Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!feed2.newsreader.com!newsreader.com!news2.newsreader.com!ellis.newsreader.com!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: Adelaide and Victoire (Re: Succession of a Posthumous Child in the UK)
From: (Gary Holtzman) gholt...@bellatlantic.net
Date: 17 Dec 2002 12:20:21 GMT
Organization: NewsReader.Com Subscriber
Message-ID: <20021217072021.656$28@newsreader.com>
Newsgroups: alt.talk.royalty
References: <q2ervu0hncgp3ld19do4a415337doea8o1@4ax.com> <20021216165909.02708.00000200@mb-ch.aol.com>
X-Trace: NewsReader.Com Lm8LzwrLiyLIEQiME4zbo2sr84G@8uFZ01viF_@n8/,ScV
Lines: 19

gid...@aol.comnojunk (Gidzmo) wrote:
>
> How much of a fuss would there have been HAD different circumstances had
> existed?
>
> Suppose a posthumous child of William IV HAD been born. The newborn King
> or Queen would, of course, have a superior claim to Victoria.
>
> Victoire, of course, would have had to step down as Regent in Adelaide's
> favor.

"Had to" is the key phrase.  This was not a medieval court.  19th century Britain
enjoyed the rule of law and parliamentary government.  The Duchess of Kent would
have had no choice in the matter, whatever her personal feeling might have been.

-- 
Gary Holtzman

-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------