As would King Haakon VII of Norway, born Prince Carl of Denmark: his position at birth was exactly the same as that of the future King George V of Great Britain -- the second son of the eldest son and heir apparent to a reigning monarch.
And that of Prince Harry: it's just that like his uncle Andrew (who, like Prince Alfred, was born the second son of an enthroned queen regnant), and unlike the afore-mentioned princes, he stands no chance in the world of sitting on any throne -- native or foreign.
Times definitely are very different: only ten hereditary monarchies have survived in Europe -- having weathered the storms of historical crises (in particular, wars). Unsurprisingly, they reign over countries with relatively stable economies and political traditions.
Gone are the days when dynasties branch out: Queen Victoria of Great Britain married a prince from a reigning house who never renounced his succession rights. The future Queen Elizabeth II, however, married in 1947 a foreign-born prince who renounced his succession rights.
No law or principle should have stopped the future King Edward VII of Great Britain from succeeding his uncle as the reigning duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha: after all, the English throne has had a long history of being occupied by foreigners (e.g. the houses of Normandy, Plantagenet, Stuart, Hanover) -- some even being dual sovereigns.
As it was, his conditional renunciation of rights (succession would be reversionary) was what paved the way for his younger brother to inherit the German ducal throne in 1893. Otherwise, on the basis of genealogy alone, the rightful successor to Ernst II upon his demise should have been the then-Prince of Wales.
A different sort of renunciation occurred later on, in 1935 -- with a king who had been born a first son abdicating the throne in favor of a brother who had been born the second son (I read somewhere that the succession did not necessarily have to devolve upon the said second son, in the event of abdication: Edward VIII could theoretically have renounced his throne in favor of ANY of his younger brothers).
But like I've noted, *fluke* factors like these simply do not happen in today's world; and childhood mortality is also mostly history. As such, second sons not only do not expect to succeed: they don't really stand any reasonable chance of sitting on thrones.
Although it was previously arranged, Pr.Alfred was a second son (not of the reigning sovereign) who was able to succeed.
I guess if Pr.Albert would have survived his childless brother Duke Ernest, he would have been called to succeed in SCG, and, only then, pass the crown to his second son.
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index