A thought just popped into my head, and I thought I'd ask y'all. Let's say, for example, after Prince William becomes king, he and his wife decide to adopt a child (for whatever reason). Is that child eligible to be king/queen one day, or not? Does he have to actually be born into royalty?
2007-07-01 09:30:35 · 13 answers · asked by justwondering 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
Based on Salic Law which determines the lineage of the throne Prince William's child or heir to throne would have to be a blood relative/child. Granted, speaking as someone who IS in the process of adopting OUR adopted child will be NO different in our hearts than a biological child. But, in this case assuming Prince Willliam and his wife don't have any biological children then the next in line would be Harry, assuming he's alive. Currently, the top ten order of succession is: Prince Charles; Prince WIlliam; Prince Harry: Prince Andrew; Princess Beatrice; Princess Eugenie; Prince Edward; Lady Louise Alice Elizabeth Mary Mountbatten Windsor; Princess Anne; and Peter Phillips son of Princess Anne. Interesting question you posed there! :)
2007-07-01 09:53:41 · answer #1 · answered by beautifuldreamerinlr 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That would be up to Parliament, since Parliament makes the laws on the succession. It's very unlikely they would alter the law for an adopted child, since there are plenty of eligible heirs who do have the royal blood.
If William had no children, or only adopted ones, Harry would be next in line for the throne.
2007-07-01 09:43:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
According to ancient law on succession, no. If the King has no blood heir of his own, the crown would pass to the next in line to the king, from the Kings parental family. In this case, it would be Prince Harry or if he were no longer with us, it would pass to his eldest son.
2007-07-02 07:57:37 · answer #3 · answered by Social Science Lady 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, the adopted child would not be. There must be royal blood. Should William not have children, the crown then passes to Harry.
2007-07-02 01:10:06 · answer #4 · answered by Lydia 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Adopted and illegitimate children are ineligible to succeed to the British throne. The laws state that the monarch must be "heir of the body" - i.e., a legitimate, natural-born child.
2007-07-01 14:38:22 · answer #5 · answered by JerH1 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Adoption doesn't count unless there are no direct blood relative descendents. As the RF are part of a vast European wide inter married family with living relatives capable of claiming all the thrones in all the republics if they search hard enough. I can assure you it aint gonna happen.
2007-07-06 11:45:01 · answer #6 · answered by noeusuperstate 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Simply put, the heir to the throne must be blood royal and not catholic, I think Parliament and the rest of us would have a big problem with anyone else. Having said that, I also believe that the heir to the throne is up to the Sovereign so long as they are not Catholic, so it is possible, but not popular, to pick someone out of the line of succession.
2007-07-03 00:23:06 · answer #7 · answered by wcam777 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
According to the official Royal Family's website http://www.royal.gov.uk
The order of succession is the sequence of members of the Royal Family in the order in which they stand in line to the throne.
The basis for the succession was determined in the constitutional developments of the seventeenth century, which culminated in the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701).
When James II fled the country in 1688, Parliament held that he had 'abdicated the government' and that the throne was vacant. The throne was then offered, not to James's young son, but to his daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange, as joint rulers.
It therefore came to be established not only that the Sovereign rules through Parliament, but that the succession to the throne can be regulated by Parliament, and that a Sovereign can be deprived of his title through misgovernment.
The succession to the throne is regulated not only through descent, but also by statute; the Act of Settlement confirmed that it was for Parliament to determine the title to the throne.
The Act laid down that only Protestant descendants of Princess Sophia - the Electress of Hanover and granddaughter of James I - are eligible to succeed. Subsequent Acts have confirmed this.
Parliament, under the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, also laid down various conditions which the Sovereign must meet. A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne; nor may the Sovereign marry a Roman Catholic.
The Sovereign must, in addition, be in communion with the Church of England and must swear to preserve the established Church of England and the established Church of Scotland. The Sovereign must also promise to uphold the Protestant succession.
So.. in theory, it "could" be contested since parliment has the ability to change the rules.
2007-07-01 09:47:12 · answer #8 · answered by DSatt57 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
That child is ineligible. Only "heirs of the body" of the Electress Sophia of Hanover are considered in line. This excludes adoptees. It's possible they may be in line in their own right, but that would more than likely be very far down.
2007-07-01 09:39:53 · answer #9 · answered by WBenson 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
If that time were ever to come, it would be far in the future and even now, laws are changed to suit circumstances so probably, yes, the answer would be. However, one wonders whether the monarchy will survive that long.
2007-07-07 19:52:03 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋