Beedok said:
Here is a simple question, if a King has a daughter and a pregnant wife when he dies does the daughter get the throne or do they wait to see if the next child will be a boy or a girl? This is primarily for the British succession style but I'd be interested in others too.
(I hope this is the right place for this.)
A very interesting question. In France, we already had two case similar to that riddle.
The first one was mentionned earlier by Bee. In 1316, Louis X of France died and his second wife, Clementia of Hungary, was pregnant with a child. Louis X also had a daughter from his first wife, Margaret of Burgundy, who was called Joan. However, since Magaret of Burgundy had committed adultery, there were suspicions on Joan's legitimacy.
Anyway, the French nobles agreed that Philip of Poitiers, Louis X's younger brother, should get the regency until the birth of the child, who turned out to be a boy : John I. However, the baby boy died five days later. It is then that Philip of Poitiers made his move of claiming the French crown through Salic Law. He had a great number of advantages over the young Joan : he was an adult (Joan was 4), legitimate (remember the suspicions I mentionned earlier) and, of course, a male (which certainly played a part). In the end, Philip of Poitiers got crowned King as Philip V.
The second case happened shortly after, in 1328, with the death of King Charles IV of France. He also had a pregnant wife and a daughter, but the latter's candidacy to the throne was no longer valid (Salic Law's first application having happened 12 years earlier).
Anyway, the point is that the French noble once again choosed to give the Regency of the kingdom to Philip of Valois, Charles IV's nearest male relative, during the Queen's pregnancy. In the end, the baby turned out to be a girl and there was a succession crisis (the case of Edward III of England's rights over the French throne) which led to the official promotion of excluding female from the succession and the crowning of Philip VI (Philip of Valois).
So, basing ourselves on those cases, I think we can conclude that there would be a Regency during the pregnancy of the Queen until the child is born. After this, there are two options :
-If the baby is a boy, he will get the crown although he will be under regency up until his majority.
-If the baby is a girl, then all depends on the successoral law of the country. If girls are allowed to succeed (as in England/Britain), then the eldest daughter would get the throne. If girls aren't allowed to succeed (as in France), then it goes the nearest male relative.
Of course, if there is animosity towards the King who just died or the Pregnant Queen and if girls are allowed to succeed, the nobles could try to assert the right of the daughter over the unborn child and have her crowned Queen, which could result in a War of Succession if the Pregnant Queen gives birth to a boy (as a girl would have lesser rights).
One last thing : if there is equality between genders according to the succession law (such as it is today in Denmark or Sweden), whatever the unborn child's gender, the daughter would get the crown.
(I hope there is no confusion in what I said and that I was clear enough)