2006-08-05 20:37:19 · 20 answers · asked by baritoneman 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
It would go down to the son. If somebody in line for succession has a child, it will go to the child before any other relative [1]. Since the crown's authority is pretty much ceremonial these days, a five-year-old king is not a big deal. But there would be an advisor, called a Regent, to carry out official duties until William's son could take over. Under the Regency Acts of 1937 & 1953, Prince Harry would have been next in line for the throne, and as such would be named Regent until King William's child turned 18. [2] At one point, it was open to interpretation and discussion, but the Regency Acts firmly determined that the next in line would be Regent, so long as he or she were fit to serve.
Side note: Tthis also applies if Prince William, perish the thought, were to meet his demise before his father. As shown at [3], all of Prince Charles's sons are in line before Phillip's younger siblings, Prince Andrew and Princess Anne. And so it would also apply to any of Prince William's children before considering Prince Harry.
Side side note: If Prince William were to convert to Catholicism, he would lose any claim to the throne. For ascention purposes, it's as if he were dead. The child, however, would still have a claim so long as he was not Catholic. He may or may not be able to convert at the last minute and take the throne; they've never had to worry about ineligible Catholics ascending, so there's no official judgment on that.
2006-08-05 20:42:36 · answer #1 · answered by Rondo 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Prince William's son would be cared for by whoever the family wishes and the country would be under the rule of a Regent, possibly Prince Harry, or one of his great-uncles (Prince Andrew, Prince Edward) until the son reaches 18 and would resume his position on the throne.
ETA: This wouldnt be the first time something like this has happened in the British Monarchy's history. Henry VIII's son Prince Edward VI became king when he was nine, and the country was governed by various uncles and a Council.
2006-08-06 14:51:09 · answer #2 · answered by afterbirth07 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
William's son but at the age of 5 he would not be considered old enough to sit on the throne. He would have a Regent whom would be the other parent or another family member - Perhaps even Prince Harry until he reached the age of 18.
2006-08-06 08:28:36 · answer #3 · answered by genaddt 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The son inherits the throne,but someone will be appointed regent to run things until the new king is at least eighteen years old.The King will have made plans for this;Prince Harry would be a choice.Any of the adult relatives could fill in as regent...William could even choose Eugenie,Beatrice,or their father,Andrew,or his other uncle,Edward.He could ask for all of them to help,too,until it's time for his son to take the reigns.William and Harry are very close,so Harry probably would be the top choice.
2006-08-06 15:19:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
William's son would be king, but there would be those (and Harry might be one) who would be appointed to make the decisions until the son reaches age 18. Were William to die without an heir, then Harry would take the throne.
2006-08-07 00:49:37 · answer #5 · answered by Irish1952 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Will's son would be king and Prince Harry would be second in line until Will's son grew up and had a child (male or female)
2006-08-06 03:58:51 · answer #6 · answered by Steffi 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
William 's son would be the king, but because he is a child, his mother or a tutor would be regent, until the king reach the age to rule by himself
2006-08-07 01:15:43 · answer #7 · answered by pelancha 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
William's son.
2006-08-06 03:43:20 · answer #8 · answered by Mizz_Britz 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Harry will be Regent until will's son turns 18
2006-08-07 11:54:01 · answer #9 · answered by luve112 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
William's son--it passes directly down the line of the first male heir.
2006-08-07 08:48:56 · answer #10 · answered by cross-stitch kelly 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋