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

[fearghas]

And in the end what would actually happen is that a govt. will decide to abolish titles altogether. Read the comments section and you get an idea of what many people think about the idea of titles.

 

[Kotroman]

Had she been a boy it would have ended that "tradition" too.
I wouldn't call it a tradition, rather a series of unexpected events which through two generations have caused the Duke of York to eventually become King. Should we be sad to see the Duchy of Kent or the Duchy of Gloucester be continued through the next generations too?

But she is not a boy and it's not just two generations. There have been seven dukes of York and three dukes of York and Albany since the Wars of the Roses. None of them passed the title.

The Queen could have given Andrew the title with remainder to his daughters, but she didn't. Nothing prevented her from making the title hereditary by and through females. Yet she chose to limit it to heirs male, as usual. Is she sexist? Did she dislike her granddaughters before they were born? Or is it possible that she is wiser than us and that she had a reason to do so?

 

[Roslyn]

Kotroman, your hypothetical scenario, while accurate, is unlikely, IMO. I can't imagine consent being withheld if Beatrice wants to marry any reasonably suitable person, and I have Dave in mind here. And would Eugenie really be likely to marry a drug lord? Possible, yes, but probable, no. Considering the hot house environment in which these people are reared, such things are unlikely for those so close to the throne, and if one of them really does go off on a mad frolic of their own and marry someone totally unsuitable, the rules can always be changed.

I think it's a good idea to restrict the number of people who have to seek permission to marry. Any figure selected is going to be arbitrary.

 

[Kotroman]

But legislators are supposed to take every possibility into consideration. They shouldn't think what's likely and what's not when the future of the state is in question. In my scenario, Beatrice doesn't seek consent at all and gets married fully aware that she is forfeiting her rights, while her sister, who had recently married a drug lord, gets closer to the throne.

I don't see why the number of people who have to seek consent should be restricted. If approving the marriages is too much of a hassle, then limit the line of succession. Cut people out. It's better than making it possible, however unlikely, that someone unsuitable ascends the thrones.

 

[VictoriaB]

But legislators are supposed to take every possibility into consideration. They shouldn't think what's likely and what's not when the future of the state is in question. In my scenario, Beatrice doesn't seek consent at all and gets married fully aware that she is forfeiting her rights, while her sister, who had recently married a drug lord, gets closer to the throne.

I don't see why the number of people who have to seek consent should be restricted. If approving the marriages is too much of a hassle, then limit the line of succession. Cut people out. It's better than making it possible, however unlikely, that someone unsuitable ascends the thrones.

If its not restricted you end up with an unwieldy situation not unlike the current one where persons so far down the Order of Succession that they are irrelevant still have to seek the Queens permission.

Under the current system Prince Ernst of Hanover had to request permission yet the prospects of him succeeding are negligible. Likewise, Lord Nicholas Windsor still needed permission to marry even though he cannot succeed for religious reasons.

Even restricting the order of succession would make no difference. In effect the only people the succession affects now are Charles, William and Harry (until William's children come of age) yet there is a long list of persons in the order. There would still be some arbitrary cut off as someone slips further down the list when children are born to those ahead of them.

When the Queen succeeded Princess Anne was second in line and would have been in any order if succession. Even had equal primogeniture applied she would now be about to slip to 5th and by the time her brother inherits would probably be lower. When should she no longer be in the order of succession?

 

[Mirabel]

And in the end what would actually happen is that a govt. will decide to abolish titles altogether. Read the comments section and you get an idea of what many people think about the idea of titles.

Exactly!

And it wouldn't surprise me if the Monarchy soon follows.
(People are already talking about ending monarchies in Spain and Sweden.)

 

[Mariel]

Kotroman, you know more about Georgiana Maxwell than I do, I expect. I'm rather new to this digging into the past. When I read a news story that Georgiana Maxwell was the Lady of Rothes (some time in the 1990's) I thought she must be a distant cousin of mine, because my Scottish family of Pollock is considered to be "one family" with the Maxwell family, and have a near-identical tartan. I know that my distant uncle Peter Pollock left the castle of Rothes to his daughter, but Georgiana Maxwell, as you say, must not be of that Rothes line, but instead of Ross.
One reason why Pollock and Maxwell are considered to be one family is because of their interbreeding habits, needless to say. Maxwell was especially wretched in the inbred hobby, much worse than Pollock. I researched that particular part of the problem, the Maxwell inbreeding with cousins to retain estates. In more than one generation a Maxwell married a cousin Maxwell to preserve the estate, then divorced the wife on the grounds of "consanguinity", which was against church law. Then the ruthless Maxwell spouse would marry whomever else he chose, and of course had custody of the heir or heirs. Ugly ugly business. I would love to see relics of such barbarity end. But my Pollock ancestors were not as ruthless and hence lost their power and lands. Good for them! (I am only l/4 Scottish and only found this history in recent years when looking at genealogy threads).

I bought my son and grandsons Pollock tartan ties for Christmas. May seem absurd to them, but it's time for them to get introduced to that part of their history.

 

[Kotroman]

The new law will limit the line of succession anyway. Not all descendants of Electress Sophia of Hanover will be in line anymore.

The reason people very far down the line still have to seek consent is that the lack of consent renders their marriage completely non-existent, thus disabling their spouses and/or children from using/inheriting their titles and property and rendering their children illegitimate. Ernest applied for permission in order to faciliate his and Caroline's children's claim to inheritance of any property he may have in the UK.

Under new law, the lack of consent would remove the person ad his/her descendants from the line, but the marriage itself would be valid. Thus, someone very far down the line wouldn't have to seek consent at all; they could just marry and say goodybe to the 0.00001% chances they had of succeeding to the throne.

When should she no longer be in the order of succession?

How about once William's king? In Norway and Monaco, the line of succession is limited to the reigning monarch's descendants and siblings and descendants of the reigning monarch's siblings. In the Netherlands, this is even more complex but perhaps better: the limit is three degrees of kinship from the reigning monarch. If such system were to be adopted, Anne would remain in line after William's accession but her descendants would drop out and would only gain succession rights if Anne were to somehow become Queen Anne II. That said, there are a number of solutions better than the 6-people-next-in-line thing.

 

[Furienna]

I find it funny though, that there are hundreds of people, who have a place in British succession (even though most of them hardly have any chance at all at reaching the throne). Here in Sweden, it's like it is in Norway and Monaco. Only close relatives to the king have a place in the succession. I believe only his three children, his granddaughter and one of his sisters are in line right now.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The new law will limit the line of succession anyway. Not all descendants of Electress Sophia of Hanover will be in line anymore.

As those people currently excluded because they:

a) married a Roman Catholic e.g. Prince Michael of Kent, Prince Ernst of Hanover

b) lower than 6th have married without permission

are going to be back in the line of succession how can you say the new law will limit the line of succession.

It will lengthen it not reduce it.

 

[Artemisia]

That is mostly my understanding as well, bar the consent to the marriage bit.

No provision of the Succession to the Crown Bill excludes any of Sophia's descendants who are currently in the line of succession. And the Catholic clause states that people who have been disqualified for marrying Catholics and are still alive when this clause comes into effect, regardless of when did the marriage occur, would regain their succession right.

I do disagree with your interpretation of the consent of the Sovereign requirement though. Those who married without the Sovereign's consent (regardless of their place in the line of succession) will not be reinstated in the succession line; they will still be excluded from the line of succession. However, while previously those marriages would have also been considered void under the Royal Marriages Act 1772, they (past, present and future marriages) will now be considered legal (among other things, giving full inheritance rights), provided neither party to the marriage was/is 6th in the line of the succession at the time of the marriage.

 

[Iluvbertie]

If they are being given 'full inheritance rights' how can that not include the right to inherit the throne - the ultimate in inheritance right.

If the situation arises where a child whose ancestor was illegitimate before this act and is now to be made legitimate was to be overlooked for the crown that would very soon be challenged in court.

To say 'your are excluded from the line of succession because your parents didn't seek permission to marry;' but now you can have full inheritance rights to all things - except the throne won't stand up in court.

The first people affected by this would be the Lascelles family with some outside the line of succession to throne and title but now in line for title but still not for throne - won't stand up in court if challenged.

Whether anybody would challenge is a moot point of course.

 

[Artemisia]

When I said "full inheritance rights", I meant properties and (non-royal) titles. Until the Bills is enforced, all marriages conducted without the Sovereign's permission are void. That means, among other things, that children from such marriages are technically illegitimate in the eyes of the British law. That was one of the reason Ernst August of Hanover - who owns substantial estate in Britain - had to seek permission for either of his marriages.

Laws governing succession to the Throne are completely separate and independent, and differ from laws on succession of estate and even peerage titles.

 

[NGalitzine]

Children born outside of marriage will still not be able to succeed to either the throne or a peerage even if their parents married at a later date. The bill does provide for the recognition of marriages that happened without royal consent and legitimizes the issue of those marriages but that is a different matter. I don't think the current Viscount Lascelles will be replaced by his elder brother in succession to the throne or the peerage as he was born before his parents married.

 

[Artemisia]

Indeed. children born outside marriage would only be entitled to courtesy styles of younger children, even if they parents marry after they are born.

Right now, all children born from marriages conducted without the Sovereign's consent (obviously, children of those in the line of succession to the British Throne) are considered illegitimate in the eyes of law (Royal Marriages Act 1772). However, if the Bill is passed, then those children whose parents were married prior to their births but without the Sovereign's consent, would automatically be "legitimised", so to speak - but still will not be included in the succession line. In future too, consent is not required for marriages to be valid (other than the first six people in the succession line), but issue of such marriages will still be ineligible to ascend to the Throne.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Equality law means Duchess of Cambridge may never be our Queen | UK | Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express

The Duchess of Cambridge may never become William’s Queen if an MP’s attempt to eradicate one of the last vestiges of sexism in the British constitution is successful.

Welcome to the insanity that is modern day, hyper-politically correct Britain

 

[cepe]

Good grief! Man's mad! Happily I shall be long gone by the time this could happen.

 

[VictoriaB]

Equality law means Duchess of Cambridge may never be our Queen | UK | Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express
Welcome to the insanity that is modern day, hyper-politically correct Britain

Why is it insane? More and more women nowadays choose to be known by their maiden names, especially professionally. I see nothing wrong with abolishing the idea that a woman's identity is subsumed into her husband's on marriage. To me, that is the insanity.

 

[royalistbert]

Why is it insane? More and more women nowadays choose to be known by their maiden names, especially professionally. I see nothing wrong with abolishing the idea that a woman's identity is subsumed into her husband's on marriage. To me, that is the insanity.

Because it would be inconsistent. It's unlikely to pass anyway.

They talk about The Prince of Wales meddling, but I wish parliment would stop meddling with the monarchy!

 

[VictoriaB]

Because it would be inconsistent. It's unlikely to pass anyway.

They talk about The Prince of Wales meddling, but I wish parliment would stop meddling with the monarchy!

Inconsistent with what? With the past? It's inconsistent that when Sophie, Diana, Camilla etc married they became Countess, Princess and Duchess while Mark, Tim and Tony Armstrong-Jones did not.

As for Parliament meddling in the monarchy do you think male primogeniture is right? That those who marry Catholics should be barred from the throne (but not those who marry Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc)? That sleeping with the wife of the Prince of Wales should be punishable by death (I know it no longer is but only since Parliament recently "meddled")?

 

[Nice Nofret]

That sleeping with the wife of the Prince of Wales should be punishable by death (I know it no longer is but only since Parliament recently "meddled")?

oh what a shame, parliament meddled with that particular law - It would have been a field day, if that law had been applied to Dianas lovers

We wouldn't have had to read all this Hewitt-Stories in the years past.

 

[Roslyn]

Why is it insane? More and more women nowadays choose to be known by their maiden names, especially professionally. I see nothing wrong with abolishing the idea that a woman's identity is subsumed into her husband's on marriage. To me, that is the insanity.

I think it would be an excellent idea to formally provide for the spouse of the monarch to be prince or princess consort.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The law still exists - it is treason to sleep with the wife of the heir to the throne but the penalty is no longer death.

It is equally treason to conspire to commit treason so for Diana to voluntarily sleep with any man other than Charles, while his wife, was equally treason (it is why both Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard were executed) and she even went further than either of them and admitted it.

There was a question asked many years ago, while she was still alive I think, by some person doing some research asking why both she and Hewett weren't being charged with treason and the answer went something like 'they weren't caught in the act'.

 

[Nice Nofret]

Thanks Iluvbertie for this Info! Most enlightening !

 

[royalistbert]

I think it would be an excellent idea to formally provide for the spouse of the monarch to be prince or princess consort.

What an excellent idea to deny the wife the title Queen.


RIP

Kings and Queens.

 

[Kataryn]

Sweden was very quick as a country to introduce Equal Primogeniture and they have no problem with the fact that while the wife of the king is the queen, the husband of the queen regnant is a "Prince of Sweden" and gets that title the moment he marries the heiress. Plus he shares her Royal ducal title.

I don't think Philip has a problem with being a Prince of the UK and Duke of Edinburgh and not the King consort - I personally believe his "amoebe"-comment came from the fact that his own, original name was not deemed good enough to become the name of the dynasty as it would have happened traditionally. The SHSG are after all a cadet branch of the House of Oldenburg and thus one of the oldest dynasties of Europe.

 

[Furienna]

Sweden was very quick as a country to introduce Equal Primogeniture and they have no problem with the fact that while the wife of the king is the queen, the husband of the queen regnant is a "Prince of Sweden" and gets that title the moment he marries the heiress.

I've wondered about that though. If a king's wife automatically becomes a queen, why can't a queen's husband become a king?

 

[Kataryn]

I've wondered about that though. If a king's wife automatically becomes a queen, why can't a queen's husband become a king?

I think it has to do with the recognition that some things just cannot be changed through laws. It is soo customary and ingrained in people to think that man reigns over woman, that there is no real emotional readiness to accept that there can be a queen regnant with a king consort. That women have their own wealth and can do with it what they want is a rather new concept. A concept from a time when monarchy was already very fixed and defined by traditions and customs which come from a time when man was higher than woman.

I personally have no problem with Victoria being "The Crown Princess" and her husband being "Prince Daniel", while together they are the "Crown Princess Couple" - this is really rather sweet. But then Victoria chose a husband who is male through and through but has no problem to openly "serve" his future queen like a true knight all the while showing that she is in public his superior and his future monarch. So he accepts the old customs of king- and queenship as well.

 

[Skippyboo]

The Queen offered a title to Mark Phillips when he married Anne. They refused it. Tony Armstrong-Jones refused a title when he married Margaret but took it when she became pregnant. King is a higher title than Queen that why Phillip isnt King. Monarchy isn't about fairness. I keep thinking that the Cambridge baby will be a boy because they are changing the rules and it would be ironic.

 

[padams2359]

I think they only want to change the ability of a first born child to accend to the thrown no matter the sex of the child. I don't believe they are trying to change the entire make up of the British Monarchy. People are reading too much into this thing. Same as all the brouhaha about Edward VIII's grandchildren, which could not exist because HE HAD NO CHILDREN. This was to close a loop hole in LP of 1937, and if an abdication would occur in the future.