Line of Succession to the British Throne


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

danishjaveed

Commoner
Joined
Mar 2, 2018
Messages
15
City
Islamabad
Country
Pakistan
I am currently researching the line of succession to the British Throne in it's current form and it's previous forms. What I want to know is what did the line look like just before the Perth Agreement and who were affected by it. I know that Senna Lewis, Tāne Lewis, Lyla Gilman, Rufus Gilman, George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews, Prince Michael of Kent and Michael I of Romania were among the members who were affected by it. Who else was not in the line of succession before but was included after the Perth Agreement?
 
King Willem Alexander of the Netherlands is back in the line of succession. He had been excluded before for marrying a Catholic (Máxima Zorreguieta).
 
Last edited:
This is the wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_British_throne#Current_line_of_succession

It uses the notation MC for those previously excluded, who were re-included when the Perth agreement came into effect. The notation XC is for those still excluded, and not re-included by the agreement.

Here is a good article about it - What do the new royal succession changes mean? – Royal Central

Yes, but the Wikipedia article only lists the descendants of King George V. I believe the OP was asking about people further down in the line of succession who were affected. Presumably, there could be many as the line of succession has thousands (?) of people.

I mentioned the King of the Netherlands because it is a well-known example of an affected person who is not even among the first 1000 in line.
 
The last time anyone tried to do a full count was 2011 and it was at 5000 people. Here’s a link: https://web.archive.org/web/20110517155140/http://www.wargs.com/essays/succession/2011.html

It is hard to talk about people further down the line as they aren’t well documented, plus it doesn’t really matter when you get past the descendants of George V.
At this point, it really doesn't matter past the descendants of Elizabeth II as by the end of the summer there will nineteen of them with more to come. Charles, William, George, Charlotte, Baby Cambridge, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward, James, Louise, Anne, Peter, Savannah, Isla, Zara, Mia, and Baby Tindall. With Harry and Eugenie getting married this year, that number could increase by two more in the very near future. Add in Margaret's kids and grandkids there are 25 in descent from George VI alone. I'm surprised that the new legislation didn't restrict the line to just the George crew as there are plenty available.
 
I am currently researching the line of succession to the British Throne in it's current form and it's previous forms. What I want to know is what did the line look like just before the Perth Agreement and who were affected by it. I know that Senna Lewis, Tāne Lewis, Lyla Gilman, Rufus Gilman, George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews, Prince Michael of Kent and Michael I of Romania were among the members who were affected by it. Who else was not in the line of succession before but was included after the Perth Agreement?
I do not think the Lewis children or the Gilman children were excluded from the succession previously. They are not married to Catholics.
 
I do not think the Lewis children or the Gilman children were excluded from the succession previously. They are not married to Catholics.
They were not excluded, but some of them changed places as older sisters moved in front of younger brothers, i.e. Senna moved in front of Tane whereas earlier she had been after him and Rufus was the first younger brother not to bump his sister down a notch.
 
Last edited:
I do not think the Lewis children or the Gilman children were excluded from the succession previously. They are not married to Catholics.

They were not excluded, but their order in the line of succession changed with equal primogeniture as they were born, I think, after 2011.

I
 
They were not excluded, but some of them changed places as older sisters moved in front of younger brothers, i.e. Senna moved in front of Tane whereas earlier she had been after him and Rufus was the first younger brother not to bump his sister down a notch.

They were not excluded, but their order in the line of succession changed with equal primogeniture as they were born, I think, after 2011.

I

Ah, okay . Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't think about male primogeniture.
 
Now that you raised the issue, it hás occurred to me that the Swedish royal kids have been affected too as Estelle and Leonore were not displaced by their younger brothers in the British line of sucession..

PS: The Norwegian, Swedish, Danish and Dutch RFs, in that order, are in the line of succession to the British throne. The Spanish RF is excluded because they are Catholics.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but the Wikipedia article only lists the descendants of King George V. I believe the OP was asking about people further down in the line of succession who were affected. Presumably, there could be many as the line of succession has thousands (?) of people.

I mentioned the King of the Netherlands because it is a well-known example of an affected person who is not even among the first 1000 in line.

Just to clarify, the OP was indeed asking about people further down in the line of succession who were affected.
 
As Mbruno pointed out anyone who lost their place by marrying a Roman Catholic was reinstated in the line of succession. So that would include several descendants of Queen Victoria: the late King Michael of Romania who lost his place when he married Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parma; Georg Friedrich of Prussia who married Princess Sophie of Isenburg; Haakon Lorentzen (son of Princess Ragnhild of Norway) who married Martha Carvalho de Freitas; Ingeborg Lorentzen (Ragnhild's oldest daughter) who married Paulo Ribeiro; Ragnhild Lorentzen (Ragnhild's youngest daughter) who married Aaron Long; Maximilian of Baden who married Archduchess Valerie of Austria-Tuscany; his brother Ludwig who married Princess Marianne of Auersperg-Breunner; Crown Prince Alexander of Serbia who married (and later divorced) Princess Maria da Gloria of Orleans-Braganza; and Princess Madeleine of Sweden who married Christopher O'Neill.

There are probably other names I missed. I'm also excluding some descendants who married Roman Catholics because I don't know if they remained Protestant or became Roman Catholics themselves.
 
Thanks Gawin for your excellent account of descendants of Queen Victoria who are or were married to Catholics. In particular I had forgotten about Princess Madeleine, who is also one of the most notorious foreign royals affected by the change in the law.

I agree with some of the previous posters that it is somewhat ridiculous to have a line of succession with over two thousand people, but, on the other hand, I suppose that is also innocuous in practice and not worth the trouble to change the law just for that particular reason. Keep in mind that it took nearly four years for the resolutions of the Perth agreement to be legally in force in all Commonwealth realms.
 
Last edited:
At this point, it really doesn't matter past the descendants of Elizabeth II as by the end of the summer there will nineteen of them with more to come. Charles, William, George, Charlotte, Baby Cambridge, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward, James, Louise, Anne, Peter, Savannah, Isla, Zara, Mia, and Baby Tindall. With Harry and Eugenie getting married this year, that number could increase by two more in the very near future. Add in Margaret's kids and grandkids there are 25 in descent from George VI alone. I'm surprised that the new legislation didn't restrict the line to just the George crew as there are plenty available.
Me too. It would have been pretty easy (i.e., the perfect moment) to include it in the Perth agreement and would have made total sense to restrict the line of succession either to George V's descendants (to include all current senior royals) or to a certain degree of relationship. 4th degree would have included all current senior royals and seems a rather safe number going forward.
 
I agree with some of the previous posters that it is somewhat ridiculous to have a line of succession with over two thousand people, but, on the other hand, I suppose that is also innocuous in practice and not worth the trouble to change the law just for that particular reason. Keep in mind that it took nearly four years for the resolutions of the Perth agreement to be legally in force in all Commonwealth realms.

Yes, and there really isn't an official "line of succession" as extensive as the one Lumutqueen linked to in post #5. The Royal Family website only lists the first 16:

https://www.royal.uk/succession

Because of this it seems that distant relatives (including Roman Catholics) aren't "officially" excluded unless they moved far enough up that their qualifications would become an issue. Presumably at that point they would be "examined" and disqualified if they failed to meet the "religious test." This has never happened so its unclear how it would be done, if it ever became necessary.
 
Yes, and there really isn't an official "line of succession" as extensive as the one Lumutqueen linked to in post #5. The Royal Family website only lists the first 16:

https://www.royal.uk/succession

Because of this it seems that distant relatives (including Roman Catholics) aren't "officially" excluded unless they moved far enough up that their qualifications would become an issue. Presumably at that point they would be "examined" and disqualified if they failed to meet the "religious test." This has never happened so its unclear how it would be done, if it ever became necessary.

I suppose that, as you said, their qualification will be examined if and when they become next in line, which is nearly impossible.

Incidentally, I understand that the Act of Parliament that extended British citizenship to all descendants of Sophia of Hanover was repealed several decades ago. A practical move then would be to limit the line of succession to citizens of the UK only.

The most efficient way, of course, to slim down the line would be, as Somebody suggested, to limit the number of eligible persons by proximity of blood to the last monarch. In the Netherlands, they use a cutoff in the third degree of consanguinity, which would include children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, siblings, nephews/nieces, and uncles/aunts of the monarch, but no cousins. The UK could go one degree further, i.e. up to the fourth degree, to include first cousins as well.

Again, the reason why, I think, that is not done is that it is considered innocuous anyway to have an unbounded line of succession as long as the Royal House properly is limited.
 
Last edited:
I suppose that, as you said, their qualification will be examined if and when they become next in line, which is nearly impossible.

Incidentally, I understand that the Act of Parliament that extended British citizenship to all descendants of Sophia of Hanover was repealed several decades ago. A practical move then would be to limit the line of succession to citizens of the UK only.

The most efficient way, of course, to slim down the line would be, as Somebody suggested, to limit the number of eligible persons by proximity of blood to the last monarch. In the Netherlands, they use a cutoff in the third degree of consanguinity, which would include children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, siblings, nephews/nieces, and uncles/aunts of the monarch, but no cousins. The UK could go one degree further, i.e. up to the fourth degree, to include first cousins as well.

Again, the reason why, I think, that is not done is that it is considered innocuous anyway to have an unbounded line of succession as long as the Royal House properly is limited.

The Dutch system with 3 grades of consanguinity looks more than sufficient for the British succession. See the example under a King Charles. But in daily life the succession with 2000 successors seems just a fun fait-divers than a reality. I can understand it when they leave it unchanged.

0 - The King

1 - The Prince William (child)
1 - The Prince Henry (child)

2 - Prince George (grandchild)
2 - Princess Charlotte (grandchild)
2 - the third child of Prince William (grandchild)
2 - the future children of Prince Henry (grandchildren)
2 - The Princess Anne (sister)
2 - The Prince Andrew (brother)
2 - The Prince Edward (brother)

3 - Mr Peter Phillips (nephew)
3 - Ms Zara Tindall (niece)
3 - Princess Beatrice (niece)
3 - Princess Eugenie (niece)
3 - Lady Louise (niece)
3 - Lord James (nephew)
 
Last edited:
The Dutch system with 3 grades of consanguinity looks more than sufficient for the British succession. See the example under a King Charles:

0 - The King

1 - The Prince William (child)
1 - The Prince Henry (child)

2 - Prince George (grandchild)
2 - Princess Charlotte (grandchild)
2 - the third child of Prince William (grandchild)
2 - the future children of Prince Henry (grandchildren)
2 - The Princess Anne (sister)
2 - The Prince Andrew (brother)
2 - The Prince Edward (brother)

3 - Mr Peter Phillips
3 - Ms Zara Tindall
3 - Princess Beatrice
3 - Princess Eugenie
3 - Lady Louise
3 - Lord James

Yes, but it would exclude Princess Margaret's children, who happen to be the only maternal first cousins of Charles since the Queen had only one sister. If applied to the present Queen, the 3rd degree rule would exclude the Duke of Gloucester, the Duke of Kent, Prince Michael, and Princess Alexandra. That is why I think it would not be a big deal to go down to 4th degree and include all potential HRHs. Note that, under the current 1917 LP rule, first cousins of the monarch, if born in paternal line, are normally HRHs. It would be odd if they were HRHs and were not in the line of succession.
 
Last edited:
I suppose that, as you said, their qualification will be examined if and when they become next in line, which is nearly impossible.

I suppose other issues would also be examined before an eligible candidate could even be identified, let alone disqualified on religious grounds.

For example, say King George V's line died out (I realize this will *never* happen barring an apocalypse which would render this discussion moot anyway). It would be necessary to identify whose line would be next, in this case the descendants of his oldest sister Louise Princess Royal & Duchess of Fife. Presumably each generation would be looked at, the legality of each marriage established, legitimate birth confirmed, religion confirmed, etc. Eventually the current Duke of Fife would be identified as next in line.

In this example establishing the legality of each marriage would be simple since Louise and her descendants requested permission under the Royal Marriages Act. But for other descendants, who, weren't required to seek permission, it would require more legwork (one example that comes to mind is King Carol II of Romania's first marriage to Zizi Lambrino).

BTW - I forgot to include Ernest Augustus of Hanover in my list of Queen Victoria descendants who were reinstated. He initially lost his place when he married Caroline of Monaco.
 
I suppose other issues would also be examined before an eligible candidate could even be identified, let alone disqualified on religious grounds.

For example, say King George V's line died out (I realize this will *never* happen barring an apocalypse which would render this discussion moot anyway). It would be necessary to identify whose line would be next, in this case the descendants of his oldest sister Louise Princess Royal & Duchess of Fife. Presumably each generation would be looked at, the legality of each marriage established, legitimate birth confirmed, religion confirmed, etc. Eventually the current Duke of Fife would be identified as next in line.

In this example establishing the legality of each marriage would be simple since Louise and her descendants requested permission under the Royal Marriages Act. But for other descendants, who, weren't required to seek permission, it would require more legwork (one example that comes to mind is King Carol II of Romania's first marriage to Zizi Lambrino).

BTW - I forgot to include Ernest Augustus of Hanover in my list of Queen Victoria descendants who were reinstated. He initially lost his place when he married Caroline of Monaco.

My understanding is that the descendants of British princesses who married into foreign families didn't have to ask permission to marry under the Royal Marriages Act, which would then exempt many foreign royals.

Curiously, when the Royal Marriages Act was repealed, previously "invalid" marriages were legitimized for all purposes except the line of succession to the British throne, precisely to minimize changes to the preexisting line. That seems to suggest that even people way down the line are not entirely neglible after all.
 
Last edited:
My understandding is that the descendants of British princesses who married into foreign families didn't have to ask permission to marry under the Royal Marriages Act, which would then exempt many foreign royals.

Curiously, when the Royal Marriages Act was repealed, previously "invalid" marriages were legitimized for all purposes except the line of succession to the British throne, precisely to minimize changes to the preexisting line. That seems to suggest that even people way down the line are not entirely neglible after all.

I’m glad you brought this up since I’m curious about it.
.
As you point out, the Succession to the Crown Act states that previously “invalid” marriages are legitimized but descendants of those marriages have no succession rights to the Crown (Section 3(5)).

Whose marriage would this affect?

Under the Royal Marriages Act a marriage contracted without the sovereign’s permission was invalid and any children were illegitimate but the person who made the marriage could still inherit the throne. But under the Succession to the Crown Act the situation is reversed. The unapproved marriage would be valid and the children legitimate but the person contracting the marriage and the children would not have any succession rights (Section 3(3)).

So it seems Section 3(5) might be intended to place prior unapproved marriages on the same level as future unapproved marriages. The prior marriage is now recognized as valid, the children are legitimate, but have no succession rights.

However, one of the requirements of Section 3(5) states: “in all the circumstances it was reasonable for the person concerned not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to it.” (3(5)(c)).

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/20/pdfs/ukpga_20130020_en.pdf

This requirement narrows the number of eligible marriages. I suspect it was made with specific marriages in mind, for example George IV’s secret marriage to Mrs. Fitzherbert. He knew he was required to ask permission, but didn’t, so under the Succession to the Crown Act the marriage is still invalid. Ditto for Augustus Duke of Sussex’s two marriages and George Duke of Cambridge’s marriage to Sarah Fairbrother. Neither asked permission so their marriages are still invalid and their children are still considered illegitimate.

But who didn’t ask permission because they didn’t know they were required to? As you stated, the descendants of princesses who married into foreign families were exempt from the RMA, so the number of people who fell within it was actually small. So whose marriage would now be legal under the provisions of Section 3(5)?

This has been discussed on another forum as it relates to the descendants of Queen Victoria’s grandson Charles Edward Duke of Albany and of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. His children didn’t seek approval for their marriages making them invalid under British law. So their descendants had no succession rights to the British crown or to the Albany title (the Titles Deprivation Act aside). But the Succession to the Crown Act means they might be able to claim the latter, if it could be proven they weren’t aware that the Royal Marriages Act applied to them. For example, by then they were “foreign” royals and may have believed they were exempt. But how would that be proven given that the parties are dead?

Does anyone have any additional insights on this? Thank you. I learn a lot from these discussions and debates and find them very interesting.
 
Well, oops, I just remembered Section 3(5)(a) states "neither party to the marriage was one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown at the time of the marriage."

So this is the part that renders George IV and Augustus Duke of Sussex's marriages invalid under the Succession to the Crown Act, not subsection (c).

But subsection (c) still applies to George Duke of Cambridge's marriage since he wasn't one of the 6.
 
Now that you raised the issue, it hás occurred to me that the Swedish royal kids have been affected too as Estelle and Leonore were not displaced by their younger brothers in the British line of sucession..

PS: The Norwegian, Swedish, Danish and Dutch RFs, in that order, are in the line of succession to the British throne. The Spanish RF is excluded because they are Catholics.


It just occurred to me that, if they were not Catholics, the Belgian Royal Family would be also (very remotely) in the line of succession to the British throne as Prince Carl of Sweden, grandfather of King Albert II, also descended from King George II via his mother, Sophia of Nassau. For the same reason, the Grand Ducal family of Luxembourg would also be in the line of succession.

And, of course, among the deposed royal families, the Greeks and the Romanians are in line (and much higher) as descendants of Queen Victoria.
 
The majority of current and former European royal families descend from King George II (including, of course, Queen Elizabeth II):

CURRENT REIGNING MONARCHS

BELGIUM: King Philippe - yes

DENMARK: Queen Margrethe II – yes

LIECHTENSTEIN: Prince Hans-Adam II – no. However, his son and heir Hereditary Prince Alois is married to Duchess Sophie of Bavaria, who is a King George II descendant. Sophie will eventually become the Jacobite claimant to the British throne, following her uncle Duke Franz of Bavaria (the current claimant) and her father Duke Max in Bavaria.

LUXEMBOURG – Grand Duke Henri – yes

MONACO – Prince Albert II - no

NETHERLANDS – King Willem-Alexander - yes

NORWAY: King Harald V – yes

SPAIN: King Felipe VI - yes

SWEDEN: King Carl XVI Gustaf – yes

FORMER REIGNING MONARCHS

BULGARIA: Former King Simeon II – yes

GREECE: Former King Constantine II – yes

CURRENT CLAIMANTS TO OTHER FORMER THRONES

ALBANIA: Prince Leka - no

AUSTRIA: Archduke Karl – yes

BAVARIA: Duke Franz – yes. Duke Franz is also the current Jacobite claimant to the British throne through his descent from Charles II and James II's sister, Henrietta Anne Duchess of Orleans.

FRANCE (Bonaparte): Charles, Prince Napoleon, and his son & rival claimant, Jean-Christophe, Prince Napolen - yes

FRANCE (Legitimist): Louis-Alphonse, Duke of Anjou – yes

FRANCE (Orleans): Henri, Count of Paris – yes

HANOVER: Prince Ernest Augustus - yes

ITALY (SENIOR LINE): Prince Vittorio Emanuele of Savoy, Prince of Naples – no

ITALY (JUNIOR LINE): Prince Amadeo of Savoy, Duke of Aosta (rival claimant) – yes

MONTENEGRO: Prince Nicholas – no

PARMA: Prince Carlos, Duke of Parma (also the current Carlist claimant to the Spanish throne) - yes

PORTUGAL: Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza - no

PRUSSIA: Prince Georg Friedrich - yes

ROMANIA: Crown Princess Margareta, Custodian of the Crown – yes

RUSSIA: Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna – yes

SAXONY: Prince Alexandre of Saxe-Gessaphe and his cousin & rival claimant Prince Rudiger of Saxony - yes

SERBIA: Crown Prince Alexander – yes

TUSCANY: Archduke Sigismund, Grand Duke of Tuscany – yes

TWO SICILIES: Prince Pedro, Duke of Calabria and his cousin & rival claimant Prince Carlo Duke of Castro - yes

WURTTEMBERG: Duke Carl - yes
 
Which descendants of The Princess Mary, Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood, have been disqualified on the grounds of illegitimacy (including illegitimacy by unauthorized marriages) ?
 
All of the Princess Royals descendants received permission to marry under the Royal Marriages Act with the possible exception of her great-granddaughter Sophie Lascelles.

Some of the descendants are disqualified from the succession because they were born out of wedlock and only legitimated when their parents married:

Hon. Mark Lascelles (b. 1964) - his parents George Lascelles 7th Earl of Harewood and Elizabeth Tuckwell married in 1967.

Martin Lascelles (b. 1962) - his parents Hon. Gerald Lascelles and Elizabeth Collingwood married in 1978.

Lady Emily (b. 1975) and Hon. Benjamin Lascelles (b. 1978), oldest children of David Lascelles 8th of Harewood and his first wife Margaret Messenger, who married in 1979. Because Benjamin is also disqualified from inheriting the Harewood title his younger brother Alexander will become Earl when their father dies.

Tanit Lascelles (b. 1981), daughter of Hon. James Lascelles and his second wife Shadow Lee, who married in 1985.

Lilianda Pearce (b. 2010), daughter of Sophie Lascelles and Timothy Pearce, who married in 2011. According to Marlene Koenig (an expert on the BRF) Sophie may not have requested permission to marry.

Two descendants are excluded because their parents never married:

Leo (born 2008), son of Alexander Lascelles, Viscount Lascelles and his then-girlfriend.

Georgina (born 1988), daughter of Martin Lascelles and his then-girlfriend.
 
ROMANIA: Crown Princess Margareta, Custodian of the Crown – yes

I should also point out that Prince Karl Friedrich of Hohenzollern, who some believe has a better claim to the Romanian throne, is also a King George II descendant. In fact, he and Margareta are both descended from Alfred Duke of Edinburgh & of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Queen Victoria's second son.
 
All of the Princess Royals descendants received permission to marry under the Royal Marriages Act with the possible exception of her great-granddaughter Sophie Lascelles.

Some of the descendants are disqualified from the succession because they were born out of wedlock and only legitimated when their parents married:

Hon. Mark Lascelles (b. 1964) - his parents George Lascelles 7th Earl of Harewood and Elizabeth Tuckwell married in 1967.

Martin Lascelles (b. 1962) - his parents Hon. Gerald Lascelles and Elizabeth Collingwood married in 1978.

Lady Emily (b. 1975) and Hon. Benjamin Lascelles (b. 1978), oldest children of David Lascelles 8th of Harewood and his first wife Margaret Messenger, who married in 1979. Because Benjamin is also disqualified from inheriting the Harewood title his younger brother Alexander will become Earl when their father dies.

Tanit Lascelles (b. 1981), daughter of Hon. James Lascelles and his second wife Shadow Lee, who married in 1985.

Lilianda Pearce (b. 2010), daughter of Sophie Lascelles and Timothy Pearce, who married in 2011. According to Marlene Koenig (an expert on the BRF) Sophie may not have requested permission to marry.

Two descendants are excluded because their parents never married:

Leo (born 2008), son of Alexander Lascelles, Viscount Lascelles and his then-girlfriend.

Georgina (born 1988), daughter of Martin Lascelles and his then-girlfriend.

Thanks! What about the children of Ellen Mary Lascelles, daughter of The Hon. R. Jeremy Lascelles ? Were they born out of wedlock too ?
 
Yes, you're right, I forgot about her. Ellen Mary Lascelles has a son Jack (born 2016) and daughter Penny (born 2018) with her boyfriend Mike Hermans.
 
Back
Top Bottom