Line of Succession to the British Throne

[Iluvbertie]

I believe many of the Kents followed the Duchess into Roman Catholicism. Only the Earl of St Andrews and his daughter Lady Amelia and Lady Helen Taylor and children are in the line of succession. The Dukedom of Kent will eventually become the highest ranking Catholics in the country, knocking the Dukes of Norfolk off that perch.

They won't.

During the present reign the Duke of Kent takes his precedence based on being a grandson of a monarch and an HRH.

When he dies his son will be the lowest ranked Duke - as the ranks for non-royal dukes is based on date of the creation of the Dukedom, not on relation to the Crown or line of succession e.g. the Duke of Fife is in the line of succession while the Duke of Norfolk isn't but the Duke of Fife ranks way down the Dukes due to the date of creation.

Norfolk is the 2nd highest based on date of creation - behind Cornwall.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think that tracking down or, more precisely, verifying the eligibility of anyone below the Lascelles or the Fifes

That is an easy one ... and someone who knows how to do the job - HM The King of Norway followed by the Crown Prince of Norway then his son and then his daughter (the children are the other way round in the line of succession to the Norwegian throne than they are to the British throne due to being born before 28th October 2011).

 

[Heavs]

They won't.

During the present reign the Duke of Kent takes his precedence based on being a grandson of a monarch and an HRH.

When he dies his son will be the lowest ranked Duke - as the ranks for non-royal dukes is based on date of the creation of the Dukedom, not on relation to the Crown or line of succession e.g. the Duke of Fife is in the line of succession while the Duke of Norfolk isn't but the Duke of Fife ranks way down the Dukes due to the date of creation.

Norfolk is the 2nd highest based on date of creation - behind Cornwall.

Yeah I got confused between this and another article about how they're still the highest ranked Catholics in terms of being Windsors/members of the extended family.

 

[AC21091968]

A YouGov poll was conducted with 4203 British adults on 23rd February. The question is Do you think Prince Harry should or should not be removed from his place in the line of succession, so if it came to it, he would not be eligible to become King?

He should be removed: 49%
He should not be removed: 28%
Don't know: 24%​

Like some previous polls on the royal family, there is around a quarter of the surveyed people with "Don't know" and "Don't care". Age, politics and region do play a role in the differences in responses. In contrast, there is more consistency and similarity in the gender and social grade.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...edium=daily_questions&utm_campaign=question_2

I think the chances of Harry being removed from the line of succession is very little, given that it would require an act in parliament (not just in the UK). Unless Harry himself converted to Roman Catholicism. Like some posters from the other thread have mentioned with YouGov polls on Harry & Meghan, this could be just be a method that the Sussex's critics show their dislike on the couple.

 

[Durham]

It's interesting that two individuals so relatively high up in the line now live abroad. When did that last happen?

And now that it's going to happen this year how long has it been since someone in the top 10 was not born in the UK? Must be at least a century?

I'm pretty confident that most people in Britain don't even know there are non Britons in the line of succession.

 

[Mbruno]

A YouGov poll was conducted with 4203 British adults on 23rd February. The question is Do you think Prince Harry should or should not be removed from his place in the line of succession, so if it came to it, he would not be eligible to become King?

He should be removed: 49%
He should not be removed: 28%
Don't know: 24%​

Like some previous polls on the royal family, there is around a quarter of the surveyed people with "Don't know" and "Don't care". Age, politics and region do play a role in the differences in responses. In contrast, there is more consistency and similarity in the gender and social grade.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...edium=daily_questions&utm_campaign=question_2

I think the chances of Harry being removed from the line of succession is very little, given that it would require an act in parliament (not just in the UK). Unless Harry himself converted to Roman Catholicism. Like some posters from the other thread have mentioned with YouGov polls on Harry & Meghan, this could be just be a method that the Sussex's critics show their dislike on the couple.

Yes, the easiest way out would be for Harry to be received in the Roman Catholic Church, which would automatically disqualify him. Otherwise, my understanding is that, in order to remove him by law, the UK and the Commonwealth realms would have to go through the same process that was used for the Succession to the Crown Act 2013.


If you recall it, in Australia for example, separate legislation from all Australian states was needed, but the states used a special provision in the federal constitution under which they could pass laws (or resolutions? ) delegating to the federal parliament the authority to change the succession laws on their behalf. If I am not mistaken, it is Sec. 51(xxxviii) of the constitution, where the federal parliament is authorized


"The exercise within the Commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the Parliaments of all the States directly concerned, of any power which can at the establishment of this Constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia."


If I remember it correctly, all states took advantage of that clause, except Queensland, which insisted on passing its own Sucession to the Crown bill and that took a long time (almost two years ?), which greatly delayed the commencement of the act in the UK.


It is a quite fascinating topic actually. In Canada, some people thought that a change to the succession law would require a constitutional amendment procedure as outlined in the Constitution Act, 1982 involving resolutions of the House of Commons and the Senate, and of the legislative assemblies of all Canadian provinces. However, Stephen Harper's conservative government at the time argued that the constitution of Canada only implies that the same person who is the British monarch is automatically also the King or Queen of Canada, but that the succession law properly is not part of Canadian law or the Canadian constitution, but rather solely of British law. Therefore, no constitutional amendment was required and the only thing that the federal Parliament of Canada had to do was to pass an ordinary act of Parliament consenting to the UK Succession to the Crown Act to comply with Canada's obligations under the preamble of the Statute of Westminster, 1931, which is what was ultimately done rather quickly.


Many people in Canada found the Harper government's interpretation that Canada didn't have a succession law of its own to be quite bizarre and, inevitably, that interpretation was questioned in the courts. However, surprisingly or not, there have been at least two court rulings since then upholding the Harper interpretation, including a ruling by the Court of Appeal, I think, in the province of Quebec.

 

[Somebody]

A YouGov poll was conducted with 4203 British adults on 23rd February. The question is Do you think Prince Harry should or should not be removed from his place in the line of succession, so if it came to it, he would not be eligible to become King?

He should be removed: 49%
He should not be removed: 28%
Don't know: 24%​

Like some previous polls on the royal family, there is around a quarter of the surveyed people with "Don't know" and "Don't care". Age, politics and region do play a role in the differences in responses. In contrast, there is more consistency and similarity in the gender and social grade.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...edium=daily_questions&utm_campaign=question_2

I think the chances of Harry being removed from the line of succession is very little, given that it would require an act in parliament (not just in the UK). Unless Harry himself converted to Roman Catholicism. Like some posters from the other thread have mentioned with YouGov polls on Harry & Meghan, this could be just be a method that the Sussex's critics show their dislike on the couple.

I was a little concerned about a survey being conducted TOMORROW with results already known today; but luckily it was both conducted and published today

 

[Iluvbertie]

It's interesting that two individuals so relatively high up in the line now live abroad. When did that last happen?

And now that it's going to happen this year how long has it been since someone in the top 10 was not born in the UK? Must be at least a century?

I'm pretty confident that most people in Britain don't even know there are non Britons in the line of succession.

The vast majority of those in the line of succession aren't British starting with Crown Prince Haakon of Norway (his father was born before 1948 and so was born a British citizen but that right was removed after the courts ruled that all of the Electress Sophia's descendants were, in fact, British citizens. Harold may have renounced that citizenship or simply ignores it). Only about 70 of the over 5000 are British citizens.

 

[Durham]

The vast majority of those in the line of succession aren't British starting with Crown Prince Haakon of Norway (his father was born before 1948 and so was born a British citizen but that right was removed after the courts ruled that all of the Electress Sophia's descendants were, in fact, British citizens. Harold may have renounced that citizenship or simply ignores it). Only about 70 of the over 5000 are British citizens.

Yes it's quite remarkable when you think about it. Of course we on TRF know why this is but the great majority of modern Britons would be surprised I think. It was so very common in past generations for royal houses to intermarry.

Victorians in particular were used to representations of their queen's family with its branches all over the continent. So to them it was quite unremarkable that the German Emperor was next in line to the British throne after the families of Victoria's sons.

In the USA of course you have to be a natural born citizen to be head of state. In many other countries as well probably.

 

[Countessmeout]

The fact that the line of succession spreads so far from the UK is more a sign of the times. Then the queen's family before her marrying into other royal branches.

Even 50 years ago, it wasn't that common to move away from your country. Except for those immigrating for financial reasons. Moving abroad for work, or adventure or so on is far more common now a days. Considering how many people in the line of succession are private citizens with no royal links to a particular country, I woulnd't be shocked if there were people in the line of succession on any corner of the globe.


Many countries don't require their leaders to be born there. Simply that they are a citizen of the country which seems fair (why should an immigrant, especially say one who came as a small child) be barred from leading the country. I am sure many immigrant born could do a better job other elected officials I won't name.

 

[Somebody]

But why would you need 5000 people in your line of succession?

The changes decided on in 2011 could easily have included a reduction: for example, reducing it to 4th degree relationship of any of monarch would still include anyone we might see on the balcony... (so, the first 60 + most of princess Mary, the princess royal's family) 3rd degree would also make sense given that provisions have been made until the 'great-grandchildren' to be treated as children of dukes. So, from that perspective you might argue that 4th generation is no longer considered to need special treatment.

 

[LauraS3514]

It's interesting that two individuals so relatively high up in the line now live abroad. When did that last happen?

Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, served as Governor General of Australia from 1945-1947 and his family went with him, so numbers 3 (Henry), 4 (Prince William of Gloucester) and 5 (Prince Richard, current Duke of Gloucester) were all living abroad.

 

[Osipi]

Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, served as Governor General of Australia from 1945-1947 and his family went with him, so numbers 3 (Henry), 4 (Prince William of Gloucester) and 5 (Prince Richard, current Duke of Gloucester) were all living abroad.

Question here. Wouldn't the residence of the Governor General of Australia rank as being on British soil in the same regard a British embassy in a foreign country is? If that is the case, the Gloucesters would probably be considered as still being domiciled in the UK?

Just wondering here.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

German Emperor Wilhelm II once was Nr 6 in the succession after his mother and her four brothers. As high as Prince Harry today.

 

[AC21091968]

German Emperor Wilhelm II once was Nr 6 in the succession after his mother and her four brothers. As high as Prince Harry today.

Indeed and as soon as his maternal uncles (Edward VII, Prince Alfred, Prince Arthur and Prince Leopold) start having children, Wilhelm II's place in the line of succession kept dropping. I remember reading a tweet (I could not find it) saying along the lines that the further away you start (when you are born) in the line of succession, the more (position) and faster you get pushed back.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think the chances of Harry being removed from the line of succession is very little, given that it would require an act in parliament (not just in the UK). Unless Harry himself converted to Roman Catholicism.

Yes, the easiest way out would be for Harry to be received in the Roman Catholic Church, which would automatically disqualify him. Otherwise, my understanding is that, in order to remove him by law, the UK and the Commonwealth realms would have to go through the same process that was used for the Succession to the Crown Act 2013.

He would remove himself if he renounced Protestantism, irrespective of whether he converted to Roman Catholicism or any other church. The limitation to Protestant heirs was established by the Bill of Rights and confirmed in The Act of Settlement.

The effect of conversion to Catholicism specifically would be to render the removal irrevocable even in the event that he rejoined the Protestant faith. Protestants who were previously members of the Catholic church are disqualified, whereas Protestants who were previously non-religious or a member of another non-Catholic denomination or religion are not.

The fact that the line of succession spreads so far from the UK is more a sign of the times. Then the queen's family before her marrying into other royal branches.

I would say it is more a sign of the UK's failure to update its legislation. The other royal houses of Europe have in common the circumstance of hundreds or thousands of descendants residing abroad as a result of intermarriages between royal houses as well as emigration. The difference is that in most of the other royal houses, the majority of the foreign branches are excluded from the lines of succession to their respective thrones.

 

[Mbruno]

But why would you need 5000 people in your line of succession?

You could ask the other way around: why not? Most of those 5000 people have no official role in the UK, no British title, no state funding, and it is highly unlikely that anyone outside the first 10 people in the line of succession will ever ascend the throne. So keeping them in the line of succession is in the worst case innocuous and, pragmatically, there is no gain in removing them.

I would say it is more a sign of the UK's failure to update its legislation. The other royal houses of Europe have in common the circumstance of hundreds or thousands of descendants residing abroad as a result of intermarriages between royal houses as well as emigration. The difference is that in most of the other royal houses, the majority of the foreign branches are excluded from the lines of succession to their respective thrones.

Which European monarchies explicitly limit succession to national citizens only?



In the case of Sweden, the Instrument of Government says that the King or Queen who occupies the throne under the Act of Succession is the Head of State of Sweden. The Instrument of Government also has a clause that requires the "Head of State" to be a Swedish citizen, but the Act of Succession properly makes no reference to citizenship, although princes and princesses of the Royal House must be “ raised in the realm”, It is unclear whether someone could then be King or Queen under the Act of Succession, but be barred from serving as Head of State for not being Swedish. The Royal Court doesn't seem to take chances though, so there is a policy apparently in place under which membership of the Royal House (including membership for people who marry into the Royal House) requires having or acquiring Swedish citizenship (see Chris O'Neill's controversy as a case in point). Note, however, that membership of the Royal House is different from being in the line of succession as there are members of the Royal House who are not in the line (e.g. Daniel and Brigitta) and, vice-versa, there are people in the line of succession who are not members of the Royal House (e.g. CP's and Madeleine's children).. The requirement of being raised in the realm , according to the Court, also applies to princes or princesses of the Royal House only, hence Madeleine ‘s children for example are allowed to be raised in the US and still retain their succession rights.



I don't think the Spanish constitution has any restriction either on the King of Spain being a foreigner although there is a requirement that regents, when chosen outside the RF, must be Spaniards. I don't know about other countries like Belgium, Denmark or Norway, but normally restrictions are only that the monarch cannot be simultaneously the sovereign or Head of State of another country without parliamentary consent, or cannot be permanently out of the country for a maximum period of time without consent, or must have been raised in the realm, but there might be no specific references to nationality or citizenship status.


It seems that the most common mechanism that European monarchies use to cut down the line of succession, in addition to religious tests and exclusion of people who contract unapproved marriages, is actually to reset the line from time to time restricting it to the descendants of a recent monarch only, e.g. King Christian X and Queen Alexandrine in Denmark, King Juan Carlos I in Spain, or King Carl XVI Gustaf in Sweden. Over time, barring other forms of exclusion, the line of succession will keep growing exponentially in those countries too unless it is reset again. Only Norway and the Netherlands have explicit proximity of blood clauses involving the latest monarch.


PS: As ILuvBertie likes to remind us, in the case of the UK, the debate on a nationality clause is actually irrelevant as, in practice, all legitimate descendants of Sophia of Hanover are automatically eligible for UK citizenship. I don't think recent Immigration and Nationality Acts have changed that.

 

[Alison H]

There just hasn't been any need to cut down the line of succession, and it hasn't been done because Parliament doesn't have the time to enact legislation which isn't really needed. It's not as if the person who's 5000th on it is getting any public funding or is entitled to any sort of privileges. All sorts of Private Members' Bills (i.e. bills brought by individual Members of Parliament) never even get as far as being discussed in Parliament, because there just isn't time with everything else that needs dealing with - the health service, social security issues, the economy, defence, transport, etc etc etc.


This is why I can't see Harry being removed from the line of succession. Parliament is snowed under at the moment, with all the extra work needed to deal with the pandemic. Imagine if it were announced that legislation allowing the state to keep funding small businesses which have been forced to close due to lockdown was having to be delayed due to a debate on Harry. It just isn't going to happen.

 

[Mbruno]

There just hasn't been any need to cut down the line of succession, and it hasn't been done because Parliament doesn't have the time to enact legislation which isn't really needed. It's not as if the person who's 5000th on it is getting any public funding or is entitled to any sort of privileges. All sorts of Private Members' Bills (i.e. bills brought by individual Members of Parliament) never even get as far as being discussed in Parliament, because there just isn't time with everything else that needs dealing with - the health service, social security issues, the economy, defence, transport, etc etc etc.


This is why I can't see Harry being removed from the line of succession. Parliament is snowed under at the moment, with all the extra work needed to deal with the pandemic. Imagine if it were announced that legislation allowing the state to keep funding small businesses which have been forced to close due to lockdown was having to be delayed due to a debate on Harry. It just isn't going to happen.

And, on top of that, as I like to insist, the line of succession would have to change in other countries too before the changes can come into effect in the UK, i.e. the same complications that existed with the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 would apply in this case too.

Whereas the UK Parliament is busy with other more important matters, I am pretty sure the parliaments of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc. are busy too and it is not reasonable that they should all allocate scarce parliamentary time to deal with Harry's place in the line of succession.


Going back, however, to the nationality debate above, I understand that there may be a concern on the part of some people in Britain about Archie Harrison and his future sibling(s). It may sound xenophobic to say that, but, although Archie and his future siblings are/ will be UK citizens by birth, it is not absurd , in the unlikely event that one of them becomes first in line, to imagine that there will be questions about someone who was raised overseas and never lived in the UK becoming king or queen of the United Kingdom. Again, British law doesn't bar that from happening, but still, questions will be raised, I think.

 

[Stefan]

There just hasn't been any need to cut down the line of succession, and it hasn't been done because Parliament doesn't have the time to enact legislation which isn't really needed. It's not as if the person who's 5000th on it is getting any public funding or is entitled to any sort of privileges. All sorts of Private Members' Bills (i.e. bills brought by individual Members of Parliament) never even get as far as being discussed in Parliament, because there just isn't time with everything else that needs dealing with - the health service, social security issues, the economy, defence, transport, etc etc etc.

They should have choosen to limit the line of succession together with the new Crown Act. Perhaps to the descendants of George V. and then an autmatism in the law so that when Charles succeeds it is limited to the descedants of george VI. Similarto how it is done in the Netherlands or Monaco.

 

[SLV]

And, on top of that, as I like to insist, the line of succession would have to change in other countries too before the changes can come into effect in the UK, i.e. the same complications that existed with the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 would apply in this case too.

Whereas the UK Parliament is busy with other more important matters, I am pretty sure the parliaments of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc. are busy too and it is not reasonable that they should all allocate scarce parliamentary time to deal with Harry's place in the line of succession.


Going back, however, to the nationality debate above, I understand that there may be a concern on the part of some people in Britain about Archie Harrison and his future sibling(s). It may sound xenophobic to say that, but, although Archie and his future siblings are/ will be UK citizens by birth, it is not absurd , in the unlikely event that one of them becomes first in line, to imagine that there will be questions about someone who was raised overseas and never lived in the UK becoming king or queen of the United Kingdom. Again, British law doesn't bar that from happening, but still, questions will be raised, I think.

That is not xenofobic thinking at all. There is no fear involved, only the worry how a person raised abroad would feel connected to the country he/she would have to serve.

 

[Durham]

The fact that the line of succession spreads so far from the UK is more a sign of the times. Then the queen's family before her marrying into other royal branches.

Many countries don't require their leaders to be born there. Simply that they are a citizen of the country which seems fair (why should an immigrant, especially say one who came as a small child) be barred from leading the country. I am sure many immigrant born could do a better job other elected officials I won't name.

But they are overwhelmingly European citizens who are descended in the main from dynastic marriages or politics. Otherwise they would be mostly British or from a country where British settlers went to like Canada, Australia or NZ. Not to mention the USA of course which was by far the largest destination for British settlers for centuries.

Many places don't as you say require birth in that country to be the head of state but you do at least have to be a citizen. Not so for the UK or the other realms.

 

[Durham]

Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, served as Governor General of Australia from 1945-1947 and his family went with him, so numbers 3 (Henry), 4 (Prince William of Gloucester) and 5 (Prince Richard, current Duke of Gloucester) were all living abroad.

Thank you for reminding me.

On the other hand Australia was of course part of the British Empire so at the time it wouldn't have been considered "abroad" as we would understand it.

 

[Durham]

German Emperor Wilhelm II once was Nr 6 in the succession after his mother and her four brothers. As high as Prince Harry today.

Yes indeed & The King of Hannover was the heir to the British throne between the death of William IV & the birth of Princess Victoria (Vicky, the future German Empress).

 

[Durham]

PS: As ILuvBertie likes to remind us, in the case of the UK, the debate on a nationality clause is actually irrelevant as, in practice, all legitimate descendants of Sophia of Hanover are automatically eligible for UK citizenship. I don't think recent Immigration and Nationality Acts have changed that.

I understand that such individuals would at best be Overseas British Citizens? So eligible for UK citizenship but not technically UK citizens? Happy to educated further as they say.?

 

[Durham]

There just hasn't been any need to cut down the line of succession, and it hasn't been done because Parliament doesn't have the time to enact legislation which isn't really needed. It's not as if the person who's 5000th on it is getting any public funding or is entitled to any sort of privileges. All sorts of Private Members' Bills (i.e. bills brought by individual Members of Parliament) never even get as far as being discussed in Parliament, because there just isn't time with everything else that needs dealing with - the health service, social security issues, the economy, defence, transport, etc etc etc.


This is why I can't see Harry being removed from the line of succession. Parliament is snowed under at the moment, with all the extra work needed to deal with the pandemic. Imagine if it were announced that legislation allowing the state to keep funding small businesses which have been forced to close due to lockdown was having to be delayed due to a debate on Harry. It just isn't going to happen.

Yes I agree it's not a pressing matter. But it might become one so I'd be surprised if some policy wonk hasn't at least thought it through.

 

[Durham]

And, on top of that, as I like to insist, the line of succession would have to change in other countries too before the changes can come into effect in the UK, i.e. the same complications that existed with the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 would apply in this case too.

Whereas the UK Parliament is busy with other more important matters, I am pretty sure the parliaments of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc. are busy too and it is not reasonable that they should all allocate scarce parliamentary time to deal with Harry's place in the line of succession.


Going back, however, to the nationality debate above, I understand that there may be a concern on the part of some people in Britain about Archie Harrison and his future sibling(s). It may sound xenophobic to say that, but, although Archie and his future siblings are/ will be UK citizens by birth, it is not absurd , in the unlikely event that one of them becomes first in line, to imagine that there will be questions about someone who was raised overseas and never lived in the UK becoming king or queen of the United Kingdom. Again, British law doesn't bar that from happening, but still, questions will be raised, I think.

Well it would be odd to suddenly have a different line of succession from the other realms but being in a personal union with other countries doesn't preclude the UK of course from legislating to alter its own succession.

As to a foreign raised individual ascending the throne, there would definitely be questions in such a scenario, after all it hasn't happened since 1714. I don't think that's xenophobic at all. It raises all sorts of legitimate questions.

 

[Mbruno]

Well it would be odd to suddenly have a different line of succession from the other realms but being in a personal union with other countries doesn't preclude the UK of course from legislating to alter its own succession.

As to a foreign raised individual ascending the throne, there would definitely be questions in such a scenario, after all it hasn't happened since 1714. I don't think that's xenophobic at all. It raises all sorts of legitimate questions.

Actually, I think that the British government is currently legally obligated under the preamble of the Statute of Westminster, 1931 to receive the consent of the other Commonwealth realms before any legal change to the line of succession to the throne can come into force in the UK. Since the UK parliament is not bound by previous parliaments though, I believe that it could in theory pass a Succession act that would come into effect "notwithstanding any provision in the Statute of Westminster, 1931",but it is highly unlikely it would do so.



Here is the relevant excerpt from the Statute of Westminster (the reference to the existing Dominions at the time is now construed to mean a reference to the present Commonwealth realms):

And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom

On the issue of "xenophobia", I agree, but it is a tricky argument. Basically, if we accept the idea that Archie for example can't be king because he is de facto American and never lived in the UK, how can we at the same time reject the argument of the republicans in the Commonwealth realms that Elizabeth II can't be their queen because she was born and raised in Britain and does not live e.g. in Australia or New Zealand ?


I guess one could argue that the situation of the realms is slightly different because the royal prerogative there, for all practical intents and purposes, is exercised by the Governor General, who is now normally a citizen of the realm, rather than the Queen herself, but I would be very careful about going into any nationality requirements for accession to the throne of a multinational, shared monarchy.

 

[Sandy345]

I was a little concerned about a survey being conducted TOMORROW with results already known today; but luckily it was both conducted and published today

There really is no need to remove him, he is so far down in line of succession anyway. I don't know the purpose or need for this poll.

 

[Durham]

Actually, I think that the British government is currently legally obligated under the preamble of the Statute of Westminster, 1931 to receive the consent of the other Commonwealth realms before any legal change to the line of succession to the throne can come into force in the UK. Since the UK parliament is not bound by previous parliaments though, I believe that it could in theory pass a Succession act that would come into effect "notwithstanding any provision in the Statute of Westminster, 1931",but it is highly unlikely it would do so.



Here is the relevant excerpt from the Statute of Westminster (the reference to the existing Dominions at the time is now construed to mean a reference to the present Commonwealth realms):




On the issue of "xenophobia", I agree, but it is a tricky argument. Basically, if we accept the idea that Archie for example can't be king because he is the facto American and never lived in the UK, how can we at the same time reject the argument of the republicans in the Commonwealth realms that Elizabeth II can't be their queen because she was born and raised in Britain and does not live e.g. in Australia or New Zealand ?



I guess one could argue that the situation of the realms is slightly different because the royal prerogative there, for all practical intents and purposes, is exercised there by the Governor General, who is now normally a citizen of the realm, rather than the Queen herself, but I would be very careful from going into any nationality requirements for accession to the throne of a multinational, shared monarchy.

Thank you for that extract. I wasn't aware of that part of the statute. You are right to point out that no parliament is bound by a previous one. That's a well established rule.

Of course the "crown" mentioned in the Statute of Westminster would be the old pre 1952 notion of a shared one. Today of course the crowns are separate entities so arguably that part of the statute is redundant & not applicable anyway however it may be construed today.

Without any evidence whatsoever I would guess that an individual from the old dominions becoming sovereign would be looked at very differently from someone from elsewhere. Especially if they came from a republic. There remain a lot of family contacts & cultural affinities with those former dominions particularly Australia & NZ although there are signs of cultural drift. And Canada too but possibly not to the same extant. The USA is a somewhat different culture which a shared language disguises.