Just curious. Right now Charles is #1, William #2, and Harry is #3. It’s a foregone conclusion that William will eventually become monarch, coming from the #2 position. It’s unlikely but not unthinkable that Harry would take the crown someday although currently in the #3 position. My question is, which British monarch was furthest down the line of succession before ascending to the throne? Could Harry set the record by coming in from #3 or did someone already do that? What’s the record?
The day William has a child, Harry goes from #3 to #4.
The current Queen was third in line to the crown at her birth, and was certainly not expected to become monarch since Edward VIII was expected to have children of his own someday.
That changed, obviously, with Edward’s abdication.
Setting an early benchmark.
Quuen Victoria, at her birth on May 24, 1819, was fifth in line to succeed her grandfather, King George III. In front of her were her father, the Duke of Kent, and his three older brothers (the Prince of Wales, the Duke of York, and the Duke of Clarence).
She moved up to #3 in 1820, when both George III and the Duke of Kent died. (This also eliminated the possibility of Victoria being supplanted by a younger brother.) The Prince of Wales, of course, became King George IV. Victoria slipped back briefly when Clarence had a daughter, but she died in infancy.
After that, it was just a matter of waiting for the older generation to die away–York in 1827, George IV in 1830, and Clarence (then King William IV) in 1837.
True, but I’m asking has a #3 ever become king. If Harry gets the throne, he may well have to do so from further back than his current #3 spot.
I may be misunderstanding your question, but George I was more than 50 spots removed from Queen Anne by the normal cognatic primogeniture that traditionally governed succession. However everyone between him and Anne were Catholics and barred from the throne.
What do you think the difference is between a king and queen? You asked about a monarch - this includes queens.
Henry Tudor, 2nd Earl of Richmond certainly had a claim but he was very far back and he ended up crowned as King
Of course I know the difference. The monarch is the monarch and if male, king and if female, queen. The king’s spouse is normally made the queen consort but she isn’t the monarch. The queen’s spouse has to my knowledge never been called king consort (Of course William and Mary are the super exception to the one monarch at a time rule). Not sure what prompted the question as I thought I was clear that I was interested in the monarch coming back from furthest down the line.
Thanks- is that the record (the case of the Catholics being booted off the list notwithstanding)?
It’s certainly the record since the Act of Settlement clarified and stabilized the law of succession in 1701.
Before that, there’s really no way to answer the question–there were so many disputes and wars that any given person’s position at any time was subject to change, either by act of Parliament, by the whim of the incumbent monarch, or by battle.
Well, are you discounting people who seized the throne? As Martin said, Henry VII had a claim, but not a particularly strong one, but his army made it work out for him anyways. I don’t recall what claim William III had - it was mainly through his wife, right?
I can’t speak for Mr. Moto, but as I read it, his question
arose because just after you’d been told that
you said
which lead me, if no one else, to believe that suddenly you were only interested in kings to the exclusion of the queen you’d just been told about.
By definition, whomever becomes the next king (or queen) is in the #1 spot at the time, otherwise they wouldn’t be the next king (or queen). If Charles dies before the current queen, then William will be #1. So I’m not sure what you mean by “William will eventually become monarch, coming from the #2 position”.
I was confused too, initially, but not to answer for the OP, it reads to me that s/he is responding to Lemur866’s response re Prince Harry, and in the meantime the two further answers from Mr. Moto and Freddy the Pig slipped in between them.
Elizabeth I was third in line to the throne at the time of her father’s death. Her brother Edward and her older sister Mary were both monarchs before her but both died childless.
2 possible interpretations - “furthest down the list at the time of their birth” or “furthest down the list based on the lowest point they were ever at”. There may, of course, be others.
It’s not really that surprising for people to move up the list. That’s the way it works. If William has a son, the child will be fourth in line. But he’ll also most likely become king eventually as his great grandmother, grandfather, and father die off before him.
This is why it’s always good practice to quote what you’re responding to. 
I’d go for Henry VII. He was far down-and-out as a kid - only a most bizzare concatination of circumstances (plus of course winning in war) made him king - and even then there were lots of folks with better claims: the Tudors spent some time murdering off the better claimants …
George I is another, but those with better claims were in fact barred by act of parlement from succession.