Until 2013, Britain and the other Commonwealth kingdoms followed the principle of male-preference primogeniture for the succession to the throne. Under such a system, sons take precedence over daughters in the line of succession, regardless of age. Elizabeth II could ascend to the throne only because she had no brothers, and this is why she was never heir apparent during the life of George VI - the birth of a younger brother would have superseded her in the line of succession.
But what would have happened, hypothetically, if the birth of a brother had occurred after accession? Let’s suppose that at the time of George VI’s death, his wife Elizabeth (later known as “Queen Mum”) had been pregnant with a boy. Would the subsequent birth of that boy have replaced Elizabeth? Or would the rule have been that the moment of George’s death she became Queen automatically, and things happening thereafter would not have had an impact on the accession of an already ruling monarch?
Note that you don’t need male primogeniture for such a situation to happen. If a king died before his first child is born, his brother or nephew would provisionally ascend to the throne, but could be recalled after the birth of a direct heir.
Toward the end of this page there’s some correspondence between government officials and lawyers on what would happen if George VI died with a son on the way. They came to the opinion that the aforementioned 1830 act, while only specifically applying to the succession to William IV, merely stated the pre-existing general law and that Elizabeth II would have been immediately displaced by her baby brother:
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.
Also IIRC the reason for waiting a “year of mourning” after the death of a husband before a wife should remarry. I presume there are some cases of the wife of a titled person giving birth after the husband’s death. I assume it does not disinherit the child for (share of) estate inheritance, why would it disinherit them of titles?
Since the OP has been answered I’ll brave adding this tangential information:
The Norwegian crown prince has an elder sister. When the law of succession was changed in 1990 the Norwegian parliament chose not to let it apply to previous generations. Probably because our present king, the crown prince at the time, had been crown prince for 33 years at the time.
The Swedish crown princess has a younger brother who was crown prince for a few months before changes in the new law of succession came into force in 1980.
If you want a really tricky hypothetical: What would have happened if the Swedish King had died in the period between the Swedish parliament deciding on the new law and establishing that the intent was for Sweden to ditch male-preference, and the official start date of that law?
Ah, seems that hypothetical is (was) well covered in Britain, even if in the form of an Act which on its face applies specifically to Victoria’s ascension but which is thoight as embodying a general principle. Thanks for the replies!
There have been posthumous kings of France and Spain. King John of France died five days after birth, but Alfonso XIII lived to his majority and reigned.
John of France was succeeded by his uncle, establishing Salic Law in France, rather than by his four year olfd half-sister.
Alfonso left Spain in 1931, in the lead-up to the civil wars, and formally renounced the throne in 1941.
A delay is inevitable, since the next monarch becomes monarch instantaneously on the death of the current monarch, and some time must elapse before a coronation ceremony can be organised.
The larger and grander and more lavish a coronation ceremony, and associated events, you want, the longer it’s going to take to plan and organise. There’s no particular reason for haste.
With respect to the timing of coronations, I’ve always found it an amusing coincidence that the coronation of Elizabeth II in 1953 coincided, to the day, with the arrival of the news of the first ascent of Mount Everest.
Under the law in force at the time (which theoretically might have been changed to deal with the circumstances), she would have eventually become the regent, from her 21st birthday in 1947 until her brother’s 18th birthday. The Duke of Gloucester (her uncle) would have been regent until she was 21, as well as during her own reign (unless her mother had a very late pregnancy).
I have a booklet my mother saved, the coronation procession of the coronation of Elizabeth II. It lists the groups participating in the parade, it goes on for quite a few pages. There were a large number of parade troops from all over the commonwealth. Between that and the arrangements to set up the ceremony, the planning and logistics - no wonder it was a year.
IIRC, Edward VII who abdicated always resented that he was forced to abdicate before he got around to a coronation.
I suppose that’s Edward VIII? Edward VII (son of Victoria) had a coronation, but it had to be postponed by half a year because he had to undergo surgery shortly prior to the originally scheduled date. There’s a long line of case law in English law that followed, because many owners of apartments along the procession route had leased out their balconies to prospective viewers for the day of the coronation. The legal question was whether they could still collect the rent even though no procession was held on that day. It’s still an important source of case law relating to impossibility and frustration in contracts (Wiki link).
Seems unlikely. Edward VIII had shown almost no interest in the preparations when he was still King. Archbishop Lang thus got the impression that he was ‘strangely detached from the whole matter’. Roy Strong has even suggested that, ‘Reading between the lines it is clear that he [Edward], following William IV, never wanted a Coronation in the first place’ (Coronation (2005), p. 422).
