# Royal Succession of a Fetus **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 24, 2013, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-of-a-fetus/664404 "2013-07-24T18:44:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![gonzoron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a6a055/32.png) [@gonzoron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzoron)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-of-a-fetus/664404/1 "2013-07-24T18:44:21Z")
Suppose, in an alternate universe, some tragedy had befallen the royal family and Liz, Charles, and William had all died while new baby prince George was still in utero. Who is king then? Does the fetus get the crown virtually, with someone acting as regent until he’s born and comes of age? Does it go to Harry until the baby is born? or once it goes to Harry, is the baby out of luck, having missed his window of opportunity? ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-of-a-fetus/664404/2 "2013-07-24T18:47:57Z")
Different country, but [Alfonso XIII](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfonso_XIII_of_Spain) of Spain _was_ king before birth. If he’d been a girl, then once the newborn’s gender had been determined, the queen would have been the eldest of his five sisters. ---
**Author:** ![aNewLeaf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ac91a4/32.png) [@aNewLeaf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aNewLeaf)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-of-a-fetus/664404/3 "2013-07-24T19:01:09Z")
When does the Anglican Church say a foetus becomes a person? ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-of-a-fetus/664404/4 "2013-07-24T19:08:38Z")
Sorry, I got mixed up between the two Alfonsos: the XIIIth had two sisters and five daughters (the eldest sister stayed as “presumptive heiress” to their father until the child was born, at which point she became his presumptive heiress). ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-of-a-fetus/664404/5 "2013-07-24T19:27:34Z")
Presumably it’s the same deal as if it happens now: the baby is presumed king/queen and Harry becomes Regent. If for whatever reason the baby is miscarried/stillborn, then Harry becomes King. No one gets to be monarch “temporarily” ; that’s what the Regent’s job is _for_. Where it could get awkward is if the accident happened early enough in the pregnancy that it wasn’t known about. _That_ would be an interesting state of affairs - Harry would be King (albeit not crowned in that short a time) until the pregnancy was confirmed then would have to relinquish the title to the zygote. ---
**Author:** ![Claverhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-of-a-fetus/664404/6 "2013-07-24T19:45:14Z")
Of course. If your father died before you were born that wouldn’t stop you from being his heir. When Alexander III of Scotland died his heir was unborn, but his widow had a miscarriage and his granddaughter succeeded ( and died aged 7: then there was a succession war, but no-one disputed either the baby’s or the granddaughter’s right according to primogeniture and the treaties that had established his succeeding heirs ). John I of France died 5 days after being born, but he was still King. ---
**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:** [July 24, 2013, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-of-a-fetus/664404/7 "2013-07-24T21:25:38Z")
> [@gonzoron](#): > > Does it go to Harry until the baby is born? The [last time](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16505826#post16505826) a legal opinion was sought on the matter, that was the best guess. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-of-a-fetus/664404/8 "2013-07-24T22:32:46Z")
King Henry IX. George would be out of luck. The Victoria exception was created by virtue of the 1830 Act and applied only to her. If they had died in the same accident, unless who died when could be positively established, the crown succession would have been deemed to have been. Elizabeth—Charles----William----Harry. he would have been considered Williams successor. Similarly, if Elixabeth and Charles had died during Diana’s pregnancy with William, Andrew would have become King.onlyi stead of being up a Kenyan Tree, he would have been pretending to be an aircraft carrier. Incidentally, both Andrew and Harry fought in a war and were displaced by a sprog shortly after return. That has to be fixed. Some gratitude. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-of-a-fetus/664404/9 "2013-07-26T01:36:53Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > …If they had died in the same accident, unless who died when could be positively established, the crown succession would have been deemed to have been. Elizabeth—Charles----William----Harry… There is a presumption in some American states - don’t know if it’s true in the UK - that if multiple heirs die in the same accident, and their order of death cannot be established with any certainty (usual example: airplane crash), they are presumed to have died simultaneously. If that were British law, I think the Crown would pass directly from Elizabeth to Harry; Charles and William would never have had the chance to reign. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-of-a-fetus/664404/10 "2013-07-26T01:54:34Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > King Henry IX. George would be out of luck. The Victoria exception was created by virtue of the 1830 Act and applied only to her. > > If they had died in the same accident, unless who died when could be positively established, the crown succession would have been deemed to have been. Elizabeth—Charles----William----Harry. he would have been considered Williams successor. > > Similarly, if Elixabeth and Charles had died during Diana’s pregnancy with William, Andrew would have become King.onlyi stead of being up a Kenyan Tree, he would have been pretending to be an aircraft carrier. > Incidentally, both Andrew and Harry fought in a war and were displaced by a sprog shortly after return. That has to be fixed. Some gratitude. > [@](#): > > Regency Act 1830[edit] > > Main article: Regency Act 1830 > > In 1830 the throne passed to George III’s third-eldest son, King William IV. But William IV had no legitimate children, and given the age of his wife, Queen Adelaide, he was unlikely to have any in the future. The heiress presumptive to the throne was his niece, Princess Victoria of Kent, who was only eleven. > > As Victoria’s father was dead, and Parliament mistrusted the younger sons of George III, the Act (1 Will. 4 c. 2) placed any potential regency caused by the King’s death before Victoria had reached 18, in her mother, the Duchess of Kent. However if Queen Adelaide gave birth to a child, that child was to become king or queen instead of Victoria, and Adelaide would become regent. If such a birth occurred after the King’s death, his child was to immediately succeed Victoria, in Victoria’s lifetime, as king or queen. The Act prohibited either monarch from marrying during the regency without the Regent’s consent, and made it high treason to marry the monarch without such consent, or to assist in or be concerned in the marriage. The Act also prohibited the regent from giving royal assent to a bill to change the line of succession to the throne, or to repeal or alter the Act of Uniformity 1662 or the Scottish Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Act 1707.[1] > > However since Victoria became queen aged 18, and Queen Adelaide had no more children, a regency was unnecessary and the Act never came into force. Adelaide was born in 1792 so at 42 in 1830, another heir was not impossible but I guess Willy wasn’t up for it, so to speak? I assume the act gave Victoria’s mother Regency rights and the right to determine marriage because they were worried about any other person/regent forcing a marriage that was to their own benefit? Remember too, that it was up to a year between the death of a monarch and the next coronation. So it’s not as if the baby will be a surprise popping out to spoil the ceremony. Plus, the law presumes, IIRC any child born up to 300 days after death is the issue of the marriage and an heir. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-of-a-fetus/664404/11 "2013-07-26T03:28:49Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > There is a presumption in some American states - don’t know if it’s true in the UK - that if multiple heirs die in the same accident, and their order of death cannot be established with any certainty (usual example: airplane crash), they are presumed to have died simultaneously. If that were British law, I think the Crown would pass directly from Elizabeth to Harry; Charles and William would never have had the chance to reign. At common law this was not clear, however since 1925, the deaths are supposed to have occured in order of seniority per section 184 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (different rules in Scotland) As for the Victoria Act, the reason was that Parliament did not trust either Vicky’s uncles nor her mother. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-of-a-fetus/664404/12 "2013-07-26T04:42:44Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > At common law this was not clear, however since 1925, the deaths are supposed to have occured in order of seniority per section 184 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (different rules in Scotland)… So in that hypothetical, Charles and William might have been, for a nanosecond each, in that order, Kings of England and Wales but not of Scotland? ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/royal-succession-of-a-fetus/664404/13 "2013-07-26T09:45:45Z")
There has not been a separate crown for home nations since 1707. Going by that theory, Charles and Williams would have held the crown in turn until it passed to Harry. All of this is legal tosh at the end of the day. It is a political issue. Parliament could step in and declare that George would be King and the Prince was just keeping the seat warm until George arrived. Either way whatever happens, Harry would be in for a sudden change in career plans.