Who succeeds her? Has this situation ever happened before?
Unless they slither out together on a toboggan, one has to be older than the other.
Even identical twins come out one at a time. So one must be older than the other and would take precedence.
Unless she was Catherine the Great…
That works until the diabolical “younger” one drugs and quietly switches pajamas with the would-be monarch at a young age.
So this question has nothing to do with butterflys?
Allright then.
Typically, he offers his brother a mess of pottage by way of sweetening the deal. 
:eek:
I actually laughed out loud, which is rare for me when I’m reading.
You weren’t the only one who came into this thread thinking that.
After all, why ask about a female monarch? Same deal if the monarch is a male and his consort gives birth to twins. In fact, it doesn’t even matter if the twins are identical, excepet that it might be easier to tell them apart later.
Well, that would complicate things. First she’d lay a kazillion identical eggs . . .
What if it was a c-section and both were extracted at the same time? Assuming the twins are male/male, female/female, or male/female (equal succcesion law). Or what if the royal twins were conjoined? Have there ever been royal conjoined twins?
I presume that jjimm was referring to the old legends about the alleged, erm, non-mainstream sexual proclivities of Catherine the Great, with the implication being that her birth canal would have thereby been sufficiently distended as to allow for the simultaneous passage of two princes. I doubt that such would have been sufficient, however, even in the unlikely event that the legends were correct, as a horse’s reproductive member, large though it may be, is still somewhat smaller than the head of even a single newborn human, and the pelvic bone (which would not stretch) is only just large enough for a single such newborn.
Even with a c-section, they are lifted out one at a time. I imagine an incision large enough to take two babies out through simultaneously would very likely kill the mother.
I can’t think of any monarchy except for the Japanese emperor that has lasted all that long before there was some sort of controversy that needed to be settled with force of arms. Especially in the situations where the monarchy wielded significant power. It seems to me that every few centuries there was some kind of power struggle in England over the heir to the throne.
Typically one twin will be kidnapped with the intent to murder him, probably by an evil uncle with pretensions to the throne, however his soft-hearted henchman will be moved to spare the infant, probably giving him to a poor but honest couple with no children of their own: complications will ensue when the lad grows up and is mistaken for his brother the Prince, to whom he bears an uncanny resemblance, but all will come right in the end, as the evil uncle, almost certainly Regent by now, gets his lumps and the urchin is crowned King, since the erstwhile kidnappee is inevitably the older sibling.
I bet they just hand over the throne to King Ralph.
It’s the way you tell 'em.
From “The horse and his boy.”