The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #41  
Old 04-17-2018, 03:52 PM
principessa's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Schweinfurt, Germany
Posts: 3,410
As far as I remember several reigning and non-reigning monarchs in Europe are also in the line of succession. On which place is which monarch?

Thank you!
__________________

__________________
I had a dream: Let's connect our thoughts together, than we have a mission, let's connect our feelings together, than we have a mood, let's connect our dreams together, than we have a vision and let's connect our mission, our mood and our vision together than we have a perfect life.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-17-2018, 03:52 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spheno View Post
There is no any "sticking point" here. Their marriage was grand, very public event with a lot of officials on the hand.
Yes, but that doesn't make any difference. The Royal Marriages Act doesn't state permission isn't required if the marriage is a grand, very public event with officials on hand.

I suspect Charles Edward may have believed his children weren't subject to the Royal Marriages Act, or he simply didn't want to bother requesting permission. Because his children were so far down the line of succession King George and his advisers probably didn't care either. Whether or not the marriage was legal in Britain was a tiny detail that didn't matter in the grand scheme of things. It was still legal in Sweden and Germany.

It's just one of those details of interest to BRF nerds like me.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04-17-2018, 04:04 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 3,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
Section 3(5) of the Succession to the Crown Act states:

A void marriage under that Act is to be treated as never having been void if—

(a) 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,

(b) no consent was sought under section 1 of that Act, or notice given
under section 2 of that Act, in respect of the marriage,

(c) 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, and

(d) no person acted, before the coming into force of this section, on the
basis that the marriage was void.

It seems that (c) is the sticking point. In order for the marriages of Charles Edward's children to be recognized as valid it would need to be established "that it was reasonable for [them] not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to [them]."

I'm not sure how this would be done now that the children are deceased.

Succession to the Crown Act 2013:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...0130020_en.pdf
I would argue the other way around. Given that they (supposedly?) didn't ask permission, we may assume that they didn't think it applied to them (given that they had been deprived of their British titles - a reasonable ground for thinking that you no longer 'matter'). It only needs to be proven that it was 'reasonable' that they might have thought it didn't apply. Unless you can proof that they were very well aware and still decided NOT to seek permission for whatever reason, I would say it is reasonable to assume that they weren't aware that the Act applied to them.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04-17-2018, 04:09 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 884
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post


I may be misunderstanding but is it the difference between legal (ie true marriage in the eyes of the law and the world) and valid (in terms of the succession)?
No, there was no difference. If permission was required, but not requested or granted, the couple were not legally married according to British law, and any children were illegitimate and incapable of inheriting anything from the royal parent, not just succession rights.

From The Royal Marriage Act:
"every marriage, or matrimonial contract, of any such descendant, without such consent first had and obtained, shall be null and void, to all intents and purposes whatsoever." [i.e, not limited to the succession rights]

This is why Augustus Duke of Sussex's son didn't inherit his title and George Duke of Cambridge's sons didn't inherit his. If the RMA only affected their children's succession rights, the sons still would have been able to inherit their peerages as "heirs male of the body." But because they were illegitimate in the eyes of the British law, they weren't the "heirs male."

The Royal Marriage Act, 1772

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I would argue the other way around. Given that they (supposedly?) didn't ask permission, we may assume that they didn't think it applied to them (given that they had been deprived of their British titles - a reasonable ground for thinking that you no longer 'matter'). It only needs to be proven that it was 'reasonable' that they might have thought it didn't apply. Unless you can proof that they were very well aware and still decided NOT to seek permission for whatever reason, I would say it is reasonable to assume that they were aware that the Act applied to them.
Thank you, I think yours is the most reasonable interpretation. Otherwise that entire section is meaningless, since the individuals it applied to are all deceased.

I'm glad I asked!
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04-17-2018, 06:01 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 1,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post


I may be misunderstanding but is it the difference between legal (ie true marriage in the eyes of the law and the world) and valid (in terms of the succession)?
Yes, now some marriages are legal but children from these marriages don't have succession rights (Succession to the Crown Act 2013).
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 04-17-2018, 06:45 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spheno View Post
Yes, now some marriages are legal but children from these marriages don't have succession rights (Succession to the Crown Act 2013).
Yes, the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 changed the penalties for contracting an unapproved marriage.

Royal Marriage Act: The marriage wasn't legal, the children were illegitimate, but the royal who contracted the marriage still had succession rights.

Succession to the Crown Act: The marriage is legal, the children are legitimate, but both the royal contracting the marriage and any children/descendants have no succession rights.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 04-17-2018, 07:45 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Hamilton, Canada
Posts: 658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
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.


Is Benjamin excluded because his parents married after he was born and then divorced?
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 04-17-2018, 07:47 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 884
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahedwards2 View Post
Is Benjamin excluded because his parents married after he was born and then divorced?
Yes, you are correct, he is excluded because he was born before his parents married.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 04-18-2018, 08:13 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahedwards2 View Post
Is Benjamin excluded because his parents married after he was born and then divorced?
His parents' divorce doesn't play into it - Benjamin is excluded simply because his parents weren't married when he was born.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 04-30-2018, 11:20 AM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
For instance Carl XVI Gustav of Sweden isn't in the British line of succession through his mother Sibylla of Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha but because of his grandmother Margaret of Connaught.
If he cannot derive his succession rights from his mother, he cannot derive them from his father either. Only children from a valid marriage can have succession rights, and it takes two for a marriage. Since Sibylla did not ask for permission, her marriage to Gustaf Adolf was not valid under British law. Thus, their children were not legitimate according to British law. Gustaf Adolf's own succession rights are irrelevant.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 04-30-2018, 11:30 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
If he cannot derive his succession rights from his mother, he cannot derive them from his father either. Only children from a valid marriage can have succession rights, and it takes two for a marriage. Since Sibylla did not ask for permission, her marriage to Gustaf Adolf was not valid under British law. Thus, their children were not legitimate according to British law. Gustaf Adolf's own succession rights are irrelevant.
Descendants of British princesses who married into foreign royal families did not have to ask permission to marry under the Royal Marriages Act. As a descendant of Margaret of Connaught, whose marriage was valid under British law, Prince Gustaf Adolf was exempted.

So, yes, his marriage to Sibylla was valid and Carl Gustaf is in the line of succession to the British throne.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 04-30-2018, 11:43 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 884
Yes, but Sibylla presumably still needed permission, just as her mother-in-law Margaret needed permission when she also married a descendant of a British princess who married into a foreign royal family.

There were also other British royals who needed permission despite marrying a foreign descendant of a British princess, including the Queen's marriage to Prince Philip, George V's to Mary of Teck, and Edward VII's to Alexandra of Denmark. Whether or not their spouses needed permission was irrelevant. The Royal Marriages Act exempted foreign descendants of princesses, not British royals who married them.

It could possibly be argued, under the new marriage rules, that Sibylla didn't know she didn't permission and therefore the marriage is now considered valid.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 04-30-2018, 03:45 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Descendants of British princesses who married into foreign royal families did not have to ask permission to marry under the Royal Marriages Act. As a descendant of Margaret of Connaught, whose marriage was valid under British law, Prince Gustaf Adolf was exempted.

So, yes, his marriage to Sibylla was valid and Carl Gustaf is in the line of succession to the British throne.
As I said, it takes two people to have a valid marriage. If one of the two does not meet the legal requirements, the marriage is not legally valid. Sibylla did not meet the requirements. Gustaf Adolf could have married a Swedish commoner and the marriage would have been legal in the UK; but for Sibylla and him to contract a valid marriage, she needed a permission.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 04-30-2018, 04:19 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Hamilton, United Kingdom
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Descendants of British princesses who married into foreign royal families did not have to ask permission to marry under the Royal Marriages Act. As a descendant of Margaret of Connaught, whose marriage was valid under British law, Prince Gustaf Adolf was exempted.

So, yes, his marriage to Sibylla was valid and Carl Gustaf is in the line of succession to the British throne.

Sybylla's father (who was the way she qualified anyway) was as mentioned elsewhere on this page stripped of his British titles(as were his children) .his Garter and his place in succession due to WWI that was even before he became a Nazi along with her brothers)

So as of 1919 she was no longer a Princess of Britain and had lost her place as well so she had no standing to pass on to Carl Gustaf whether she asked for permission to marry or not
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 04-30-2018, 04:26 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
As I said, it takes two people to have a valid marriage. If one of the two does not meet the legal requirements, the marriage is not legally valid. Sibylla did not meet the requirements. Gustaf Adolf could have married a Swedish commoner and the marriage would have been legal in the UK; but for Sibylla and him to contract a valid marriage, she needed a permission.

I have a question though: as a descendant in maternal line from Princess Augusta of Great Britain, wouldn't Princess Sibylla be exempted too ? Or does the exemption have to hold in both maternal and paternal lines , which would be a narrower interpretation of the statute ?
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 04-30-2018, 04:30 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Hamilton, United Kingdom
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I have a question though: as a descendant in maternal line from Princess Augusta of Great Britain, wouldn't Princess Sibylla be exempted too ?
No .

As per my last post the Act of Parliament that stripped her father's rights and position also stripped that of her and her brothers
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 04-30-2018, 04:48 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humbugged View Post
Sybylla's father (who was the way she qualified anyway) was as mentioned elsewhere on this page stripped of his British titles(as were his children) .his Garter and his place in succession due to WWI that was even before he became a Nazi along with her brothers)

So as of 1919 she was no longer a Princess of Britain and had lost her place as well so she had no standing to pass on to Carl Gustaf whether she asked for permission to marry or not
You're right, Sibylla's father lost his the Albany title but neither of them lost their place in the succession. Neither did Kaiser Wilhelm for that matter.

Yes, Sibylla was no longer a Princess of Great Britain but Alastair of Connaught lost his princely title as well, so that wouldn't necessarily exempt her from the Royal Marriages Act.

It could however, be argued that the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas believed they were no longer subject to the RMA because they regarded themselves as a German royal family.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 04-30-2018, 05:04 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
You're right, Sibylla's father lost his the Albany title but neither of them lost their place in the succession. Neither did Kaiser Wilhelm for that matter.

Yes, Sibylla was no longer a Princess of Great Britain but Alastair of Connaught lost his princely title as well, so that wouldn't necessarily exempt her from the Royal Marriages Act.

It could however, be argued that the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas believed they were no longer subject to the RMA because they regarded themselves as a German royal family.
My question was not about Sibylla being no longer a Princess of Great Britain, but rather about the fact that, through her mother, she was a descendant of a British princess (Princess Augusta, granddaughter of George II) who had married into a foreign family. Did that exempt Sibylla from the provisions of the RMA ?
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 04-30-2018, 05:07 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I have a question though: as a descendant in maternal line from Princess Augusta of Great Britain, wouldn't Princess Sibylla be exempted too ? Or does the exemption have to hold in both maternal and paternal lines , which would be a narrower interpretation of the statute ?
No, if that were the case then all of the descendants of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra would have been exempt, since Alexandra was the descendant of two daughters of George II who married into foreign royal houses.

This of course, would include Queen Elizabeth II, her children, and her grandchildren.

The RMA applied to:

(1) Male-line descendants of the sovereign (beginning with George II). This included male-line descendants who also descended from females who were exempt.

(2) Descendants of daughters who did NOT marry a foreigner. That is why the descendants of Princess Louise, who married the Duke of Fife, a British subject, needed permission to marry, but the descendants of her sister Maud, who married the King of Norway, did not.

Whether or not the spouse was also a descendant of George II, and exempt from the RMA, made no difference.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 04-30-2018, 05:11 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
No, if that were the case then all of the descendants of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra would have been exempt, since Alexandra was the descendant of two daughters of George II who married into foreign royal houses.
There was actually a theory by someone, whose name I don't recall, that claimed that all descendants of Queen Alexandra were actually exempt precisely for that reason. Have the courts ever ruled on the matter ?

Certainly, on a strict reading of the text of the RMA, there are grounds to argue that.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, danish royal family, dutch royal family, norwegian royal family, swedish royal family


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Are the Orleans-Braganza in the line of succession to the French throne? Lecen Royal Families of France 7 12-27-2014 08:49 PM
Line of Succession to the British Throne David Lewis Royal Genealogy 22 02-17-2012 10:49 AM




Popular Tags
administrator alqasimi aristocracy belgian castles clothes countess of wessex crown crown prince hussein crown prince hussein's future wife crusades current events cyprus denmark duchess of cambridge duchess of sussex duke of sussex duke of york earl of wessex foundation french revolution friendly city future genealogy germany greece harry headship kiko king philippe lineage lithuanian castles lithuanian palaces meghan markle monaco royal monarchist monarchy monogram mountbatten naples netflix official visit pakistan patronages potential areas prince aymeric prince charles prince harry prince nicholas princess anne princess eugenie princess louise qe2 queen mathilde rania of jordan relationship royal royal children russian imperial family savoy saxony south africa south korea state visit state visit to denmark titles uk styles tradition united kingdom valois viscount severn



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:47 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019
Jelsoft Enterprises