Get the throne or not?

[Avikar]

In a hypothetical question, since I know of no example of this.

Lets say a newborn heir, crowned prince, is believed to have died, either with or after his own parents death, leaving the child's uncle to take the throne. If, say, they discover and prove he was actually alive 30 years later, when his nephew was on or about to sit on the throne, what would happen?

Would his nephew remain the heir-apparent, or king, and keep the throne or would they de-throne the nephew--if he was king at that time--and give it to the original heir? What ceremonies would end up taking place? And has something like this ever happened before? I'm wondering about all different cultures about this.

Thanks

[anon6788899898]

well, if he takes the crown by force, he can declare his uncle's reign to have been a regency.

But otherwise it is the degree of kinship to the last king that matters, so he would be heir after his nephew, but before the children of other uncles because he is descended from a senior branch.

[vittoria]

If the heir in question could prove who he was, then he would have a superior claim over his uncle's son (who would be his cousin, not his nephew).

However, if the people of the country had been perfectly satisfied with the uncle's rule and were perfectly happy with the prospect of the cousin's succeeding, then their views might well prevail. The "divine right" concept no longer exists, if it ever did. Kings and Queens rule by the will of the people, not God.

But if the people were willing to accept the long-lost heir, then until he produced a child of his own, his uncle's son would, in the normal course of events, be the next in line to the throne.

And no, I don't believe that any such situation has ever occurred. It sounds like something out of a Ruritanian novel.