Allan Barton. PhD. examines the constitutional complexities of British royal succession by analysing historical precedents and legal opinions regarding the potential birth of a male heir after a sovereign's passing. This discussion explores whether such an event would have necessitated a transition of the crown.
In February 1952, Princess Elizabeth became Queen on the death of her father, George VI. But what if her mother had been pregnant at the time, and a baby boy was born later that year? Would Elizabeth II have had to abdicate, or would the Crown have passed automatically to her infant brother?
A subscriber, Paul, asked this hypothetical question, and the answer takes in medieval political theory, a forgotten Regency Act, secret legal opinions from the 1930s, and a clause that was recommended but never used.
0:00 Paul's question
1:30 How the Crown is inherited: no interregnum
2:56 The king's two bodies
3:57 Heiress presumptive and heir apparent
4:56 The Change of the rules in 2013
6:15 The 1936 question: could Elizabeth inherit at all?
6:35 Heiress Presumptive or Co-heir
8:00 Sir Granville Ram, Sir Oscar Dowson and the posthumous brother
8:32 The Regency Act of 1830 and Queen Victoria's accession
10:56 The Law Officers' opinion of 1937 and 1938
12:04 The missing saving clause in 1952
12:35 Conclusion
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are subject to deletion if they are not germane. I have no problem with a bit of colourful language, but blasphemy or depraved profanity will not be allowed. Attacks on the Catholic Faith will not be tolerated. Comments will be deleted that are republican (Yanks! Note the lower case 'r'!), attacks on the legitimacy of Pope Leo XIV as the Vicar of Christ, the legitimacy of the House of Windsor or of the claims of the Elder Line of the House of France, or attacks on the legitimacy of any of the currently ruling Houses of Europe.