Inheritance Question

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.)
 
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.)

Are we assuming the daughter has reached majority? Because otherwise you'll have a regent anyway, in which case you can afford to wait.
 
From what I am aware, the daughter inherits, but would immediately lose the crown if a son is born.

As an aside, if the pregnancy is the only child of the King, I think there have been a couple of examples of a coronation In Utero
 
From what I am aware, the daughter inherits, but would immediately lose the crown if a son is born.

As an aside, if the pregnancy is the only child of the King, I think there have been a couple of examples of a coronation In Utero
Did the put the crown on the Queens stomach?:confused:
 
It's happened occasionally. In France when Louis X died (the date was 1316, I think), they waited, a boy was born and he counts as John I. The baby died within the week, though. [The crown didn't go to his sister next, it went to king Louis's brother, Philip V. Philip's claim was based on the Salic Law (that females can't inherit), but the rule had never arisen before.]

Elsewhere, (i) one of the Persian kings (Shapur II) really was crowned in utero, and (ii) after Alexander the Great died and his wife was pregnant, they crowned his Alexander's half brother king. When a baby boy was born he became joint king.
 
Are we assuming the daughter has reached majority? Because otherwise you'll have a regent anyway, in which case you can afford to wait.

Depends on the country. France, maybe, but you couldn't "just wait" for instance in somewhere like England. In England, even if there is a regent, and even if the child is only days old, they must still be crowned - the regency just means they can't control their government alone. Once a child has been crowned, too, you can't just "revoke" it afterwards because you've found a better candidate. So in England the daughter would be crowned and if the unborn child turned out to be male, he would be the unluckiest heir ever because he wouldn't get to inherit unless his sister died.
 
It actually depends - both France in the Middle Ages and Spain in the 19th century employed a Regent until the unborn child was born

In Russia, when Nicholas II was very ill at Livadia in c1901 and Alexandra was pregnant the Grand Dukes decided that they would not sit and wait to see what her pregnancy would bring if he died, but that his brother Michael would be Tsar at once

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Depends on the country. France, maybe, but you couldn't "just wait" for instance in somewhere like England. In England, even if there is a regent, and even if the child is only days old, they must still be crowned - the regency just means they can't control their government alone. Once a child has been crowned, too, you can't just "revoke" it afterwards because you've found a better candidate. So in England the daughter would be crowned and if the unborn child turned out to be male, he would be the unluckiest heir ever because he wouldn't get to inherit unless his sister died.

I would concur regarding Britain - the King is dead, Long Live the King! is not just a joke

Kingship is CONTINUOUS so has to go to the next candidate, anything else is an interregnum and neither parliament nor the royal family wants one of those (since the last one was after Charles I's beheading)

Once the king dies, there HAS TO BE a new one.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
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)
 
(I hope there is no confusion in what I said and that I was clear enough)

None - I think you were very succinct and it holds true in every example you used

However I don't think it applies either to Britain or to Russia

In Britain there is the idea of unbroken succession so I don't see how there can be a pause to waiit for a baby to be born

In Russia, the succession is not dependant so much on law as on the decision of the elite at the time - ie Paul or Nicholas II can fuck with the succession laws, and where no Tsar exists the Grand Dukes together can decide what is to be done

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

archaeogeek

Banned
I would concur regarding Britain - the King is dead, Long Live the King! is not just a joke

Kingship is CONTINUOUS so has to go to the next candidate, anything else is an interregnum and neither parliament nor the royal family wants one of those (since the last one was after Charles I's beheading)

Once the king dies, there HAS TO BE a new one.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

It is in France, too, btw.
 
Grey Wolf said:
None - I think you were very succinct and it holds true in every example you used

However I don't think it applies either to Britain or to Russia

In Britain there is the idea of unbroken succession so I don't see how there can be a pause to waiit for a baby to be born

In Russia, the succession is not dependant so much on law as on the decision of the elite at the time - ie Paul or Nicholas II can fuck with the succession laws, and where no Tsar exists the Grand Dukes together can decide what is to be done

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

I do not know Russia enough to say you're wrong.

I think it could work in Britain though. You say that in Britain, there is the idea of unbroken succession, but that's mainly because the British always had a clear candidate to the succession of the the throne.
If the question happened in France, it is because the succession was broken : up until Louis X, every French King had a son to succeed him. If the British found themselves in the same situation, I think they could adopt the same attitude. I'm also convinced of this because Britain and France have a very close common history.

Besides, waiting under Regency until the birth of the baby has some advantages :
1°) It lowers the risks of Succession Wars. The case we were working on had a daughter and a Widowed pregnant Queen. If you crown the daughter but the Widowed Queen gives birth to a son, there could be a succession quarrel.

2°) If the Baby is a boy and inherits the crown, the Regency for the Baby King is already prepared and active.

3°) If the Baby is a girl and doesnt inherit, then at least the State institutions didn't stop working.
 
He wasn't a king, but when the Dutch stadholder Willem II died, his wife was pregnant with future stadholder/king Willem III. The Dutch just decided to get rid of the office the stadholder (at least Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Overijssel and Gelderland did).
 
Last edited:
Well nowadays, you could just find out what the sex of the baby is and thus know whether or not the elder girl is Queen or not.

In England, I think you guys are being kinda rash in saying that the unborn baby would be put aside and the already born sister would be crowned just to make sure someone was on the throne. At least in medieval times, there was a distinction between the King's personal body/life (which ended when he died) and his "Body politic" (which was only ended/exorcised when the next one was crowned). So you could have a government continue to run in the old king's name until the baby is born, under a Regent, Lord Protector or Council.
 
This also happened in Spain in I believe it was 1886. Alfonso XII died while his wife was pregnant. His daughter was his Heiress but they waited to see if his posthomus child would be a boy. The Queen gave birth to King Alfonso XIII. He was king and displaced his elder sister at birth. (He was the grandfather of the present King, Juan Carlos I.)
 
Perhaps pertinently to the question this happened in Scotland in 1286. Alexander III died leaving only a granddaughter - Margaret, Maid of Norway - as his successor, but it was thought at the time that his new Queen was pregnant. The nobility waited until it was clear that the Queen was not pregnant before they proclaimed Margaret as sovereign.
 
I would concur regarding Britain - the King is dead, Long Live the King! is not just a joke

Kingship is CONTINUOUS so has to go to the next candidate, anything else is an interregnum and neither parliament nor the royal family wants one of those (since the last one was after Charles I's beheading)

Once the king dies, there HAS TO BE a new one.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Wasn't there an issue over whether or not to lower the royal standard when Princess Diana died? As I recall, it was not - for the reason you describe. The standard flies wherever the monarch is, and there is always a monarch.
 
That was a seperate situation - the Royal Standard is only flown when the Monarch is in presence. Tradition had dictated up to that point that when the monarch wasn't present the flagpole was left empty. Numerous complaints were made by people who only saw an empty flagpole. Eventually a decision was made to fly the Union flag at half mast as at other government and public buildings.

Wasn't there an issue over whether or not to lower the royal standard when Princess Diana died? As I recall, it was not - for the reason you describe. The standard flies wherever the monarch is, and there is always a monarch.
 
Top