Is it really neccessary for an heir to the throne to produce a child?

Question

Particularly the British throne where over 1,000 people (most are dead, old, or removed for religious reasons) in line for the throne and for example when William marries and has a child or two then Harry is moved to the 4th or 5th place (whatever the case at the time), etc, etc.

Does it really matter if he married a barren woman?

Answer 1

no it makes no difference

Answer 2

Yes

Answer 3

No, it is not necessary that the monarch must produce an heir, although it is highly recommended that they do. During the Middle Ages, many royal ruling houses ran out of heirs to take the throne. That is why every now and then a distant relative was chosen as the next monarch. Finding legitimite heirs to acend the throne was a major problem, the mortality rate was high for both adults and children, miscarriages, stillbirths, and high illegitimate births caused the royals to scratch their head when it comes to naming the next monarch.

As for Prince William, he could simply relax about naming the next heir if he does not have any offspring of his own. He has got Prince Harry and his offspring, his uncle Prince Andrew and his two daughters, his aunt Princess Anne and her two grown children, and finally his youngest uncle Prince Edward, who's got Lady Louise and another little bundle of royal joy on the way. YES! Prince Eward is having another child! Grandma, the Queen is over the moon.

Answer 4

If William married a barren woman then Harry would be heir-presumptive once William is King. If William predeceased Harry, then Harry would become King and that would be passed onto his children. If neither William or Harry had children, the throne would pass to Princess Beatrice (unless her father was still alive).

Therefore, no, it is not necessary for the heir to the throne to produce a child as there will always be people awaiting their turn.

Answer 5

Well behind the British monarchy the idea is an heir and a spare. That's kinda why you have William and Harry. Look at Queen Elizabeth II children. She had Charles and all her others were female. The thing is if the royal on the throne did not produce a male offspring then the throne would go to the next in line usually a female, but if a male could be found of royal blood from the same line then he would be made king. Elisabeth II has done away with the first male child becomes the king. Now it is the first male or female child born that will be next in line. Now grant it supposedly Elizabeth II has had her lineage traced back to William I or William the Conqueror. She is a relation to Queen Victoria that is true, I'm not real sure how they clam her to be of William I bloodline. If he married a woman who could not produce a child then it would be Harry, if he outlived his brother, then any children that Harry has that will be the rulers’ of England. Also the royal family of England is the figure head of the State. He/she does have some powers but they are very limited. The Queen or King of England can legally dismiss the Prime Minister. That means king/queen can fire them from their office. This has not been done. The king or queen also gives a speech at the opening of Parliament, this is kind of like the State of the Union Speech for us here in America. So while they may have no real power, they do have real influence. The only time England has been without a king or queen was during the time of Oliver Cromwell. That's a whole nother story. =)

Answer 6

yeh an heir has to produce a child because there needs to be someone ready to replace them. there are many things that can come into place to stop the 1st 2nd 3rd person in place to take the throne. lets say prince william decides to become a monk.. [[ example people ]] then prince harry is the immediate heir.

Answer 7

To the royal family it will.  Whoever is in line for the succession to the throne is expected to produce an heir to follow, (in this case, his) as next in line for the title of queen or king.  Quite frankly, the head of the royal family really has no influence for decisions made by the parliamentary government of England.  I see the  compensation paid to them by the "subjects" they rule as a considerable waste of national revenue, and those millions of dollars could be used for  upgrading many of the social programs offered as benefits to the population of that nation.