Let’s say we had a reigning King, who has no children. The next person in line is his brother. Let’s say this King dies, but just before he died he managed to get the Queen pregnant with his child.
Who would be in charge? I’m assuming the brother would be crowned King, but would that change when his nephew is born?
The unborn child would inheirit the throne and the brother would act as regent until the young monarch came of age.
In the 1830s, they had it set up so that if William IV died leaving behind a pregnant Queen Adelaide, Victoria would have become the Queen (not a regent), but she would have immediately lost the throne upon the birth of the child. However, that was laid out by an act of Parliament specific only to that situation, so there may not be a concrete answer for general cases.
Since this is GQ, I can’t let this thread just drop off the first page without this being challenged. I am not terribly well versed in the rules of British succession, but this does not sound right to me. Surely it is children who have actually been born who count? Unborn children, not so much.
Unborn children surely do count in succession. I’m sure I’ve read of cases in the distant past in which a period of time had to elapse to ensure that the wife of a deceased king was not pregnant before the succession passed to more distant relatives.
Earlier threads asking the same question:
The only time it was ever seriously worried about, you were correct. The accession would have happened at the moment of birth, at which point there would have been a legal fiction that Queen Victoria had died.
But as I said earlier, that was because of specific wording of an act of Parliament. I really don’t think there is an answer that applies to general cases. They’d probably have to make things up as it happened.
OK, but it does not seem that the unborn child would automatically inherit the throne, as has been suggested.
Because the basis of the succession is not statutory (the Act of Settlement, etc. only modify the rules of succession), it’s going to be difficult to give you a definitive citation. However, alphaboi867 was definitely wrong (or had the right thing in mind but expressed it poorly). The unborn son would only succeed once born.
Here’s an extract from the Act of Parliament passed soon after the accession of William IV:
(Emphasis added.)
Note that the Act doesn’t directly deprive “Alexandrina Victoria” of the throne if a posthumous son arrives on the scene; it simply assumes that this will happen as a matter of existing law.
Once a Sovereign (A) dies, the succession is instantaneous and automatic. Whoever was heir apparent immediately before the death succeeds; if there is no heir apparent, the heir presumptive (B) succeeds. However, if a male child (C) is subsequently born then B is automatically displaced by C, who becomes Sovereign in her place. There is no interregnum with everyone waiting for C to be born. Of course the coronation would probably be put off, but they don’t usually happen for a year or so after the accession anyway, and in the UK the coronation itself doesn’t affect the legal status of the Sovereign (leaving aside obscure issues regarding the coronation oath).
We don’t know the answers to all the possible implications of this, because it’s never happened to the British throne. That’s the reason for the 1830 Act: to try and avoid potential problems caused by the existing law of succession.
And for anyone who’s wondering if there’s a difference caused by England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland having different laws: the Acts of Union made the English law of succession operative throughout the realm.
Louis X of France died with a pregnant wife and no other sons; the child was male and became John I, but died shortly after birth and thus was one of the shortest reigning kings in history. In this case Wikipedia indicates that there was an interregnum with the next heir as regent for the duration of the pregnancy.