2006-12-14 23:28:36 · 42 answers · asked by Tigger 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
It is really an academic question. If Charles had been the father and the child conceived in wedlock, then yes the child would be royal and in line to the throne. However in reality Charles and Diana had ceased to "know" each other for a couple of years before the divorce so it was never going to happen. Had the child been someone other than Charles's then the child would definitely not have been in line to the throne, but would never the less have been a half brother or sister to to the future King William.
2006-12-15 03:59:05 · answer #1 · answered by Raymo 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, because Prince Charles, NOT Diana was the hereditary heir to the throne- the only way a baby would be in line for the throne would be if Charles was the father.
2006-12-15 00:45:02 · answer #2 · answered by bjtrots 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. Unless Charles was the Father. And even then the child would be the youngest and would be third in line behind William and Harry. That would probably cause a huge scandal and there would probably be a huge debate we would have to hear about every day about whether the child had to be born in wedlock to qualify.
2006-12-16 06:41:31 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I know nothing of royalty and the lineage workup...but here's my guess...I would say no, b/c Princess Diana married into Charles' family not the other way around, so the child would not be of royal blood and I believe Princess Diana was aristocrat NOT royal. Charles just had to marry either/or. Kinda like if I had a daughter and married one of the Princes. (Not likely but HAHA eh?) My daughter would inherit (again, I'm supposing here people take it easy on me) nothing of the royal family because she has no blood line in it.
2006-12-15 10:17:48 · answer #4 · answered by jasonerika_conley2000 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Because already her son William born in 1982 is the heir apparent for the throne. Even her second son Henry can not stake any claim till such time William is alive. The is the practice of Royal family. So her baby born after divorce will not have any right-
2006-12-14 23:44:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No- she is a commoner who married a royal- the royal bloodline is from HRH Prince Charles. Remember, Lady Dianna Princess of Wales, was simply Ms. Dianna Spencer prior to their marriage, whereas HRH Prince Charles always was the First Born child of Reigning regent.
2006-12-15 23:46:58 · answer #6 · answered by Ministry of Camp Revivalism 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it wasn't Charles' child then no definitley not as the crown is inherited through the line of his family not Charles.
If it was Charles' child it would probably officially not have been able to take the throne as it was born out of wedlock but it would be hard to know what would happen in that case as it would be pretty much unprecedented.
2006-12-14 23:42:23 · answer #7 · answered by moijesuisunepommedeterre 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The only way is if Prince Charles would have been the father. The throne is passed thru the bloodlines.
2006-12-15 09:57:41 · answer #8 · answered by Julia B 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
particular. The succession is Charles, then William, then any newborn that William has. what would be exciting isn't any remember if it extremely is a girl, and then they have a boy. under present day uk regulation, the boy (eldest male) will become King of the united kingdom. under Canadian regulation, the female (the firstborn newborn) will become Queen of Canada. All completely felony, yet, it extremely is why there have been techniques that the united kingdom would exchange the "male first" rules.
2016-12-30 11:13:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maybe. It would depend on who the father was and whether he was in the line of succession to a throne...there are many monarchies around the world, so the answer would be maybe.
2006-12-17 14:05:40 · answer #10 · answered by Some Like 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋