Succession question?

[La Rouge Beret]

Who has precedence in order to inherit a throne - a former monarch who was deposed by the colonial government or the son of the last monarch?

[catalfalque]

Who has precedence in order to inherit a throne - a former monarch who was deposed by the colonial government or the son of the last monarch?

What does deposed by the colonial government mean?

Cat!

[La Rouge Beret]

The government booted him off of the throne and sent him into exile for not being compliant to their wishes.

[January First-of-May]

The government booted him off of the throne and sent him into exile for not being compliant to their wishes.

Then the former monarch who was deposed (if he's alive) will probably have the best claims; if by "son" you mean his son, then certainly the monarch himself has more.
That depends a lot, though, on the exact people appointing the new monarch (e.g. they might well not want that very guy who was deposed, but be fine with a son).
Coincidentally, a random example I've just thought of: had Napoleon I been held on St Helena without any lead-related problems and lived well into the 1850s or, why not, 1870s (he'd be 101 in 1870, which is pushing it but probably not ASB), would he ever become a head of state of France again? :)

[miguelrj]

When a monarch is forcefully deposed, well... he can claim that his removal or forced abdication is invalid and resume his previous status.

Theoretically when a monarch's abdication is deemed lawful, he should lose his personal rights to the throne and be off the succession list... But of course there's the counter-example of Philip V of Spain that abdicated to his son Louis (who ruled for a few months) and after Louis died, Philip went back to the throne.

[La Rouge Beret]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duy_Tan

I am refering to the former Emperor Duy Tan who was deposed by the French in 1916 and who had a strong following within Vietnam. He was one of the few figures who could rival Ho Chi Minh as legitimate nationalist figures. So my POD would be either he or his father return to the throne following Bao Dai's abdication in 1945. Thoughts?

[miguelrj]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duy_Tan

I am refering to the former Emperor Duy Tan who was deposed by the French in 1916 and who had a strong following within Vietnam. He was one of the few figures who could rival Ho Chi Minh as legitimate nationalist figures. So my POD would be either he or his father return to the throne following Bao Dai's abdication in 1945. Thoughts?
I don't really know how do succession laws work in that corner of the world but as I said above, since Duy Tan was forcely removed he can always claim that he is - and never stopped being - the lawful emperor.
EDIT: oh I misred. I see his father was removed from power too. Than he would have a claim too... They must get along and decide which of them should gain access to the throne. If not, his father can claim that his removal was invalid too in the first place while Duy Tan - if he wants to be a dick (or if his father was really mentally unstable as the French claimed) can claim that his father's removal was valid and his own removal was invalid.