WI: Elizabeth II has a brother in October 1952?

What if it happened?

When William IV was a childless but married king, a Regency Act was passed, to deal with the case if William should die leaving his niece (Victoria Alexandrina) and a pregnant widow (Adelaide).

The solution provided was that if William´s widow is pregnant at his death, Victoria would be declared Queen - but would cease to be Queen when the child is born and immediately becomes the ruler.

When William IV did die, Victoria was declared Queen, with "saving the rights of unborn offspring of William IV". In the event, none was born.

However, in Regency Act of 1937, no provision whatever was made for the possibility of George VI having a posthumous son!

Now, imagine:
George VI does die on 6th of February, 1952, as per OTL. Elizabeth II is proclaimed Queen without any saving, as per OTL.

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon has just stopped menstruating, but nobody is surprised, because at age 51, menopause is expected (Seems to have happened in OTL).

But the PoD is that in April and May, Queen Mother and her physicians get concerned about her weird state of health. Because, as per PoD, she actually conceived in January 1952, and is due for a healthy baby in October.

What shall Queen Elizabeth II, government, Commonwealth public and Parliament do? If the posthumous baby is a daughter, then she is just another little sister like princess Margaret - but if it is a son, who is entitled to the throne? (As per PoD, it does turn out to be a boy.)
 

archaeogeek

Banned
What if it happened?

When William IV was a childless but married king, a Regency Act was passed, to deal with the case if William should die leaving his niece (Victoria Alexandrina) and a pregnant widow (Adelaide).

The solution provided was that if William´s widow is pregnant at his death, Victoria would be declared Queen - but would cease to be Queen when the child is born and immediately becomes the ruler.

When William IV did die, Victoria was declared Queen, with "saving the rights of unborn offspring of William IV". In the event, none was born.

However, in Regency Act of 1937, no provision whatever was made for the possibility of George VI having a posthumous son!

Now, imagine:
George VI does die on 6th of February, 1952, as per OTL. Elizabeth II is proclaimed Queen without any saving, as per OTL.

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon has just stopped menstruating, but nobody is surprised, because at age 51, menopause is expected (Seems to have happened in OTL).

But the PoD is that in April and May, Queen Mother and her physicians get concerned about her weird state of health. Because, as per PoD, she actually conceived in January 1952, and is due for a healthy baby in October.

What shall Queen Elizabeth II, government, Commonwealth public and Parliament do? If the posthumous baby is a daughter, then she is just another little sister like princess Margaret - but if it is a son, who is entitled to the throne? (As per PoD, it does turn out to be a boy.)

I'm not quite sure they'd keep the male-primogeniture succession; in earlier times maybe but in this case? The scandinavians basically revoked Salic law when the question presented itself and it was in the 50s, without the EHRC breathing down their necks.

Parliament had long had the power to essentially arbiter the succession, and while there are a lot of claims that the british monarchy clings to tradition (it doesn't actually, it makes shit up as it goes along and calls it tradition if it sticks more than half a century: "Duke of Normandy" while ancient sounding is one of these examples, it's a Victorian flight of fancy and nothing more), they would likely wrangle it: between sticking to the old succession law and be ruled by an embryo or just revise succession law so that it's heirs general instead of heirs male and voilà.

The Lords might make some noise though as a number of them I expect to take it to also mean this could invalidate some successions, but I'm not quite sure.
 
Top