If Prince William didnt want to be king, and handed it to Harry would Harrys children be in line to the throne

Question

FULL QUESTION: If Prince Charles died before taking the throne and William didnt want it and handed it to Harry before they both had children, would Harry's children then be in line to the throne, or would it be handed back to William's side if he subsequently had children thereafter?

Answer 1

Yes, Harry's children would become king, because the King's children are ALWAYS the first in line to a throne.

After that, it would be their cousins; Prince William's children

Answer 2

If Prince Charles dies, Prince William immediately becomes 1st in line of succession.

"Handing" the throne to Prince Harry means Prince William  chose to renounce to his rights to the British throne for himself and his descendants.

..EDIT..

We are all answering a hypothetical question, of course Prince William wouldn't "hand" the throne to Prince Harry, I think we all know that.

IF for some bizarre reason, Prince William does decide to "hand" the throne to his brother, unless there was a good valid reason for it (like a terminal disease or something like that), he would make the monarchy collapse.

I can't even imagine the Queen's reaction to such event...

Answer 3

If Harry ascended the throne then his kids would be first in line. If William had kids at a later date it would depend on why he had forfeited his place in the line of succesion (I can't believe he do it just because he didn't want to be King, after all he's been trained for the job since birth).

Answer 4

The only way for William to renounce would be for him to renounce for himself and his descendants.  This was the way that Edward VIII had to do it (to become Duke of Windsor) and also the way that Queen Elizabeth II's cousin (Prince Michael of Kent) have done it.  

If William renounces and later has children but Harry has no kids and dies, the throne will pass to the next in line (Prince Edward, Duke of York) and then to his kids (he had two daughters with Fergie).  

William's kids would have no right to the throne.

Answer 5

harry's children would inherit if he had them, if he died w/o a child then it would revert to williams children if he had any.

Answer 6

Of course they would!  Our own Queen's father only ascended the throne because her uncle married Wallace Simpson.

Answer 7

If Harry were king, then his children would be first in line for the throne, with, probably William's coming after them.  

It doesn't revert back, if it did, then Edward VIII's children would still be in line, right up there...as it is, they are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down the line, if any of them are still alive.

At least, I'm pretty sure that there's still a Duke of Windsor, and that he's Edward and Wallis' son....I think.

Answer 8

William would have to sign lots of paper work to remove himself and all descendants from the line of succession.

It is for this reason Edward and Mrs. Simpson had no children as they would have no claim on the throne and it wouldn't be fair to them.

Answer 9

the simple answer is yes  harry's children would become heir to the throne

however if harry didn't have children and william did then williams children would inherit

however it's not likely to happen

only if your writting the plot for a novel ..............

hhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmm now there's a thought !!!!

Answer 10

This situation never occurred when a king abdicated for a brother or cousin - Richard II had no children and neither did Edward VIII(Duke of Windsor) -but when Charles I was deposed by Cromwell, his children resumed the throne after the monarchy was reinstated.

If this situation actually happened, it would create a can of worms, because during the 14th and 15th century the English crown racketed back and forth between the descendants of John of Gaunt by his first and third wives, and the descendants of brothers of John - otherwise known as the wars of the roses.

William won't abdicate given circumstances as they stand at present. I wouldn't be as certain that Charlie won't...he will be over 60 when he succeeds, and probably nearer 70, which is no age to take up such a new role.

Answer 11

It's the kings children always, so it would go to Harry's kids.

That's my guess anyways. In two years of ancient history studies I've never once heard of the throne being handed to children of a relative who gave up the throne.

Answer 12

I believe that when Edward VIII gave up the throne and became the Duke of Windsor, part of the arrangement was that he and any children he and the Duchess might have would not be in line for the throne.  (Since they never had any, of course the quetion never arose.)  However, if William had children by the time of his father's death and didn't want the throne himelf, he would probably be more likely to cede his place in the succession to his oldest son or daughter.  Some peers have been known to do something similar, to yield their titles to their heirs, so that they can continue political careers in the House of Commons.

Answer 13

William would abdicate all claims to the throne for himself and possibly for his descendants.Harry's family would be the ones to inherit. If Harry were to die without issue(children) and William had worked things out so that his children could inherit,the line could go to them.Otherwise,Andrew,if he were alive,his girls and Edward and his children would follow in line of succession.

The last person to abdicate before his coronation was Edward VIII.He abicated reponsibility for himself and his descendants.

The Duke and Duchess of Windsor had no children,any way.