The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1  
Old 03-22-2018, 11:46 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan
Posts: 8
Line of Succession to the British Throne

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?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-22-2018, 11:56 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 4,719
King Willem Alexander of the Netherlands is back in the line of succession. He had been excluded before for marrying a Catholic (Máxima Zorreguieta).
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-22-2018, 03:38 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 19,722
This is the wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succes..._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
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-22-2018, 04:25 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 4,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
This is the wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succes..._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.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-22-2018, 04:30 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 19,722
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/20110517...sion/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.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-22-2018, 08:09 PM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Jose, CA, United States
Posts: 556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
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/20110517...sion/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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-22-2018, 08:21 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by danishjaveed View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-22-2018, 08:26 PM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Jose, CA, United States
Posts: 556
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-22-2018, 08:34 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 4,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-22-2018, 08:43 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraS3514 View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-22-2018, 08:48 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 4,719
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.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-22-2018, 09:20 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-23-2018, 12:00 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 843
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.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-23-2018, 06:03 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 4,719
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.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-23-2018, 06:21 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 2,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraS3514 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-23-2018, 07:38 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-23-2018, 08:41 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 4,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-23-2018, 09:07 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 9,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
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)
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-23-2018, 09:14 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 4,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-23-2018, 10:14 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
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.
__________________

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
aif aristocracy belgian british royal family britishroyals clothes countess of wessex crown crown prince hussein crown prince hussein's future wife current events dailyfail daughter daughters de belgique denmark duchess of sussex duchessofsussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex duke of york earl of wessex forum french revolution french royalty friendly city germany gordon greece harry headship introduction iñaki urdangarín juan carlos kiko king meghan markle monarchist monarchy monogram patron prince harry prince laurent princenapoleon princess anne princess claire princess eugenie princess of belgium public image queen elizabeth quizz rania of jordan remarriage royal royal ladies sarah duchess of york savoy saxony siblings south africa state visit the crown titles uk styles tradition united kingdom valois van belgië viscount severn windsor castle ww1



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:26 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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