If something fatal happened to Prince William, who would be in line after Charles? The new baby or Harry?
I’m thinking Harry. After Charles’ demise, his only surviving son would be the next in line, right? And then Harry’s children, if any. So where would the yet-unnamed baby fit in?
No, it’s the new baby. Primogeniture will go down William’s line until there are no offspring. If no viable candidates are there, only then will it hop to Harry.
edit: The Evil Uncle who does away with the Young and Innocent Nephew/Heir Apparent to claim the throne for himself is a well-worn trope.
Not just a trope, viz Richard III and “The Princes in the Tower”
Should the Queen, Prince Charles, and Prince William all be suddenly wiped out by a virulent disease contracted from a dirty telephone, Prince As-yet-to-be-named would indeed become King, but Prince Harry would be named Regent until the young King turns 18.
So he’s got that goin’ for him, which is nice.
The Prince Formerly Known as Foetus.
As a minor hijack, here’s my own order of succession as of 2012. Feel free to correct.
Heirs of Elizabeth II:
Prince of Wales
Duke of Cambridge
Prince Henry
Duke of York
Princess Beatrice
Princess Eugenie
Prince Edward
James Windsor
Lady Louise Windsor
Princess Royal
Peter Philips
Savannah Philips
Isa Philips
Zarah Philips
Descendants of Princess Margaret:
David Armstrong-Jones
Hon. Charles Armstrong-Jones
Hon. Margarita Armstrong-Jones
Lady Sarah Chatto
So Prince Harry now gets bumped to #4.
Actually, I believe Parliament would appoint a Regent, and that could be somebody else, but Harry’d be the way to bet.
It’s been automatic since 1937. It’s the next qualified person in the line of succession.
So, if in 1937 King George VI had died, since the Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret were under 18, the next son of George V, i.e. Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, would have become regent. (At the time he was third in the line of succession, after the daughters of George VI.)
In that case it would have been Queen Elizabeth. She had a special provision making her the regent for her underage child. (Prince Philip had the same thing done for him. But it’s only for his child, not for his grandchild or great-grandchild.)
ETA: Never mind, Queen Elizabeth was never added. But Prince Philip was. So if he and the Queen have a miracle child, and all of their other descendants die, and she dies before him, he would be the regent. But that’s the only way.
Thank you, I did not know that!
Just by way of clarification, in post # 10, when Lord Feldon mentions Queen Elizabeth, he’s referring to George VI’s wife, later known as the Queen Mother, not to Elizabeth II.
Also note that, while the new baby would have been heir regardless of sex and would not, if a girl, have later been demoted by any subsequent brothers, this applies only to that generation onwards, and none of the earlier generations have been re-ordered, which is why the Princess Royal is still way down the list.
So it’s a law that Harry would be the Regent? I’d think Andrew or Edward would be a little more… Regal (Regent-ish? Regently?).
No, it’s a law, predetermined in advance by the Regency Acts, which state that the Regent will be the next in line who is over 18 in age, living in the UK, and not disqualified from inheriting the throne. If Wills dies, Harry is # 2, so he would be Regent.
Yes, the 1937 Regency Act specifies that the Regent is the next person in the line of succession who is over 21 (the 1953 Regency Act reduced this to 18, however), a british citizen living in Britain and capable of succeeding to the throne according to the 1701 Act of Settlement.
The French practice of primogeniture led to Louis XIV being succeeded by his five year old great--grandson instead of any of his living sons or grandsons who were of age.
A weird thing I’ve wondered: I know the succession requires the heir must be of royal blood (i.e. no adopted children are eligible), but if Kate and Will had chosen to use his sperm and her egg but a surrogate mother I wonder if the child would still be eligible or if it would have to be debated. (Obviously it’s a scenario that wasn’t a consideration the last time the succession was debated.)
Well, not just primogeniture. Almost all of Louis XIV’s surviving sons and grandsons were legitimized bastards, who were immediately excluded from inheritance after his death in a reversal of his will. There was no chance they or their children would be allowed to inherit barring a fight and everyone else dieing.
His legitimate sons and grandsons were all dead, with the one exception of grandson Philip V of Spain, who was barred by the Treaty of Utrecht from combining the thrones of Spain and France. By strict primogeniture Philip was next in line after Louis XV.
Louis XIV did have an adult nephew, another Philip, who married one of his legitimized daughters and became regent for Louis XV until his death in 1723. He was considered legal heir up until his death if the Treaty of Utrecht held up, though if Louis XV had died young it is entirely possible Philip V would have ignored it and started a war - many considered the treaty an illegal abrogation of inheritance rights.
It’s still Williams child who is ahead.
I do wonder what Prince Andrew will do now. Before, he could have prayed for a combination lucky Taliban fighter and bad Welsh weather to make him first in line. But now? 
Harry has fulfilled his first duty as the spare, which is to survive until the heir reproduces. Now, until Prince Noname turns 18 he has to be prepared to be regant.Circa 2032, Harry will be looking for a new job. Perhaps he can ask Uncle Andy for advice?
Incidentally, re the Regancy, Prince Charles did have a close call once in Switzerland in the 1980’s
Can’t wait for the the scandal that makes England ring when Prince Noname is king but abdicates to marry a divorced American, Wallace Simpson, “the man I love.”