I have a question about the succession to the British throne that should be easy to answer, but I’m not sure where to find the answer. Suppose that, in 1952, it was learned just prior to King George VI’s death that his wife, Queen Elizabeth, was pregnant. What would have happened at the time of the king’s death? Would Princess Elizabeth have become Queen, or would we have waited to know the sex of her unborn sibling? Would there have been a regency in the meantime, and if so, who would have been regent? Supposing that the unborn child was found to be a girl, would Elizabeth now be considered to have been Queen from the day of her father’s death? And supposing that the unborn child was found to be a boy, would he be considered to have been king before his birth? And what if Queen Elizabeth (the dowager queen) had given birth to a stillborn boy? Would the child be in the lists of British monarchs?
Now, would any of this be different if we’d learnt about Queen Elizabeth’s pregnancy after the death of King George?
The case hasn’t arisen with respect to the English or British monarchy, but it has happened with the nobility, I believe.
I suspect that she would not, but that she would have been appointed at Regent.
Given that Princess Elizabeth was an adult, and was next in line for the throne, it would have been easiest to make her regent.
Probably yes, in things like dates based on when the monarch acceded to the throne.
No – an unborn person cannot be king: he would be king from birth, with his older sister continuing as Regent.
No, since a stillborn child can’t be monarch.
I suspect so, but I think the situation would require an urgent Act of Parliament to clear things up, since Princess Elizabeth would have been recognised as Queen, and she would need to have her status clarified until her younger sibling was born.
I’ll add one thing: between the death of King George and the birth of his hypothetical son there would have been an interregnum, with no monarch. It’s happened before, for other reasons, the most notable being with the Glorious Revolution in 1688-1689.
Given that she was 52 years old at the time, such a pregnancy would have been very unlikely. And successfully carrying it to term would also have been unlikely, given her age and the medical technology of the time.