who becomes King? (1 Viewer)

[Anthony Moore]

Let's say Prince William becomes King of England.

Then he gets married and has a son.

So, when he dies, who becomes King? His son or Prince Harry (assuming his son is old enough to take the throne)?

And what happens to William's wife? Will she still be Queen? Or no?

Just Curious.

Thanks

 

[Paul Richardson]

For the sake of argument, we'll assume William marries a girl named Britney, and they have a son named Leroy.

If William dies, Leroy becomes king (Leroy I), and Britney becomes the Queen Mother.

 

[Anthony Moore]

So this means Harry just plain out got screwed (being born second), right?

 

[Paul Richardson]

Second born is always screwed in favor of the heir of the first born. If you consider being born into the richest family of Britain and having zero responsibilities "screwed."

 

[Anthony Moore]

If you consider being born into the richest family of Britain and having zero responsibilities "screwed."

Very true.
I guess I wouldnt mind being second born. So will Harry live in Buckingham Palace with his future wife? Is there a seperate part of the palace for things of the such? Or will he eventually move out?

 

[Mitty]

So this means Harry just plain out got screwed (being born second), right?

Well, yeah, drama is filled with second born sons plotting to kill their brothers' sons to make themselves the heir.
Haven't you seen the Lion King?

 

[Rain]

Wouldn't Harry become King if William died before producing an heir?
And how come William could retain the throne after marrying Brittney? Did the rules change? Didn't Edward (I think it was Edward) have to abdicate due to marrying a non-royal?
In actual fact, I don't care about any of this, but as long as someone brought it up, I suppose I may as well ask.

 

[John Spencer]

Well, considering Britney sucks "royally" maybe she qualifies under a technicality.

 

[Jason Seaver]

So this means Harry just plain out got screwed (being born second), right?

Yeah, but not being in the line of succession can be a load off your mind. I mean, Prince Charles's job description is basically "waiting for his mother to die". That has got to mess with your head.

 

[brentl]

Well, considering Britney sucks "royally" maybe she qualifies under a technicality.

 

[Mitty]

But, Britney IS royalty! She's a pop princess!
Anyway, William will marry some chippy and bang Britney, and/or some other sex bomb, on the side. That's just how it goes. Just because she can't be his wife means nothing.

 

[Bjorn Olav Nyberg]

I don't know how the situation is in England, but here in Norway, two princes in a row has married someone outside royalty, and nobody complained. Or to be specific, nobody that mattered complained. There is always someone who thinks heritage is the only thing that should matter.

Another interesting tidbit may be that after the union between Sweden and Norway was dissolved, the next king of Norway was actually elected, the Prince of Denmark was crowned King of Norway. So they will find a way.

And speaking of first born and second born and so on, you have to be born into the family. The current princess already had a 5 year old son from a previous relationship, and her son will not be prince.

 

[Tom Meyer]

Edward VIII abdicated because he wanted to marry Wallis Simpson, who had been twice divorced. This is what was unacceptable, not the fact she wasn't from a noble family (she was American, in fact).

 

[Mary M S]

Wouldn't Harry become King if William died before producing an heir?

And how come William could retain the throne after marrying Brittney? Did the rules change? Didn't Edward (I think it was Edward) have to abdicate due to marrying a non-royal?

From what I understand, yes Harry would be first in line after William assuming William did not produce heirs, if William ever produces heirs then Harry and his line get 'skipped' entirely. Theoretically, Harry is this instance, 3 in line.

If something were to happen to William & Harry before heirs, then the line would revert to Prince Charles oldest siblings line, etc.

In the convoluted history of the lineage of the crown, sometimes distant lines, if clear succession was disrupted feel they have an equal 'right' to succession, and in the old days the biggest army won. Now it would be political.

William could retain the throne after marrying Brittney if he had enough popular support to do so. When Edward VIII abdicated it was because it was too scandalous for a King of England to be married to an American Divorcee (Wallace Simpson)Parliment and the people would not accept it; they lived out their lives traveling the world being snubbed by the royal family as the new Duke & Duchess of Windsor. But times, - they are a changing.

When Diana died, the country seemed scandalized by the thought of Charles ever being allowed to marry Camellia PB,
slowly support has grown for this couple, where what I pick up is the "feeling" let them live their life if it makes them happy. There seems to be enough support that the Prince of Wales could prob. get away with a marriage soon.

Although on his mothers death, there could be a block, unless they gain even more support, so that Camellia would never be 'allowed' to hold the normal title due the spouse of the King, but be given some other official designation.

Other royals, (2nd sons, daughters etc) are given or loaned different castles in the family's holdings when they are ready to establish their own household or are helped to purchase a suitable estate through wedding gifts and their living allowances.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

I think Elizabeth plans to stick around long enough that Charles never sets his tush on the throne. William will be the next king unless he decides to marry one of the Backstreet Boys....

 

[Mary M S]

It is interesting to think about that HRH Elizabeth II, with her current long reign was not originally in direct line of succession. She herself came to the throne through a 2nd son through the circumstances discussed above.

If history were to try to repeat itself, allowing for the different numbers of royals born this time...

Then Princess Beatrice; (1st child to the second son) (Prince Andrew's and Fergie's) first daughter is in the same birth location to succession as Queen Elizabeth should have been in until Edward VIII abdicated.
Beatrice is 5th in succession right now.

 

[Graeme Clark]

If you consider being born into the richest family of Britain and having zero responsibilities "screwed."

Of course, it's also tough for him to smoke a joint in peace.

 

[Rain]

Of course, it's also tough for him to smoke a joint in peace.

Bravo.

 

[John Spencer]

Of course, it's also tough for him to smoke a joint in peace.

Yeah, it really adds some flavor to the term "His Royal Highness", doesn't it?

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Although in response to Mary's point, since Edward VIII had no children, the succession after his death would have gone through brother George's line and ended up in Elizabeth's lap regardless. The only difference is she'd be celebrating her 29th (I think....did Edward die in 1973?) year as queen instead of her 50th.