If the Queen of England gave birth while unmarried, would the child become the heir apparent?
Royal succession of the British throne is governed by statute, and the current statute (at least in the UK) limits heirs to the throne to legitimate descendents of Sophia, Electress of Hanover, minus any wily papists or spouses thereof. So under current law, an out-of-wedlock child could not inherit the throne.
However, Parliament in their wisdom could see fit to amend this at any time.
The Parliaments of all the other Commonwealth countries that have Elizabeth II as their monarchs could choose to do the same thing in order to keep everything in sync, but they don’t have to. The result might be a split in the monarchy with regard to the Commonwealth realms.
Developing the idea…It’s my understanding that if HRM had not married or not had children, the succession would devolve to HRH Margaret. At this point, since Margaret’s passing, that would put her son David, Viscount Linley, next in line.
It appears not. The rules of succession as stated in the Acts of Settlement state that;
Heirs of the body (as nearly as I can tell) only refers to legitimate children, that is to say children born to parents legally married to each other.
Thanks for the information. I had only read about male offspring from outside the marriage. I was thinking it might be different for women. As there could be no doubt about the royal parent.
According to Blackstone, the reasoning is so that the some other man does not secretly have his real offspring in the place of the King, which is possible when the monarch is male. This is not possible when the monarch is female. Also, the monarch can do no wrong. If Liz II had only a child outside marriage, it would certainly be of the body of the monarch. If she were married at the time, it would be presumed that the consort was the father.
In a previous thread, somebody quoted the relevant Canadian law which says that the Canadian monarch is automatically whoever the British monarch is. So no throne splitting there.
But you are correct that it can happen. Probably the most notable split involving the British throne occurred when William IV died in 1837. His niece Victoria was heir to the British throne. But Hanover did not allow female monarchs, so the Hanoverian throne instead went to William’s brother, Ernest Augustus.
None of the Commonwealth realms have their own succession laws. They all have constitutional arrangements which basically say that “whoever is monarch in the UK is monarch here too”.
By the Statute of Westminster, the UK Parliament has bound itself not to make any change in the UK succession laws without the consent of the Parliaments of the various Commonwealth realms.
So this change, if made, would affect all the commonwealth realms and there would be no split in the monarchy. But it will only be made if they all agree that it should be.
But if the Queen later married the faqther, would the child then become ‘legitimate’ and thus eligible to inherit the throne?
Depends on UK law, I suppose. But in Catholic theology (and maybe Anglican?) marriage of the parents makes all children, pre- or post- marriage, legitimate.
Nitpick(s): Catholic theology does not deal with legitimacy; Catholic canon law does. It’s true that the current Code of Canon law legitimates the already-born children of parents who later marry, but I think that’s a comparatively recent development. I don’t know whether Anglican canon law has anything at all to say about legitimacy or, if it does, whether it follows the current or former Catholic position.
But, in any case, neither Catholic nor Anglican canon law have any relevance here; succession to the crown is governing by UK statute law.
At common law, a bastard remained a bastard, notwithstanding the later marriage of his or her parents. This was changed in the UK by a series of statutes in the twentieth century - the Legitimacy Acts. However the Legitimacy Acts contain carve-outs; legitimation is irrelevant to succession to the crown (and, indeed, to succession to peerage titles). A child born out of wedlock will not inherit the crown, despite subsequent legitimation.
That wasn’t possible in English law until 1926, and that law excluded “succession to any dignity or title of honour” from the new definitions of legitimacy.
It is a good think the Queen has heirs of the body. Otherwise we would have to bring back the Whigs!
Either that, or the Merkins would be taking over! 
I understand that people are interested in the idea and principle of royalty, but I fail to see why anyone thinks this hypothetical case is worth discussing. Barring some disaster, the succession is now fixed for all of our lifetimes.
Not really so simple. The recent change to overrule primogeniture required each state to amend its laws.
At this point we would be splitting heirs.
Go to your room!
- The last Queen of England died 300 years ago.
- At common law, heirs of the body meant “legitimate” children. Bastards as Blackstone points out could not inherit. However, since the concept of bastardry was abolished in English law in (IIRC) 1989, it is not clear whether this construction would still hold the field. There are two possibilities
i) That the new 1989 regime will hold the field and bastards will inherit in the same manner as legitimate children.
or
ii) That the traditional interpretation will triumph, that bastards are excluded. This has never been obviously tested wrt the Crown since abolition (, but has been applied for peerages, even after the abolition of bastardry, only legitimate kids can inherit a title…although admittedly many peerage letters patent expressly excluded bastards by name, which is not the case with the 1701 Act.
My own opinion, that if it happens, Parliament will simply pass an Act to clarify the issue. It could have come up with Will and Kate, they lived in sin for years before marrying and presumably had intercourse., If a pregnancy had resulted…
Indeed. Christopher Guest didn’t inherit his title as Count Rugen, but he is, in real life, a member of the British Peerage as Baron Haden-Guest.
The only reason he inherited the title is because his older brother (Anthony Haden-Guest) was born before his parents’ marriage.
Zev Steinhardt
“Elizabeth II, Dei Gratia Magnae Britanniae, Hiberniae et terrarum transmarinarum quae in ditione sunt Britannica Regina, Fidei Defensor” is a bit unwieldy though. 
Only by Catholic standards. Late 12th century under Pope Alexander III. A more restrictive version of the rule goes back all the way to Roman law.