Hypothetical question on Royal accession

My wife asked me a question last night; I didn’t know the answer definitively, but it prompted a couple of others.

Suppose HMTQ had never had children (Unlikely I know, but I did say hypothetical). And suppose Princess Margaret had already passed away (as is the situation today). Who would be next in line after HMTQ? Princess Margaret’s children? David Armstrong-Jones, 2nd Earl Snowdon?

Follow-up question. Suppose Princess Margaret had never had children either. KG VI only had the two girls, so would it then go back up to KG V’s children? - Edward, (shit the bed), KG VI (deceased), so then on to Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester and his children?

Last question. King Edward VIII (ingrate wånker) - did indeed have no children. Suppose he did have children. Let’s say a boy before his ultimate act of treachery, and another after. Would the abdication have disinherited the elder boy from succession (presumably this boy would be the next King, if not), and what of the younger boy, would the abdication have caused no position at all in the line of accession?
 
I think you have most of it right.
Margaret’s kids, and if none, Duke of Gloucester, Kent (who would have preceded Glo’ster having been killed in WW2.
Edward VIII’s abdication statement ruled out any heirs and successors.
 
My wife asked me a question last night; I didn’t know the answer definitively, but it prompted a couple of others.

Suppose HMTQ had never had children (Unlikely I know, but I did say hypothetical). And suppose Princess Margaret had already passed away (as is the situation today). Who would be next in line after HMTQ? Princess Margaret’s children? David Armstrong-Jones, 2nd Earl Snowdon?

Follow-up question. Suppose Princess Margaret had never had children either. KG VI only had the two girls, so would it then go back up to KG V’s children? - Edward, (shit the bed), KG VI (deceased), so then on to Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester and his children?

Last question. King Edward VIII (ingrate wånker) - did indeed have no children. Suppose he did have children. Let’s say a boy before his ultimate act of treachery, and another after. Would the abdication have disinherited the elder boy from succession (presumably this boy would be the next King, if not), and what of the younger boy, would the abdication have caused no position at all in the line of accession?
Yes it would've gone to Margaret's son.

Yes Prince Henry would've inherited the throne.

Officially it would automatically have gone to his eldest legitimate son. It could be addressed in the abdication but unless the son refused the throne, or was so deeply unpopular as to make it an issue, he would be unlikely to be affected by his father. Netherlands throne passed easily when monarchs abdicated, so can't see why it'd be different here.
 

lextalionis

War Hero
Yes it would've gone to Margaret's son.

Yes Prince Henry would've inherited the throne.

Officially it would automatically have gone to his eldest legitimate son. It could be addressed in the abdication but unless the son refused the throne, or was so deeply unpopular as to make it an issue, he would be unlikely to be affected by his father. Netherlands throne passed easily when monarchs abdicated, so can't see why it'd be different here.
With regard to Edward VIII, His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936, whereby and wherewith the King was able to abdicate (it requires an Act of Parliament and, strangely enough, Royal Assent), provides that, "His Majesty, His issue, if any, and the descendants of that issue, shall not after His Majesty’s abdication have any right, title or interest in or to the succession to the Throne".


The Act is still in force, interestingly enough.

And no one can "refuse" the throne, as such. It would require an Act of Parliament to change the succession (and to abdicate), or for the monarch to disqualify himself/herself by becoming a Papist. To make things still more complicated, by convention, any legislation touching the legislation requires the consent of the other Commonwealth Realms.
 

anglo

LE
My wife asked me a question last night; I didn’t know the answer definitively, but it prompted a couple of others.

Suppose HMTQ had never had children (Unlikely I know, but I did say hypothetical). And suppose Princess Margaret had already passed away (as is the situation today). Who would be next in line after HMTQ? Princess Margaret’s children? David Armstrong-Jones, 2nd Earl Snowdon?

Follow-up question. Suppose Princess Margaret had never had children either. KG VI only had the two girls, so would it then go back up to KG V’s children? - Edward, (shit the bed), KG VI (deceased), so then on to Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester and his children?

Last question. King Edward VIII (ingrate wånker) - did indeed have no children. Suppose he did have children. Let’s say a boy before his ultimate act of treachery, and another after. Would the abdication have disinherited the elder boy from succession (presumably this boy would be the next King, if not), and what of the younger boy, would the abdication have caused no position at all in the line of accession?
I think the line of accession would pass t the Duke of Kent if what you stated happened,
The queen would be the last of the line from her great-great-grandfather
{I think I've got the greats right}


That is a rough workout, that take it back to the queen's great-grandfathers brothers children
and off spring,
I stand to be corrected,
 

oldnotbold

War Hero
No HMQ, no Princess Margaret, then it's "up and back". Doesn't have to be a boy either. When she was born Princess Alexandra was #6, after Princes Edward and Albert (aka George VI), Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret, and her father. She's no #56. Ultimately there's something like 4-5000 in the line of succession, thought it'll take something really bad before we end up with the likes of Catherine Oxenberg.
 
With regard to Edward VIII, His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936, whereby and wherewith the King was able to abdicate (it requires an Act of Parliament and, strangely enough, Royal Assent), provides that, "His Majesty, His issue, if any, and the descendants of that issue, shall not after His Majesty’s abdication have any right, title or interest in or to the succession to the Throne".


The Act is still in force, interestingly enough.

And no one can "refuse" the throne, as such. It would require an Act of Parliament to change the succession (and to abdicate), or for the monarch to disqualify himself/herself by becoming a Papist. To make things still more complicated, by convention, any legislation touching the legislation requires the consent of the other Commonwealth Realms.
Yes however Roadster's question was regarding if Edward had an heir before his abdication, so I ignored the legal effect of the real life situation of him having none when he abdicated.

I didn't mean refuse to be a "simply don't feel like it" type of refusal. More along the lines of "I don't wish to sit upon the throne, so make sure I don't" type of scenario. A big like the Crown Prince Wilhelm situation, where he "abdicated" immediately after his father.
 
I think the line of accession would pass t the Duke of Kent if what you stated happened,
The queen would be the last of the line from her great-great-grandfather
{I think I've got the greats right}


That is a rough workout, that take it back to the queen's great-grandfathers brothers children
and off spring,
I stand to be corrected,
Henry of Gloucester was before the the Duke of Kent in the line
 
If HMQ were childless, then Margaret would be next in line (obviously not now possible as she's rather dead), then Earl Snowden (David Linley) and his son (Charles Linley) would be the order of succession. As Charles Linley doesn't yet have kids, then his sister Margarita would be next in line.

If HMQ were childless and Margaret had also died 'without issue', then the line of succession circa 1952 would've been

Princess Margaret
Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester
Prince William of Gloucester
Prince Richard of Gloucester
Prince Edward, Duke of Kent

This would've changed in 1972 when Prince William was killed in an air crash; his father died in 1974 - so the line of succession in 2021 would be

Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester (he'd probably be Richard, Prince of Wales by now, though)
Alexander, Earl of Ulster
Xan Windsor, Earl of Culloden
Lady Cosmia Windsor

Their titles would almost certainly be different - you'd imagine that HMQ would've raised Alexander to a Dukedom on his marriage, for instance - to recognise their proximity to the throne.
 
And no one can "refuse" the throne, as such. It would require an Act of Parliament to change the succession (and to abdicate), or for the monarch to disqualify himself/herself by becoming a Papist. To make things still more complicated, by convention, any legislation touching the legislation requires the consent of the other Commonwealth Realms.

Rightly so....

JB
 
D

Deleted 4482

Guest
The actual answer to this question is-

We would end up with a balding ex matelot bloke with stubble doing donuts in a ferrari in a pub carpark in the lake district as king.

Which, all things considered... I wouldn't think too much of a bad thing.



Apart from him being a skanking 42 rating etc
 
The actual answer to this question is-

We would end up with a balding ex matelot bloke with stubble doing donuts in a ferrari in a pub carpark in the lake district as king.

Which, all things considered... I wouldn't think too much of a bad thing.



Apart from him being a skanking 42 rating etc

You called, I mean you outed yourself....

JB
 
Every four years we elect a president. So much easier.
That's true. Sometime we get it right (Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan) and sometimes we get a clanger (Carter, Clinton, Obama).

The dullard currently masquerading as a President is in a class all by himself. He should be in a Care Home and not the White House as he's obviously out of his depth.
Dullard Biden -4.jpg
 

oldnotbold

War Hero
Every four years we elect a president. So much easier.
Yes you do, and I suspect you're being ironic...

Just in case though, your constitution is a pretty solid reflection of how a bunch of essentially British gentlemen thought the British constitution should have looked in 1776 - franchise, separation of powers between executive, legislature and judiciary etc. There were even efforts to make Washington king.

On the other hand your governing process has some of those ideas and flaws hard-baked into it...equal numbers of senators for each state regardless of population, several months of chaos every election time, as effort goes into the campaign, and then afterwards as all the cronies and party hacks are paid off, a politicised judiciary etc.
 
Court circular, 25-07-2021 transcript of issues raised and debated by His royal highness king Danny 1st.

" Listen in you geezers, I'm the bloody king now, so lets get it sorted, oy, Dick, yes you, bloody police chief bint, round up that wankur Blair and his skank misses, that's for starters, next Prescott, bleedin M4 bus lane, what a prick, And get that Ben wallace bloke in here, the army needs good blokes, not bleedin snowflakes and bum bandits, , and THAT rifle needs to be reissued, an them border force blokes, any illegals in the channel, send em back to frogistan, and you, Mr speaker, tell that bunch of wasters you're in charge of, no more feathering their own nest, or shaggin their secretary's, the're out on their ear, right then thats it, you lot of court wankurs can piss off now, me an my ole lady are goin dahn the queen vic for some scoff and a wet now fcuk off!................. be lucky!" :king:
 
Last edited:
If you think all that is complicated, take a look at how the monarchy became German. James I married off his daughter Elizabeth to the Prince of the Palatine, just in time for said Prince to kick off the Thirty Years War by becoming, disastrously, the King of Bohemia. Of their children, Prince Rupert and Prince Maurice fought for their uncle, Charles I, during the English Civil War, whilst Sophia married the Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg. Their son was Georg Ludwig. Meanwhile, James I's son, Charles, had his head chopped off, Charles II produced nothing but a lot of bastards, James II went Catholic, and although his Protestant daughters Mary and Anne ended up on the throne in turn, none of Anne's children survived childhood.

The Act of Succession, after the Glorious Revolution, meant that Sophia was made heir to Queen Anne, cutting out over fifty others who were higher up the line of succession but all Papists. Sophia died in her eighties, a couple of months before Anne did herself, so Kurfurst Georg Ludwig, Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg, ended up becoming George I at the age of 54. He spoke no English.
 

Dwarf

LE
Yes it would've gone to Margaret's son.

Yes Prince Henry would've inherited the throne.

Officially it would automatically have gone to his eldest legitimate son. It could be addressed in the abdication but unless the son refused the throne, or was so deeply unpopular as to make it an issue, he would be unlikely to be affected by his father. Netherlands throne passed easily when monarchs abdicated, so can't see why it'd be different here.
As you say as in all this Parliament has a say.

It therefore came to be established not only that the Sovereign rules through Parliament, but that the succession to the throne can be regulated by Parliament, and that a Sovereign can be deprived of his/her title through misgovernment. The Act of Settlement confirmed that it was for Parliament to determine the title to the throne.

Should someone unpopular or actually toxic gain the throne, for example plane crash and Harry and his harridan wife become King and Queen, then at the first sign of tea cup throwing Parliament could send them back across trhe Atlantic at the high port.
Luckily up till now the monarchs have been a relative success.
 

Latest Threads

Top