The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #101  
Old 02-09-2019, 07:46 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
I suppose because he didn't fully understand the law and was willing to try anything in order to become King. (1) He didn't realize that all Roman Catholics were barred from the throne, including former Catholics, and (2) his religion technically wasn't even relevant because the succession had already been limited to the descendants of the Electress Sophia before he was born. The Act of Settlement eliminated him twice. Or actually thrice, once he married a Roman Catholic.
Thank you. I know he was rather a dim bulb.. but I thought that there was a possibility, if Anne did not have heirs that the Jacobite cuase still had a chance if Charles would accept the C of E....(and married a Protestant wife - of couse he did not marry till late in life....
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 02-09-2019, 08:04 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,006
I am not familiar with the events under discussion, but a Parliament which had twice altered the succession laws could theoretically alter them a third time if a claimant gained sufficient popularity, and a converted Anglican claimant would presumably obtain more support than one who continued to be Catholic.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 02-09-2019, 08:35 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,600
In theory yes, but in practice I think that while there was still a Jacobite faction, CE didn't have enough support to pull it off. THe Stuarts were not wanted overall because of their Catholicism, their tendency towards Absolutism and a general ineptness at ruling.. But in theory, if Charles had turned Anglican married a Protestant princess, he might have had a chance of the law being changed in his favour….However OTOH the Stuarts had been restored in 1660, and although Charle II had stayed away from the Roman Church, he had still been something of an absolutist, he had married a Catholic wife.. and his broter had been more inflexible as a Catholic.. so maybe they weren't willing to give them another chance
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 02-09-2019, 02:57 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
In theory yes, but in practice I think that while there was still a Jacobite faction, CE didn't have enough support to pull it off. THe Stuarts were not wanted overall because of their Catholicism, their tendency towards Absolutism and a general ineptness at ruling.. But in theory, if Charles had turned Anglican married a Protestant princess, he might have had a chance of the law being changed in his favour….However OTOH the Stuarts had been restored in 1660, and although Charle II had stayed away from the Roman Church, he had still been something of an absolutist, he had married a Catholic wife.. and his broter had been more inflexible as a Catholic.. so maybe they weren't willing to give them another chance

Except the Stuarts weren't overthrown; after James II was deposed his daughter and her husband (who was a grandson of Charles I and James' nephew) reigned, then after their deaths James' other daughter reigned.


Charles II is noted as having been a popular monarch during his reign. James I was a popular monarch as well. Both had their issues, but they were not really worse than many other monarchs. James II, however, was because of his Catholicism.



Charles Edward Stuart's willingness to convert to Anglicanism came up after his defeat in 1745; he decided that he was willing to convert in order to gain further support in England. He wasn't a strong candidate for the throne regardless of his religion - his claim came through his then still living father, he had just been hugely defeated in a rebellion to overthrow the monarch, and the monarch (George II) had no shortage of eligible, Protestant heirs.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 05-07-2019, 03:32 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan
Posts: 8
First of all thank you all for all the information on this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Only being confirmed as Roman Catholic would do that.
As a Roman Catholic will not be in the line of succession only after he/she is confirmed, this means that Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick, Lady Marina Windsor and Lord Nicholas Windsor were not in the line of succession only after they were confirmed. So. Does anyone know when were their confirmation dates? Plus who else converted to Roman Catholism and was concequently not in the line of succession and what were their confirmation dates?
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 05-07-2019, 03:58 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,527
Lord Nicholas Windsor converted in 2001.

Baron Downpatrick converted in 2003.

Lady Marina did so in 2008.

The other person who has lost their place due to conversion is Princess Alexandra of Hanover who converted last year.

Exact dates aren't given anywhere - only years - that I can find.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 05-07-2019, 04:57 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post

In 1714, there were children too young to have been confirmed as Roman Catholics who were nonetheless skipped, including the crown prince of France (age 4) and the crown prince of Spain and his brothers (ages 2 to 6).

How were the Crown princes of France (who reigned as Louis XV.) and Spain (later Louis I. of Spain) in the line to the British throne?
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 05-07-2019, 05:09 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,263
^ The future Louis XV was certainly baptised as a Catholic, within days of his birth, so would [under the act of Settlement] have been excluded from the succession to the British throne..
Given the appalling rates of infant mortality, babies tended to be baptised asap.. sometimes within 24 hours of birth, lest they die 'unsaved'.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 05-07-2019, 07:56 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
How were the Crown princes of France (who reigned as Louis XV.) and Spain (later Louis I. of Spain) in the line to the British throne?
They were both great-grandsons of Henrietta Anne Duchess of Orleans, the daughter of Charles I.


King Charles I > Henrietta Anne (m. Philippe Duke of Orleans) > Anne Marie (m. Victor Amadeus Duke of Savoy & later King of Sardinia) > Marie Adelaide (m. Louis Duke of Burgundy later Dauphin of France) > Louis XV


King Charles I > Henrietta Anne (m. Philippe Duke of Orleans) > Anne Marie (m. Victor Amadeus Duke of Savoy & later King of Sardinia) > Marie Louise (m. Philip V King of Spain) > Luis I
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 05-07-2019, 09:06 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
They were both great-grandsons of Henrietta Anne Duchess of Orleans, the daughter of Charles I.


King Charles I > Henrietta Anne (m. Philippe Duke of Orleans) > Anne Marie (m. Victor Amadeus Duke of Savoy & later King of Sardinia) > Marie Adelaide (m. Louis Duke of Burgundy later Dauphin of France) > Louis XV


King Charles I > Henrietta Anne (m. Philippe Duke of Orleans) > Anne Marie (m. Victor Amadeus Duke of Savoy & later King of Sardinia) > Marie Louise (m. Philip V King of Spain) > Luis I



Wikipedia has an article with the Jacobite line of succession in 1714 . Apparently, the future King Louis XV of France and the future Luis I of Spain were actually fifth and sixth in line to the thrones of England and Scotland (the Jacobites of course not recognizing the legal validity of the Acts of Union of 1707).



Interestingly, the future King George I of Great Britain was only 56th in line under the Jacobite succession, which really highlights how dramatic the Act of Settlement was. I am surprised there was so little opposition to the legitimacy of the Hanoverians, but I understand it in the context of the time when the Act of Settlement was passed.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 05-07-2019, 11:17 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Wikipedia has an article with the Jacobite line of succession in 1714 . Apparently, the future King Louis XV of France and the future Luis I of Spain were actually fifth and sixth in line to the thrones of England and Scotland (the Jacobites of course not recognizing the legal validity of the Acts of Union of 1707).



Interestingly, the future King George I of Great Britain was only 56th in line under the Jacobite succession, which really highlights how dramatic the Act of Settlement was. I am surprised there was so little opposition to the legitimacy of the Hanoverians, but I understand it in the context of the time when the Act of Settlement was passed.
Interesting article. However it lists the future George I's brother Maximilian as #65 in line. But as a convert to the Roman Catholic faith (1692) Maximilian was disqualified.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 05-07-2019, 12:24 PM
Duke of Leaside's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
Interesting article. However it lists the future George I's brother Maximilian as #65 in line. But as a convert to the Roman Catholic faith (1692) Maximilian was disqualified.
At the top of the line of succession in the article it says that eligible Protestants are listed in italics. Maximilian is not italicized as he wasn't eligible, because as you say he had converted to the Roman Catholic faith.
__________________
The Duke
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 05-07-2019, 12:54 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Leaside View Post
At the top of the line of succession in the article it says that eligible Protestants are listed in italics. Maximilian is not italicized as he wasn't eligible, because as you say he had converted to the Roman Catholic faith.
Ah, I didn't catch that, thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 05-07-2019, 01:22 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Wikipedia has an article with the Jacobite line of succession in 1714 . Apparently, the future King Louis XV of France and the future Luis I of Spain were actually fifth and sixth in line to the thrones of England and Scotland (the Jacobites of course not recognizing the legal validity of the Acts of Union of 1707).



Interestingly, the future King George I of Great Britain was only 56th in line under the Jacobite succession, which really highlights how dramatic the Act of Settlement was. I am surprised there was so little opposition to the legitimacy of the Hanoverians, but I understand it in the context of the time when the Act of Settlement was passed.

You are right, I didn't think of the Savoy-girls! Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 09-28-2019, 11:55 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissPeach77 View Post
When Prince William was born the law was that males had precedence over females in the line of succession, so even if Diana and Charles had had a daughter before William was born, William would still be next in line after Charles. Now...the law has changed, making the eldest child, male or female, the next in line. So if Charles and Diana HAD had a female before William, would she have replaced William as heir to the thrown behind Charles, or would they have skipped a generation with the new rule, since William had already been giving that "right" at birth before the law had changed?
The Succession to the Crown Act states:

"In determining the succession to the Crown, the gender of a person born after 28 October 2011 does not give that person, or that person’s descendants, precedence over any other person (whenever born)."

As the Duke of Cambridge was born before 28 October 2011, his gender would still give him precedence over a hypothetical older sister.


However, I have no idea whether the law would have been changed in the 1980s if Prince Charles had in fact had a female child before William.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 09-28-2019, 11:59 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,527
It was definitely discussed when Diana was expecting William. I am sure it would have been passed then.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 12-02-2019, 04:37 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,675
I am not sure if the topic has been discussed here before, but on October 28, 2019, the Quebec Court of Appeal finally ruled to dismiss the appeal by Geneviève Motard and Patrick Taillon against the previous decision of the Quebec Superior Court that upheld the validity of Canada's Succession to the Throne Act, 2013. The full text of the Court's ruling can be found here . Unfortunately it is in French (I couldn't find the English translation).


Just to give some context, the Succession to the Throne Act was passed by the federal Parliament of Canada to assent to the UK's Succession to the Crown Act, 2013 in accordance with the requirement set out in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, 1931. The plaintiffs, who are two law professors from the University of Laval, challenged the legislation in the Quebec courts on the basis that it did not comply with Section 41(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982 under which any change to the constitution of Canada affecting "the office of the Queen" also requires resolutions from the Legislative Assemblies of all provinces of Canada. Furthermore, the plaintiffs also claimed that the Succession to the Throne Act violated Section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by assenting to the exclusion of Roman Catholics from the line of succession.


If I understand it correctly, what the Superior Court found, and was upheld on appeal by the Court of Appeal, is that:


1. The British laws of succession are not part of the constitution of Canada and apply to Canada solely by the principle of symmetry implied in the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867, under which the person who occupies the throne of the United Kingdom is also the King or Queen of Canada. There is therefore no need to resort to the amendment procedure in Part V of the Constitution Act , 1982 to give assent to the amendment in British law to the British rules of succession. The enactment of a statute of assent by the Canadian Parliament such as the one passed in 2013 (again in accordance with the Statute of Westminster) was sufficient.


2. Section 41(a) in the Constitution Act, 1982 protects the institution of the monarchy, but not the procedural rules that allow a person to accede to the throne. The Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 makes no change to the powers, status or constitutional role vested in the Queen of Canada and therefore does not fall within the meaning of the “office of the Queen” as envisaged in Section 41(a).


3. Neither the Canadian Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 nor the unwritten principle of symmetry regarding the hereditary succession to the thrones of the United Kingdom and Canada incorporate the British sucession laws into Canadian domestic law. Since the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply to British laws, the challenge to the 2013 act based on incompatibility with the Charter is also dismissed.




Finally, the Court of Appeal also rejected another claim by the plaintiffs of an alleged violation of s. 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which provides that legislation must be enacted in both English and French. Again, since the UK law of succession is not part of Canadian domestic law, the Court ruled that Section 133 did not apply in this case.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 01-04-2020, 10:15 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 3,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenMathilde View Post
I have a question and I have no idea where to post it. I'm watching a clip from Good Morning Britain and they're talking about Charles possibly abdicating for William. One of the panelists said that if Charles abdicated the throne wouldn't go to William it would go to Andrew. I've never heard this before anyone know if this is true?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
That is total garbage.

If Charles abdicated, which he won't, he would be treated as though dead for the line of succession which would then pass to William.

In 1936, the last time there was an abdication in the UK, there was some discussion about by-passing Prince Albert and Prince Henry as it was felt that Prince George, who had a son to be Prince of Wales may have been a better option but ... they simply followed the line of succession and decided that Prince Albert would become George VI.

Charles can't abdicate for his sons or grandchildren.
Moved it to this thread which seems more appropriate for this question.

It seems whoever it was confused abdication and renunciation. While abdication only applies to a Sovereign (as you cannot abdicate when not on the throne); renunciation is an act that can be done by anyone in the line of succession and many times is done 'for him/herself and his/her descendants'; especially in the case of marriage (a relatively recent example is prince Louis of Luxembourg whose renounced his rights, which impacted both him and Noah - Gabriel was never in line so was not impacted by this decision).

However, if the descendants are already born from an approved marriage, it would be extremely unlikely that someone would renounce his/her succession rights not only for him/herself but also for his/her descendants. The only recent example in which something like that happened was in Romania where not only Irina but also their children and grandchildren were not included in the line of succession when the king decided that his daughters should form the new line of succession to the Romanian throne. As we now know, Albert of Belgium would have renounced his rights (only for himself; otherwise there would have been noone left) in favor of his eldest son (who became king 20 years later), had he been divorced instead of still married to Paola when his brother died.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 01-04-2020, 10:45 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I am not sure if the topic has been discussed here before, but on October 28, 2019, the Quebec Court of Appeal finally ruled to dismiss the appeal by Geneviève Motard and Patrick Taillon against the previous decision of the Quebec Superior Court that upheld the validity of Canada's Succession to the Throne Act, 2013. The full text of the Court's ruling can be found here . Unfortunately it is in French (I couldn't find the English translation).


Just to give some context, the Succession to the Throne Act was passed by the federal Parliament of Canada to assent to the UK's Succession to the Crown Act, 2013 in accordance with the requirement set out in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, 1931. The plaintiffs, who are two law professors from the University of Laval, challenged the legislation in the Quebec courts on the basis that it did not comply with Section 41(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982 under which any change to the constitution of Canada affecting "the office of the Queen" also requires resolutions from the Legislative Assemblies of all provinces of Canada. Furthermore, the plaintiffs also claimed that the Succession to the Throne Act violated Section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by assenting to the exclusion of Roman Catholics from the line of succession.


If I understand it correctly, what the Superior Court found, and was upheld on appeal by the Court of Appeal, is that:


1. The British laws of succession are not part of the constitution of Canada and apply to Canada solely by the principle of symmetry implied in the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867, under which the person who occupies the throne of the United Kingdom is also the King or Queen of Canada. There is therefore no need to resort to the amendment procedure in Part V of the Constitution Act , 1982 to give assent to the amendment in British law to the British rules of succession. The enactment of a statute of assent by the Canadian Parliament such as the one passed in 2013 (again in accordance with the Statute of Westminster) was sufficient.


2. Section 41(a) in the Constitution Act, 1982 protects the institution of the monarchy, but not the procedural rules that allow a person to accede to the throne. The Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 makes no change to the powers, status or constitutional role vested in the Queen of Canada and therefore does not fall within the meaning of the “office of the Queen” as envisaged in Section 41(a).


3. Neither the Canadian Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 nor the unwritten principle of symmetry regarding the hereditary succession to the thrones of the United Kingdom and Canada incorporate the British sucession laws into Canadian domestic law. Since the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply to British laws, the challenge to the 2013 act based on incompatibility with the Charter is also dismissed.




Finally, the Court of Appeal also rejected another claim by the plaintiffs of an alleged violation of s. 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which provides that legislation must be enacted in both English and French. Again, since the UK law of succession is not part of Canadian domestic law, the Court ruled that Section 133 did not apply in this case.
I don't believe it has, so thank you for posting it.

Although I have not read the ruling, it seems to be perfectly sensible from your summary. If the intentions of the legislator are given any consideration in Canadian law, I can't imagine that anyone concerned in Canadian constitutional legislation would have wanted to have a minor member of the British royal family as the Canadian monarch, simply because the British heir was a firstborn woman or married to a Roman Catholic. And of course the Roman Catholic exclusion was implemented by the Bill of Rights 1688, not the Succession to the Crown Act 2013.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
[...] renunciation is an act that can be done by anyone in the line of succession and many times is done 'for him/herself and his/her descendants'; especially in the case of marriage (a relatively recent example is prince Louis of Luxembourg whose renounced his rights, which impacted both him and Noah - Gabriel was never in line so was not impacted by this decision).
Noah was also never in line due to being born after the marriage and renunciation. It's my understanding of the 1907 law that renunciation or no renunciation, Gabriel and Noah would not have been in line given that their parents' marriage was not legally approved by the Grand Duke. The renunciation did impact Prince Louis's own rights (and presumably the rights of potential children from a second, approved marriage, although I haven't seen the text of the renunciation).
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 01-04-2020, 12:05 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,675
Could anyone on this forum kindly list the potential successors to the UK and Commonwealth realms thrones from number 60 to 80 at least ?

Most online sources stop at the descendants of sons of King George V, the last of whom is currently # 59 in line.
__________________

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 09:49 PM
Line of Succession to the British Throne David Lewis Royal Genealogy 22 02-17-2012 11:49 AM




Popular Tags
administrator alqasimi aristocracy armenia belgian royal family chittagong clarence house countess of snowdon cover-up crown crown prince hussein crown prince hussein's future wife crown princess victoria current events cyprus danish history denmark duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex dutch history dutch royal family french revolution future genealogy germany henry v house of glucksburg house of grimaldi house of orange-nassau house of saxe-coburg and gotha jumma kent kiko king philippe languages lithuanian castles marriage mbs meghan markle monarchist monarchy monogram naples nelson mandela bay norwegian royal family official visit palaces palestine popularity potential areas prince charles prince harry princely family of monaco prince of wales queen mathilde queen paola rania of jordan romanov family shakespeare south korea spanish royal startling new evidence state visit sweden swedish history swedish royal family united kingdom usa windy city


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:24 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×