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

[miss whirley]

Why would Charles even refuse her to marry the man that she has been dating for several years? Dave isn't a convicted murder serving time in prison


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Nice dig at her ex.

 

[Skippyboo]

Bea had a convicted murder ex? I didn't know there was anyone before Smiley Dave.

Oh Geez, I just googled it. That's someone who you can say no to.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Furienna]

I guess that even princesses can make mistakes.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Consent of Sovereign required to certain Royal Marriages

A person who (when the person marries) is one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown must obtain the consent of Her Majesty before marrying.

Where any such consent has been obtained, it must be—

(a) signified under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom,
(b) declared in Council, and
(c) recorded in the books of the Privy Council.

-----------------------------------------------------------

The language of the statute is clear. The consent of the Queen is required and she must give the approval in council

Seriously, what happens if one of the 6 marries without permission? What's the penalty beyond (I assume) losing place in line of succession?

 

[Ish]

Seriously, what happens if one of the 6 marries without permission? What's the penalty beyond (I assume) losing place in line of succession?

Under the Marriage Act a marriage wasn't valid without the monarch's permission. So, George IV didn't lose his place in the succession when he marrie Maria Fitzherbert, his marriage just wasn't legally recognized (nor were some of the marriages that his brothers entered into). I would guess the same would apply to the 6 under the new rules.

In other realms where permission needs to be sought in order for someone in the succession, those who marry without permission do lose their place in the succession. I believe this happened to one of the younger sons of Beatrix of the Netherlands.

 

[Rudolph]

Seriously, what happens if one of the 6 marries without permission? What's the penalty beyond (I assume) losing place in line of succession?

Although the marriage is legally valid the effect of a person's failure to obtain consent from the Queen is that the person and the person's descendants from the marriage are disqualified from succeeding to the Crown.

 

[miss whirley]

I guess that even princesses can make mistakes.

She made at least two mistakes. Before Paolo Liuzzo she was dating James "cocaine" Green. If I was The Queen or Charles, I'd be wary of giving her marriage approval because she has a penchant for seedy bad-boys.

Honestly, I always give Dave a side-eye because of her past choices.

 

[Lumutqueen]

When BabyC2 is born, Beatrice moves to 7th place and permission is no longer needed so it doesn't matter.

 

[Skippyboo]

She goes back to 6th when the Queen dies. So it depends if she marries after the Queen dies, but before W & K have kid 3 or Harry kid 1, then Charles would have to sign off.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Furienna]

Yeah, if anything would happen to any of the other six, she would have to move back up a place in the line. Which could make things complicated...

 

[Ish]

Yeah, if anything would happen to any of the other six, she would have to move back up a place in the line. Which could make things complicated...

It could and it could not.

If she got permission to marry from the Queen while 6th in line then she theoretically should be covered if the Queen were to pass before the wedding - Charles couldn't really go "nope, not allowing it."

If she didn't get permission and got married while 7th in line, then went back to being 6th in line Charles couldn't really go "nope, I don't like this marriage, revoking it!"

If she got engaged while 7th then became 6th again before the wedding she technically might need Charles' permission, but if the engagement had already been announced he'd be in a tight spot if he tried to go "nope, not allowed." Theoretically he could... But he'd look like a tool.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I remember back in 1888 there was one of the German royals who wanted to marry someone and had the support of the Empress Frederick and Queen Victoria. They could have announced that engagement then but didn't because they knew that Wilhelm would override the permissions immediately his father died.


This scenario - and I did throw out simply a 'scenario' not a 'real' situation - could be similar if Charles had serious issues with whomever Beatrice has chosen to marry.

 

[WillVictoria]

I remember back in 1888 there was one of the German royals who wanted to marry someone and had the support of the Empress Frederick and Queen Victoria. They could have announced that engagement then but didn't because they knew that Wilhelm would override the permissions immediately his father died.


This scenario - and I did throw out simply a 'scenario' not a 'real' situation - could be similar if Charles had serious issues with whomever Beatrice has chosen to marry.

It might have been between Princess Viktoria of Prussia and Prince Alexander of Battneberg. Because Alexander was only HSH Wilhelm considered the marriage beneath that of a Princess of Prussia

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Another bit of minutiae re: changes regarding receiving the Sovereign's consent to marry:

Under the Royal Marriages Act 1772, failure to get consent meant that the marriage was invalid and therefore the children of that marriage were illegitimate and thus those children were not in the line of succession to the crown. However the Royal who married in contravention of the act did NOT lose his or her place in the line of succession. If he/she married again they would not first need divorce because legally the first marriage never existed in the first place. This is the case of the future George IV and others.

Now, while failure to comply with the consent to the marriage provisions of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 (for the first six people in the line of succession) no longer renders the marriage invalid, it does remove the person in contravention and the children from the marriage in question from the line of succession.

So previously the marriage was invalid and the children could not succeed to the throne but the person in question could marry in the future (as the future George IV did) and succeed to the throne as he did.

Now the person in contravention of the Succession to the Crown Act would be barred from succession forever as would the children of the contravening marriage.

So let's say Charles and Camilla had not yet married and today they got married without getting consent from the Queen. Charles would then be removed from the line of succession along with any children from their (legally valid) marriage. If Charles and Camilla then divorced and Charles got married a third time (to Camilla or anyone else and this time with the Queen's consent) then the children of that marriage would be in the line of succession but their father Charles would still be out by reason of his second marriage which was in contravention. Of course William and Harry (and George and their other descendants) would be unaffected by this.

Now it seems that the person marrying in contravention of the Queen's wishes will be punished (permanently) themselves for that transgression whereas before the intent seems to have been to just act like it never happened.

I'm curious if this aspect of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 was envisioned and intended by its writers.

It was intended. Forfeiting the right to succeed to the Crown apparently was favored over forfeiting the right to marry.

The House of Commons Succession to the Crown Bill 2012-2013 Research Paper:

Clause 3 (1) replaces the requirement for consent in the 1772 Act with a requirement for the first six people in the line of succession to obtain consent from the monarch if they wish to marry. Failure to obtain consent will be a disqualification, so the person and his/her descendants will not be able to succeed to the Crown. However, the marriage itself will no longer be void.

 

[Skippyboo]

With the marrying a Catholic no longer a reason for line of succession removal, the only reason to deny a marriage request if the person was a total reprobate.

Harry should stay away from Vegas now because a drunk quickie marriage by a Elvis impersonator is now valid and he loses his place when before he would have kept his place and lost quickie wife.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Osipi]

It was intended. Forfeiting the right to succeed to the Crown apparently was favored over forfeiting the right to marry.

The House of Commons Succession to the Crown Bill 2012-2013 Research Paper:

Isn't this basically what happened to Edward VIII upon his abdication and subsequent marriage to Wallis Simpson in a way? Granted that as monarch, he wouldn't have refused consent to his own marriage but it was, in fact, the "in council" part that threw the monkey wrench into the works?

 

[Skippyboo]

I believe that with Edward VII, PM Stanley Baldwin's govt threaten to resign if he went ahead. Edward could have called their bluff and stayed but I don't think he was that enthralled with being King.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Iluvbertie]

The government of the day were determined to get rid of Edward as they believed that he was totally unsuitable to the job of King. Wallis was the excuse they were handed but if it wasn't Wallis they would have found something else. They rejoiced when Wallis was landed in their laps (My grandmother's cousin was in the cabinet at the time which is my source of information for this - his letters to his family included his, and the government's angst at the King and his lack of Kingliness and understanding of the role - its limits and restrictions etc - and those letters started almost immediately but certainly by the summer of 1936 he was writing that there had been discussions about 'what to do with the King' and his attitude - not overt suggestions of overthrowing him but concerns. The Christmas letter expressed the delight that they had been able to get rid of him without revealing all the things he was doing that was unacceptable - and I am not sure all of those things have ever been made known).

 

[Osipi]

One place where the recent changes to the primogeniture in the line of succession will be shown is with the Cambridge children. Should they have a third child and that child is male, he would still follow our new Sweet Cheeks in the line. When Andrew was born after Anne, Anne got bumped down the line and yet again when Edward was born.

As for Andrew succeeding should Charles not ascend, as soon as I saw the words "Mail Online", I knew it had to be written by someone that needs to go out and buy a clue about how things are done.

 

[Spheno]

As for Andrew succeeding should Charles not ascend, as soon as I saw the words "Mail Online", I knew it had to be written by someone that needs to go out and buy a clue about how things are done.

it's absolutely new territory. All previous British abdication included renouncement of succesion rights for all descendents. So, indeed, Andrew would succeed Charles.
In modern world Charles' or William's abdication will require new laws.

 

[Osipi]

it's absolutely new territory. All previous British abdication included renouncement of succesion rights for all descendents. So, indeed, Andrew would succeed Charles.
In modern world Charles' or William's abdication will require new laws.

Very good point. I didn't stop to think that an abdication by Charles would affect his own descendants' right to the throne. We're veering off topic here but I don't think this issue will ever be a cause for worry. Nil. Never. Uh-huh. No way, no sir, no ma'am. Charles is prepared, able and more than willing to step up to be King

 

[Ana Von Cleves]

Please forgive my not going back and reading all 55 pages of this thread. I am coming late to the discussion. My question is: Is the Catholic barrier now removed and if so, are all those who were removed because of this, mainly Kents, now back in? I thought so, but I have read some things that make me not so sure and I know you guys will know.

Thanks, Ana

 

[Ish]

Please forgive my not going back and reading all 55 pages of this thread. I am coming late to the discussion. My question is: Is the Catholic barrier now removed and if so, are all those who were removed because of this, mainly Kents, now back in? I thought so, but I have read some things that make me not so sure and I know you guys will know.

Thanks, Ana

The barrier to those who marry Catholics is removed. The barrier to those who are Catholics is still in place. So, Prince Michael of Kent is back in the succession, as is the Earl of Saint Andrews, however the Earl's elder children are still barred on account of being Catholics.

 

[Mbruno]

it's absolutely new territory. All previous British abdication included renouncement of succesion rights for all descendents. So, indeed, Andrew would succeed Charles.
In modern world Charles' or William's abdication will require new laws.

Actually, it is up to Parliament to decide. Th order of succession can be officially changed only by an act of Parliament. When Edward VIII abdicated, he had no children and was suceeded by his brother (the present queen's father). The act of Parliament that gave effect to the abdication also removed any future descendants of King Edward VIII from the line of succession to prevent any future challenge to the King George VI's legitimacy should Edward VIII ever had issue. In William's case, I cannot imagine a scenario where Parliament would also remove him from the line of succession if his father abdicated.

 

[Ana Von Cleves]

Ok, that clears up my confusion. Thanks!!

 

[Ish]

it's absolutely new territory. All previous British abdication included renouncement of succesion rights for all descendents. So, indeed, Andrew would succeed Charles.
In modern world Charles' or William's abdication will require new laws.

This isn't absolutely new territory, and the idea that an abdication is for an entire line in every situation is false.

Edward VIII's descendants were barred from the succession because his abdication was officially directly related to his choice of wife. John Balliol and Richard II both abdicated without their descendants being explicitly barred from the succession, but their heirs were displaced by usurpers. Mary of Scots and Edward II were both forced to abdicate and were succeeded by their heirs, while James II kind of abdicated and Parliament chose which of his children got to be the heir.

Abdications that explicitly bar a line from succeeding tend to be done because there is some apparent problem with the line - wrong religion, wrong heritage - or because there is a political upheaval and a line is being overthrown.

If Charles were to abdicate it wouldn't displace his sons or grandchildren from the line of succession in any way - no more than Juan Carlos I or Albert II abdicating prevented their sons from inheriting their thrones.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Exactly Ish.


If Charles abdicated, unless there were serious reasons to also remove William, George, Princess and Harry, the succession would carry on as normal.


Abdications, now require legislation in all the various realms as well and there is no way that they would approve the removal of someone who is a known person, unless that person also wished to be removed so even if Charles and William asked to be removed they couldn't remove George until he is 18 and old enough to ask for himself. They could remove any future children but not those already here.


With Edward VIII a major reason for removing future children was exactly that - they weren't already born to a legitimate marriage. Charles' heirs are here and from a legitimate marriage, able to take over etc.


As for the new law and those married to Roman Catholics - yes they are now back in the line of succession but not those who are actually Roman Catholics. That means Prince Michael is back in but not Lord Nicholas who converted to Roman Catholicism.


The DM line of succession I saw yesterday was missing a number of people - not to mention had Mr Michael Tindall in the line rather than Mrs Michael Tindall.

 

[Pranter]

Look at the Romanov family of Russia. Lots of sticky points there due to (sometimes forced) abdications.


LaRae

 

[Iluvbertie]

You can't compare one country to another though as there are different laws in place to cover different eventualities. What may be able to happen in one country could very well not be allowed in another.

 

[Ceallach]

Succession changes being challenged in Canada

British royal succession law will be contested in Quebec court Monday