# Queen Catherine **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 17, 2011, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-catherine/578705 "2011-04-17T05:53:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-catherine/578705/1 "2011-04-17T05:53:40Z")
I’ve heard that if you go back far enough, Prince William and Kate Middleton are distant cousins. So how many people would have to die, to make her Queen in her own right? (assuming that there are no additional births or deaths) ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-catherine/578705/2 "2011-04-17T06:03:22Z")
Evidently they are [12th cousins once removed](http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/40919-prince-william-a-kate-middleton-are-distant-cousins)via Sir Thomas Leighton, who lived in the late 1500s. However, just because they are related doesn’t put Catherine in the line of royal succession. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-catherine/578705/3 "2011-04-17T06:12:40Z")
She isn’t a descendant of the Electress Sophia of Hanover, so she’s not in the line of succession at all. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-catherine/578705/4 "2011-04-17T06:21:56Z")
There are a couple of thousand or so people who are in the line of succession: > **[Succession to the British throne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_British_throne)** > > Succession to the British throne is determined by descent, sex,\[note 1\] legitimacy, and religion. Under common law, the Crown is inherited by a sovereign's children or by a childless sovereign's nearest collateral line. The Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701 restrict succession to the throne to the legitimate Protestant descendants of Sophia of Hanover who are in "communion with the Church of England". Spouses of Catholics were disqualified from 1689 until the law was amended i... ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-catherine/578705/5 "2011-04-17T15:32:46Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > She isn’t a descendant of the Electress Sophia of Hanover, so she’s not in the line of succession at all. Presumably if all of Sophia’s descendants were wiped out in some terrible yet specific cataclysm, or perhaps a targeted Mossad strike in revenge for King John, they would go further up the tree. Since Sophia had a dozen siblings, none of them ancestors of Kate Middleton, it’s sort of a moot point. (Some of Sophia’s siblings were older and had kids: I wonder why she was given the crown over them? ETA: Found the answer very quickly. The only one of the lots with non-Catholic descendants.) ---
**Author:** ![Pai325](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@Pai325](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pai325)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-catherine/578705/6 "2011-04-17T17:00:34Z")
I would imagine most of Britain and a lot of Europe. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-catherine/578705/7 "2011-04-17T17:13:21Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > Presumably if all of Sophia’s descendants were wiped out in some terrible yet specific cataclysm… I think any such cataclysm would involve the sudden destruction of (Western) Europe so it’s kind of a moot point who’d become King of what used to be the UK. Plus I’m sure the don’t all live in Europe. Bottom line, Kate Middleton will never be Queen in her own right no matter how many people die. Now if King William V dies leaving an underage heir she is the most likely candidate for Regent, but that would only last, at most, 18 years. ---
**Author:** ![Michael\_of\_Lucan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/dbc845/32.png) [@Michael\_of\_Lucan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael_of_Lucan)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-catherine/578705/8 "2011-04-17T18:45:24Z")
The list of people in line for the British throne is a long one. There are many around the world, and particularly here in Ireland. One of my wife’s relations is somewhere in the line of succession. At the last count, he would have to assassinate several hundred people to get to the crown. Having given the matter careful consideration, he has decided that it is not worth the effort. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-catherine/578705/9 "2011-04-17T20:54:02Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > Bottom line, Kate Middleton will never be Queen in her own right no matter how many people die. Now if King William V dies leaving an underage heir she is the most likely candidate for Regent, but that would only last, at most, 18 years. What if (hypothetical future) King William were to get Kate pregnant, then die before the child was born? Would Harry become king or would the unborn child be the heir? ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-catherine/578705/10 "2011-04-17T21:00:58Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > What if (hypothetical future) King William were to get Kate pregnant, then die before the child was born? Would Harry become king or would the unborn child be the heir? The only situation I can think of where the child might NOT be the heir is if she were to marry someone else while pregnant, since New Husband would be the child’s legal father; can anyone knowledgeable comment? ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-catherine/578705/11 "2011-04-17T21:04:16Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > What if (hypothetical future) King William were to get Kate pregnant, then die before the child was born? Would Harry become king or would the unborn child be the heir? The unborn child would still be his heir. A regent (most likely Queen Catherine, possibly Prince Harry) would be appointed to rule while it was still unborn and for 18 yrs afterward. This situation has never arised with the British or English crowns (not sure about Scotland), but it was happened with peerages. Spain also had at least one king who inheirited the throne before he was born. Whenever a king leaves behind a widow and no living son & heir his successor’s Accession Proclamation includes a phrase saying something like “barring any issue by the late King’s widow Queen _X_” no matter how old she is or how unlikely it is that she’s pregnant. ---
**Author:** ![A.Gwilliam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ea5d25/32.png) [@A.Gwilliam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A.Gwilliam)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-catherine/578705/12 "2011-04-17T23:43:03Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > Presumably if all of Sophia’s descendants were wiped out in some terrible yet specific cataclysm, or perhaps a targeted Mossad strike in revenge for King John, they would go further up the tree. Since Sophia had a dozen siblings, none of them ancestors of Kate Middleton, it’s sort of a moot point. From a legal point of view, and thus ignoring the wider implications of said cataclysm, the difficulty is that the requirement that the Sovereign be an heir of the body of the Electress Sophia is something set down in an Act of Parliament. Still, they’ve got round this sort of logical difficulty in the past. Henry VII, Mary (I), Elizabeth I, James I, and Williamandmary were all declared to be (or recognised as) King/Queen of England by an Act of Parliament. Each of those respective Acts of Parliament was a valid Act because it had been assented to by the very person(s) whom the Act declared to be King/Queen…! ---
**Author:** ![A.Gwilliam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ea5d25/32.png) [@A.Gwilliam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A.Gwilliam)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-catherine/578705/13 "2011-04-17T23:55:51Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > The unborn child would still be his heir. A regent (most likely Queen Catherine, possibly Prince Harry) would be appointed to rule while it was still unborn and for 18 yrs afterward. This situation has never arised with the British or English crowns (not sure about Scotland), but it was happened with peerages. Spain also had at least one king who inheirited the throne before he was born. I believe that it also happened in France at least once. > [@](#): > > Whenever a king leaves behind a widow and no living son & heir his successor’s Accession Proclamation includes a phrase saying something like “barring any issue by the late King’s widow Queen _X_” no matter how old she is or how unlikely it is that she’s pregnant. Not always. It famously happened in the case of Victoria’s accession. But it didn’t happen in 1952. I have a vague notion that in Victoria’s case the special wording was necessary because of an Act of Parliament that was current at the time. It’s perhaps worth noting that the accession proclamation doesn’t actually carry any real legal standing; in essence it’s a fancy press release. In 1952 they even got the royal titles wrong!