princess diana

[djc45]

if princess diana had had a baby before she died and after her divorce would her child have had a claim to the thrown

[jno]

if it was Prince Charles's child, yes. If somebody else's, no. It's being descended from Charles (and his mum) that puts you in line for the throne, not being descended from Diana.

[Loosehead]

and I don't think it's fair to throw a child.

[djc45]

but the child would be a blood relation to harry and william so surley this would have something to do with it because if prince charles died his son is next inline so it then passes to his blood relations .........intresting

[djc45]

ps thanks jno

[jno]

well, it's like Princess Anne is sister to Charles - she is somewhere in line for the throne, but way after William (and after her younger brothers Andrew and Edward and their kids). The general rule is it goes from father to son. Women, brothers, sisters etc only if there's a lack of sons. (George VI, the queen's father, was a brother as Edward VIII had no children when he abdicated.)

http://www.etoile.co.uk/Rsucc.html

[jno]

... oh, and if William had a son he'd immediately become No 3 on the list

[Quizmonkey]

Quite a responsibility to have throne at you really.

[djc45]

ok jno

but do you agree that the next inline list would read charles, william, harry, then the next in line would be diana's child if she had had one as it would be blood related to harry

[shammydodger]

The claim to the throne is through the blood relation to the monarch. The late Princess of Wales was not related by blood to the monarch. Her sons' claims are through the present Queen, via Charles, but not via Diana. Any child Diana might have had as you postulate would not have been related to the monarch and thus would have had no (rightful) claim to the throne.

[jno]

no, as shammydodger says, all that matters is if you're Charles's child. Being Diana's doesn't count.

(Technically, it might; as I recall Diana herself was very distantly descended from some monarch - all these aristos are related somehow - so even her child by someone else might be about two billionth in line, probably not far ahead of me.)

[shammydodger]

jno

I think you are right in terms of Diana being very distantly related to the monarchy. She was a very distant cousin to Prince Charles. But in the same terms that I'm a distant cousin to Noah!

[djc45]

ok jno and slamdodger, if charles died, william & harry become next in line so if they died without leaving offspring surley the half brother would be the next of kin as he would be blood related to them nothing to do with charles and would become the next inline because it would be a blood relation harry

[rockyracoon]

Sorry for jumping in but no djc45 they would have no right to the throne. If William and Harry died without leaving offspring the monarchy would go to Andrew, then his daughters, then their offspring. If they had none it would go to Edward then his offspring, if they had none then it would go to Anne and then her offspring but I think she denounced their royal titles so maybe they would'nt be able to.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page389.asp

If you go to this link it will give a listing of heirs to the throne. This is regardless of Diana having offspring by someone other than Charlie

[tatters]

I believe even if all the royals in this line unfortunatly died, diana's child would have no claim, as Edward IV's (who abdicated before the war) line would take over the lineage and we would have some yank blood on the throne. Any way there is a claiment in austrailia who is actually the real line to the throne of England, he could have a say

[spudqueen]

Edward VI didn't have any children so we wouldn't have any 'yank blood' on the throne. If indeed the succession went through Charles, Wills, Harry, Andrew and his kids, Edward and his daughter and Anne and her kids then Princess Margarets children (and their children) are next in line, followed presumably by the Queens cousins and their children.

[jno]

just to be pedantic, we're talking about Edward the eighth here, the one who abdicated, George VI's elder brother and the Queen's uncle. Edwards I to VI died centuries ago, Edward VII was Victoria's scapegrace son.

[djc45]

thanks everyone for your answers and the links sent

[jennoncey]

i believe so!