CROWN AND SIR GEOFFREY ELLIS
> The Regency Act, 1830, provided that the Heiress Presumptive should ascend the Throne as Queen with a saving for the rights of a male posthumous Heir. If such an Heir had been born he would have succeeded and the somewhat anomalous position would have arisen of the Queen’s reign terminating in her lifetime. The debates in the House of Lords show that this was regarded as putting into legislative form the result arrived at by a consideration of feudal law and the special position of the Crown.
> …
> It remains to consider whether legislation is necessary to authorise the succession as provided for in the Act of 1830. It might be said that as Parliament legislated and legislated ad hoc in 1830 there should be legislation now. We are however of opinion that if this is felt to be undesirable the precedent of 1830, coupled with the principle referred to on which we think it is properly based, would be sufficient authority for the succession of the Heiress Presumptive subject to defeasance if the male Heir were born.
Before being explicitly asked their opinion on that issue, they had said (in an opinion on whether Elizabeth could be the sole successor to her father since she had a living sister):
> [@](#):
>
> If the pregnancy terminated in the birth of a son he would be the heir. If no previous statutory provisions for dealing with the interim period between the death and the end of the pregnancy had been made, reliance would have to be placed on the inherent power of the Constitution to make necessary provisions to meet unprecedented circumstances hitherto unprovided for.
IOW, something will happen and it’s not clear what. (But then they were asked specifically on that issue, and they came up with the first thing I quoted, which is that the crown _probably_ goes to the living heir until the superior heir is born, and that a regency on behalf of a reigning fetus probably wouldn’t be legal in Britain.)
---
### Author:  [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2013, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-soon-the-crown/664230/27 "2013-07-24T04:51:38Z")
Why would it just be for a male posthumous heir? If William IV had died, and Queen Adelaide was pregnant, it wouldn’t have mattered if the posthumous child was a girl or a boy - either way, the child would take precedence over Victoria, since William was Kent’s older brother.
---
### Author:  [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2013, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-soon-the-crown/664230/28 "2013-07-24T04:56:48Z")
Hmmm - the wiki article on the Regency Act 1830 states that Victoria would be displaced by either a male or female posthumous child. But the Chief Law Officers opinion quoted upthread refers to a male child.
> **[Regency Act 1830](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regency_Act_1830)**
>
> The Regency Act 1830 (1 Will. 4. c. 2) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed to provide for the event that King William IV died while the next person in line to the throne was not yet aged 18. It provided for a regency until the new monarch reached the age of 18, and also would have enabled a posthumous child of King William IV to replace Queen Victoria on the throne. However, the Act never came into force, because William was not survived by a legitimate child and Victoria ...
---
### Author:  [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2013, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-soon-the-crown/664230/29 "2013-07-24T05:02:54Z")
The [actual act](http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/regency_act.htm#1831) just says “child” too.
---
### Author:  [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2013, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-soon-the-crown/664230/30 "2013-07-24T05:34:10Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#):
>
> BTW it’s possible in theory for someone to inherit the crown \*before \*they’re even born. It’s happened with peerages and with other monarchies (Spain & Persia for example)
It’s happened with one English monarch – though not his inheriting the monarchy. Henry Tudor, later to become King Henry VII, became second Earl of Richmond at birth because his father (the first Earl of Richmond) died before he was born.
---
### Author:  [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2013, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-soon-the-crown/664230/31 "2013-07-24T06:55:34Z")
> [@Eliahna](#):
>
> It could happen. William’s job is not without risk, the Queen is 87 and Charles is 64. All three could die before 2031, and it may not even need three freak accidents.
Of course not. All it needs is 3 murders disguised as accidents.
If Prince Harry is going to be any kind of Shakespearean villain, he needs to quit being lazy and get to work.
---
### Author:  [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2013, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-soon-the-crown/664230/32 "2013-07-24T12:49:39Z")
> [@Flyer](#):
>
> If Prince Harry is going to be any kind of Shakespearean villain, he needs to quit being lazy and get to work.
Maybe he was practicing on his mum?
:ducks and dodges tomatoes:
---
### Author:  [@aNewLeaf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aNewLeaf)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2013, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-soon-the-crown/664230/33 "2013-07-24T22:27:57Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#):
>
> BTW it’s possible in theory for someone to inherit the crown \*before \*they’re even born. It’s happened with peerages and with other monarchies (Spain & Persia for example) Say the Queen, Prince Charles, and Prince William all died in a freak accident last month; the Cambridges’s unborn child would’ve ascended the throne in utero, with Uncle Harry serving as regent until his 18th birthday (Kate would remain his legal guardian). And in the event of a stillbirth his reign would’ve been expunged and King Henry IX’s reign backdated to that freak accident.
Legitimacy doesn’t factor into this at all, from what I’ve read in recent days.
Whoever the actual dad is doesn’t matter, as long as the current marriage is/was legal when the child is born.
Wouldn’t that just throw a wrench in the works? 🙂
---
### Author:  [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)
#### Post date: [July 26, 2013, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-soon-the-crown/664230/34 "2013-07-26T01:29:14Z")
> [@Flyer](#):
>
> Of course not. All it needs is 3 murders disguised as accidents.
>
> If Prince Harry is going to be any kind of Shakespearean villain, he needs to quit being lazy and get to work.
The Nepalese, alas, showed us how it’s done: [Nepalese royal massacre - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_royal_massacre)
---
### Author:  [@Buffalo\_Bilious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buffalo_Bilious)
#### Post date: [July 26, 2013, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-soon-the-crown/664230/35 "2013-07-26T01:47:06Z")
Yes, this is a BIG issue. We should dwell on it and make it our MAJOR CONCERN!!!
Meanwhile, London Yard yearns for the days that they only had to deal with a bunch of pissed-off Irishmen instead of the Muslim horde.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-soon-the-crown/664230.md?page=1)