Board Thread:What If?/@comment-5674726-20130803001002/@comment-5674726-20130805001211

Edrea wrote: About other things, I think if she still found out about her being the daughter of Uther, she would still joined with Morgause to claim the throne. However, she would still very angry that Uther lied to her all these times and she had the right to be considered the heir of the throne. (About this, I have question, I am not really sure about who should be the next ruler of the kingdom in their tradition. In Asia, the ruler of the kingdom should be the first son or prince no matter how many sisters he has before him. Is it like that in Albion? Or the first child no matter what the sex is the one has the right to claim the throne?)

As far as the succession is concerned, Gaius said that Morgana being Uther's daughter meant that if Uther died, Arthur would be all that stood between Morgana and the throne. From that, we may take it that she would have been second in line for the throne, had her paternity been known, but that Arthur would remain heir apparent. In Season Three, the plans she and Morgause make to put her on the throne revolve around getting Arthur out of the picture so that Uther would name Morgana his heir.

The succession laws in Camelot are flexible, to a degree. Uther was able to legally disinherit his son in favour of "Queen Catrina", and Arthur left his common-born wife as his heir.

In a scenario where Morgana didn't have magic and didn't turn on Camelot, it's highly likely that she would have been heiress presumptive once Arthur became King, if it was known that she was Uther's child. It seems probable that he would have acknowledged her before he died, both to allow a measure of stability by having a "spare" if anything happened to Arthur before he married and had children, and to ensure that his son and daughter wouldn't marry.