Succession to the Crown Act 2013, Part 1: 2011 - Sep 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If the sovereign marries a RC and the children are raised in the Church of England, than personally have no problem with this
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Duke-of-Earl said:
The thing about hereditary peers is, once created by Letters Patent, not even the Queen can alter the 'terms' of the peerage.
The standard remainder is legitimate males heirs, so it will take an Act of Parliament to change the remainder to equal primogeniture.

What about Queen Victoria changing the LPs(?) to allow a daughter to become the Duchess of Fife in her own right because there was no male heir? (late 1800s)
 
What about Queen Victoria changing the LPs(?) to allow a daughter to become the Duchess of Fife in her own right because there was no male heir? (late 1800s)

Letters Patent of a peerage cannot be amended by the Monarch alone; that can only be done by an Act of Parliament.

Queen Victoria never changed the Letters Patent of the Duke of Fife title. Theoretically, she could have requested an Act of Parliament to be passed to allow female inheritance, but she just chose an easier way: she simply granted a second Dukedom of Fife to Alexander (Princess Louise's husband). The wording of the Letters Patent of the original 1889 Duke of Fife title contained the usual "heirs male of his body" remainder. When the Queen granted the second Dukedom in 1900, the Letters Patent of the new title contained a remainder that allowed the title to pass to daughters of the first Duke (in absence of male heirs). In other words, Alexander Duff, 1st Duke of Fife actually held two Dukedoms of Fife - the 1889 and 1900 creations (a side note: the 1900 creation was the very last hereditary dukedom created in the Peerage of the United Kingdom save for those created for consorts, sons and grandsons of the Sovereign). Basically, the first Dukedom of Fife became extinct and the second one was inherited by the Duke's daughter.



I often wonder if Edward and Wallis deliberately avoided having children. I wonder if they may have had children if he had kept the throne.
I guess it's possible but not sure I see the reasoning: the Duke of Windsor had forfeited all claims to the Throne for himself and any of his descendants so if he and Wallis had 15 kids, that wouldn't affect the Line of Succession in any way.
 
Last edited:
I don't know where the 6th in line came from but that is going to be the new regulation so it does mean the Eugenie for instance doesn't even have to tell her family - she can elope legally if she so desired.

Whether Andrew and Sarah would like to remarry only they know but the fact that Philip wouldn't accept her means that Andrew would have to choose between his parents and Sarah (and he doesn't have the strength to stand up to them as shown when they forced him to divorce her in the first place).

The point I am making is that when Andrew drops to 7th in line he can remarry her without needing the monarch's consent first - whether that is his mother or his brother or nephew doesn't matter - he will be free to marry Sarah or Koo or ....

Taking the Andrew/Sarah re-marry a step further, I hope that the Queen (or someone) leaves him loads of money because if he marries without monarch's consent he will not be carrying out royal duties and those two are expensive! What would they live on? :lol:


The point is though that after the changes are made the monarch won't have that threat to hold over their heads as they will be able to marry legally.

Of course with a proposed future working royal family of Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, Harry, spouse, Andrew, Edward, Sophie and Anne those 6th and below will in time not be carrying out royal duties anyway.

The idea of Andrew and Sarah marrying was thrown in as a thought while what I was really commenting on was the change to the RMA itself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If this law does get passed does that mean that Princess Anne will immediately jump to number five? Will it be like this?

1) Charles
2) William
3) Baby
4) Harry
5) Anne
6) Peter
7) Savannah
8) Isla
9) Zara
10)Andrew
 
Last edited:
The law won't be retroactive. The line won't change as far as Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward and their children are concerned. It will be a going-forward thing, so any kids from when the law is passed on will be affected.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The stated date for the law to become effective was 2011 so even a son for Peter and Autumn (should they have a third child will be behind his two older sisters).

There is no intention to move Anne, Peter, Savannah, Isla and Zara ahead of Andrew and his children or Edward and his children, nor to put Louise ahead of James.

The new law will be like this:

Charles
William
William's children in birth order
Harry
Harry's children in birth order
Andrew
Beatrice
Beatrice's children in birth order
Eugenie
Eugenie's children in birth order
Edward
James
James' children in birth order
Louise
Louise's children in birth order
Anne
Peter
Savannah
Isla
Any further children of Peter in birth order
Zara
Zara's children in birth order.
 
I don't know where the 6th in line came from but that is going to be the new regulation so it does mean the Eugenie for instance doesn't even have to tell her family - she can elope legally if she so desired.

Aren't the first five in who have reached their 18th birthday usually Counsellors of State? That could be where 6th in line came from.
 
Oh, I see now. Thank you for explaining this. I edited my original post to correct Peter's second daughter's name. I had her down as Sienna and I see that her name is Isla. I knew it was a celebrity name and I couldn't think of what it was.
 
First four in line over 21 are Counsellors of State unless they are the heir apparent who becomes one at 18.

Charles - aged 18.

William, Harry and Andrew all at 21 (as did Edward and Anne and the others before them such as Margaret, Richard of Gloucester, Edward of Kent etc)

When the Queen first became Queen the Counsellors of State were - Margaret, Henry of Gloucester, Princess Mary and the late Earl of Harewood.

As others ahead of these in the line of succession turned 21 the last one dropped off e.g. Edward of Kent replaced the late Earl of Harewood, in 1957, and the following year Princess Alexandra replaced Princess Mary.

The only Counsellors of State who isn't in the first four is the consort of the monarch and the consort of previous monarchs e.g. Philip and The Queen Mother.

When the Queen passes Beatrice will step up and be the fourth CoS until either this new baby turns 21 in Charles' reign or it turns 18 in William's reign but she may have to return to the position for a year or so at times as well, depending on when those ahead of her die, like Richard of Gloucester had to do in the 60s and early 70s.

Although Philip is eligible he has actually never served because everytime the Queen has gone overseas he has gone with her and so has been out of the country.
 
The ultimate "what if" must be: What if they are siamese twins? :p

Heaven forbid!

But I think one still comes out first. Depending on where they are conjoined.
 
This thread is supposed to be about the impacts and ramifications of the proposed changes to the Act of Settlement, Royal Marriages Act etc, and not a rehash of the ins and outs of the Andrew-Sarah relationship.

Posts discussing a York remarriage in terms of the characters of the Duke and his former wife have been removed.

Warren
British Forums moderator
 
A summary of the proposed changes

Abolition of male primogeniture relating to Succession to the Throne, backdated to 28 October 2011.

In the 15 other countries where the Queen is Head of State the laws must be changed. Legislation will be required in the Commonwealth nations of the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Jamaica, Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Grenada, Belize, St Christopher and Nevis, St Lucia, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, St Vincent and the Grenadines and Papua New Guinea.

Changes will involve amendments to some of Britain’s key constitutional documents, such as the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement.

The proposed legislation will refer to the descendants of the current Prince of Wales, meaning that younger sons will no longer take precedence over an elder daughter in the line of succession and William’s first child would follow him in the line of succession, whether a girl or a boy.

The barrier to the heir to the throne marrying a Roman Catholic will also be removed, but it will not affect the position of the Anglican Church as the established Church. The Queen and future monarchs will be Anglicans and Supreme Governors of the Church of England.

Members of the Royal Family who marry a Roman Catholic will also in future be able to succeed to the Crown.

An ancient and unused law requiring descendants of George II to gain the consent of the monarch to marry will only apply to the first six people in the line of succession.

The UK government will need to introduce legislation to change the Coronation Oath Act 1688,
the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Settlement 1701, the Act of Union with Scotland 1706 and the Royal Marriages Act 1772.

Succession relating to Peerages remains unchanged.

The new rules will apply only to descendants of the Prince of Wales born after 28 October 2011.

The two members of the extended Royal Family born after this date but not affected by the changes are:
Isla Phillips (March 2012) - has an elder sister and no brothers;
Tane Lewis (May 2012) - ahead of his elder sister in the line of succession

sources: various

 
Last edited:
If the legislation is meant to apply to the heirs and descendents of the current Prince of Wales, why would the positions of the Duke of Gloucesters grandchildren (Tane Lewis) change at all?
 
:previous:
You're right, I've contradicted myself.
Tane Lewis can rest easy! :)
 
:previous:
You're right, I've contradicted myself.
Tane Lewis can rest easy! :)

Thanks. So if Peter and Autumn Phillips were to have a son would the current rules, male before females, apply? I have seen some say yes and some say no, but if the change only applies to the heirs of Prince Charles I would assume that for Anne and her heirs it is still males before females.

I have also see some write that succession will be limited to the heirs of QEII or perhaps GV but I havent seen anything about that in any government proposals and also can't see a benefit to it for anyone.
 
Last edited:
I think initially it was announced that male primogeniture would be abolished for those born after October 2011. Now that appears to have been tightened and limited to descendants of Charles only.

It's possible that other changes will be made to what the government has outlined as the legislation and legislative amendments are drawn up and debated in the Parliament.

It's also likely that various media reports will get things wrong and confuse the issue unnecessarily, eg limiting succession to the descendants of GVR or EIIR which serves no purpose whatsoever and to my knowledge hasn't been raised by any senior member of the governmenrt.
 
Last edited:
How close is this to passing? And if just the one Parliament passes, would there be (temporarily) different lines of succession in different places? Or can one country forestall the entire process? Is that even known?
 
Yes - if one government passes it and the others don't then yes there could be different heirs in the different realms.
 
Yes - if one government passes it and the others don't then yes there could be different heirs in the different realms.

It seems like that would cause an awful lot of confusion! There might be a Queen of the UK and her brother might be King of Jamaica, for example!
 
That is perfectly possible unless the various realms all pass the legislation at the same time - and that is only part of what the committee in NZ is working towards - a piece of legislation that can be passed in each realm at the same time so that the possibility of the realms having split monarchs is avoided.

I think initially it was announced that male primogeniture would be abolished for those born after October 2011. Now that appears to have been tightened and limited to descendants of Charles only.


I have actually read it the other way round - initially this was only to affect Charles' descendents but now it is to apply to all descendents born after 2011.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This bill is for the UK only but there will be similiar ones with similiar wording in the other realms.
Politicians can move fast when they have to :lol:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That is much more succinct than I expected! I like that they went for children born after October 28, 2011, as opposed to only the descendants of The Prince of Wales. It's much more tidy this way. So when this is passed, it would mean that Tane Lewis would move below his older sister Sienna, as he was born in 2012.

Also, I assume this means that Prince Michael, The Earl of St Andrews, etc will now be in the line of succession? I think that's great.
 
No. This law only covers gender. It doesn't cover the rule that heirs can't marry a Catholic or be a Catholic. Prince Michael married one, as did the Earl of St. Andrews.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No. This law only covers gender. It doesn't cover the rule that heirs can't marry a Catholic or be a Catholic. Prince Michael married one, as did the Earl of St. Andrews.

Section 2 of this bill concerns the "Removal of disqualification arising from marriage to a Roman Catholic" and specifically states that all persons previously excluded from the line of succession due to this disqualification will be reinstated to the line of succession, provided they are still alive. So they both are back in.
 
You might want to reread that bill. Papalist are in vogue again. Oh, poor Henry! Rattling in St. George's Chapel tonight.
 
You might want to reread that bill. Papalist are in vogue again. Oh, poor Henry! Rattling in St. George's Chapel tonight.

Romanists will never be the sovereigns, only the sovereign's consorts
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom