It is not up to the "establishment". Harry would be next in line so that is all there is to it.
2007-12-30 02:18:56
·
answer #1
·
answered by brian777999 6
·
7⤊
2⤋
Yes, he would be the next in line for the throne, as long as the queen had stepped down by then. I don't understand Xai comment about neither of his parents being royalty? he has the same parents as William and his father is prince Charles... there was a rumour about Charles not being his biological father but this was never proven. However, saying that Prince Harry has not been raised to be future King, this has always fallen on William, Harry said in a documentary that he knows he has grown up with far less responsibility than William and feels lucky, so I think the question would be whether he would cope with such a responsibility.
2007-12-30 02:26:23
·
answer #2
·
answered by ♥ Miss E ♥ 3
·
3⤊
1⤋
When 2 or more people from the same family die on the same day, without a clear indication of the exact time of death, the youngest person in the group is usually deemed to be the last to die, meaning that for at least one second, William would have been king (albeit unproclaimed). The Succession to The Crown Act 2013 and Act of Settlement 1701 (depending on which one needs to be used at the time would probably be interpreted to mean that the Duchess of Cambridge's child becomes the monarch. Even when a pregnant woman becomes widowed, her child would legally be regarded as having being born 'in lawful wedlock' The Accession Council would meet before any proclamation. Currently there is one member of the family who is a member of the Privy Council and would therefore be required to attend the meeting, that person is Prince Philip. The council will probably take more notice of what he says regarding the accession of either his grandson or unborn great grand child. Disregarding the 'additional details' for a moment, I would assume that The Queen would make Harry a member of the Privy Council, and therefore part of the Accession council. He (Harry) would probably be asked if he wants to take the throne or give it to his niece or nephew while acting as Regent. If Harry were given the throne in his own right, then he and the CHOGM reprepestatives of the realms may agree that legislation be enacted to ensure that Catherines child is designated as the Heir Apparent regardless of the lines of descent from him (Harry), or that they legislate to allow for an abdication when the child reaches 18 (worded so that Harry regains succession rights). While succession in utero has never occurred before in The UK & Commonwealth Realms or the British Isles predecessor states. It has occurred twice in France 3 times, Spain (Navarre) once and also in Iran (Sassanian Empire). The most likely and logical thing to do is to declare an Interregnum (possibly prefixed or suffixed by the word Regency, to distinguish the period from the Cromwellian era), until the birth
2016-05-28 01:29:54
·
answer #3
·
answered by rochelle 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, they have no choice. Harry is 3rd in line to the british throne and the only way that will change is if William has children before something happens to he or Charles or if Harry abdicates his position.
Xai? How are neither of his parents direct royalty? Prince Charles is the son of the Queen of England...how much more direct do you get?
2007-12-30 17:22:35
·
answer #4
·
answered by xoxlilblainxox 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Establishment, as you put it, wouldn't have any choice in the matter. If Prince Charles was dead and William died without issue, the next in line to the throne would be Prince Harry. No one can prevent him from ascending the throne unless he had already been disqualified from inheriting (by marrying a catholic for example.)
2008-01-01 06:18:54
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes. Once the Queen dies (or backs down) if Charles and William are legitimately out of the running then Harry would be King. Unless of course William had children before then in which case his oldest son (or daughter if there were no sons) would become ruler.
2007-12-30 05:22:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by Vega 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
Don't go there. It's bad enough that charles or william could end up as our Head of State. The idea that stupid child being king is just too much.
2008-01-02 22:49:24
·
answer #7
·
answered by daveygod21 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, I think Harry would be allowed to become King. The monarchy would have to be abolished for him not to become King, and I don't see that happening.
2007-12-30 04:00:33
·
answer #8
·
answered by Sandy Lou 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
this is not gonna happen, cuz i ll b the King William V,
As the eldest son of the current Prince of Wales, William is also expected to ascend to the respective thrones of the United Kingdom and the other 15 Realms of the British Commonwealth. Were William to decide to use his first name as his regnal name, he would be known as William V. However, William is free to use any one of his Christian names as a regnal name, as per Edward VII (Prince Albert) and George VI (also Prince Albert). Were he to decide on any of the three (Arthur, Philip, Louis), their usage would be the first for a regnal name in usual reckoning. Although Philip II of Spain was a King consort of England, and Louis VIII of France was proclaimed King of England in London in 1216; the name of the semi-mythical King Arthur, as that is what Prince William may in fact decide to call himself, would certainly add to the legitmacy of both the legend and historical relevance to the one intriguingly called the Once and Future King.
2007-12-30 17:55:27
·
answer #9
·
answered by AntikristPrinceWilliam 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
Yes I think Prince Harry will be allowed to become King.
-SS- (-: Smiling Star :-)
2007-12-30 03:15:16
·
answer #10
·
answered by Smiling Star 5
·
3⤊
0⤋
Yes;Harry is currently third in line of succession.The Queen and Palace Courtiers have no problems with Harry's being in line;if they did,he would have been removed by now.
2007-12-30 05:11:35
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋