The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession 1: Ending 2022

[HRH Bella]

British Line of Succession always goes to the oldest child and then there oldest child .

 

[Iluvbertie]

British Line of Succession always goes to the oldest child and then there oldest child .

British succession is male preference so the line goes through Charles as the eldest son (if Anne had been born first Charles would still be the heir as the eldest son).

After Charles comes in order of sons first, then daughters of Charles. As he only has sons they go in order of age. William's children will follow William in the line of succession before Harry and his children with sons taking precedence over daughters.

After Charles and his sons comes his next eldest brother Andrew and then his daughters. As Andrew has no sons Beatrice comes before Eugenie on the basis of age. Should Andrew remarry and have a son that son would take precedence in the order over his older sisters.

After Andrew and his daughters comes Edward and then you can really see the difference as James is next in line after his father and ahead of Louise despite being the younger child.

Only after Louise does the Queen's second child come into the line - Anne who is followed by her son and daughter in that order as that is the order of their birth.

Prince Michael of Kent's children are higher in the order than Princess Alexandra's and her children because Prince Michael is male so his line comes before that of his older sister.

At some point in the future it is anticipated that Britain will change to gender blind succession but it is also thought that it won't affect the current line. In other words it wouldn't move Anne's descendents above Andrew's but would apply from William's children - particularly if his first born is a girl and that is followed by a boy.


Queen's children in order of birth: Charles, Anne, Andrew, Edward

Queen's children in order of succession to the throne - Charles, Andrew, Edward, Anne.

After each of the Queen's children comes their children with sons first and then order of birth between same gender so

the order of succession of descendents of the Queen is:

1. Charles
2. William
3. Harry
4. Andrew
5. Beatrice
6. Eugenie
7. Edward
8. James
9. Louise
10. Anne
11. Peter
12. Zara

 

[Skydragon]

British Line of Succession always goes to the oldest child and then there oldest child .

In the majority of inheritance lines within the peerage, Everything goes to the first born male. He could have 10 older sisters but he gets the title and the estate!

 

[Kotroman]

What do you think which regnal name could/would/will the princes and princesses choose upon their accession?

1. Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales - Charles III or George VII
2. William Arthur Philip Louis of Wales - probably William V (*there will also be William V in Luxembourg)
3. Henry Charles Albert David of Wales - probably Henry IX (though David III would be cool!)
4. Andrew Albert Christian Edward, Duke of York - perhaps Edward IX?
5. Beatrice Elizabeth Mary of York - probably Elizabeth III or Mary III
6. Eugenie Victoria Helena of York - probably Victoria II
7. Edward Antony Richard Louis, Earl of Wessex - Edward IX (less likely Richard IV)
8. James Alexander Philip Theo of Wessex - James VIII (less likely Alexander IV)
9. Louise Alice Elizabeth Mary of Wessex - probably Elizabeth III or Mary III
10. Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise, Princess Royal - Anne II (less likely Elizabeth III)

* Another question: if The Queen and The Prince of Wales both die in their sleep during the same night (so it's not possible to determine who died first), would Charles be regarded as monarch? Would he be included in the list of British monarchs and would the next Charles be Charles III or Charles IV?

 

[Jacknch]

Hi there Kotroman - these are both very interesting questions! I think your suggestions for the regnal names are very good. There has been some mild debate over what name Charles might choose when he becomes king, and Charles III and George VII are spot on. I have a feeling that Beatrice and Eugenie and possibly the younger ones would wish to keep their own names and be less bothered about choosing a different/historic name but who knows - I doubt we will ever find out!

As for your second question, this is one of those questions that is certainly not going to be easy to answer! Assuming first of all that it may be possible for forensics to be able to determine the exact times of death, and if it was found that the Queen died first, then tehnically, Charles would have become King Charles III (or George VII) albeit for the shortest time on record. If it was found that Charles died first, then he would forever more be known posthumously by his Prince of Wales title. In the event that it was absolutely impossible to determine one way or another who died first, then I can only think that again Charles would not be regarded as having been a monarch. He may be mentioned with his Prince of Wales title in the list of monarchs in the sense that his actual accession could not be established. The next Charles would be Charles III but could well choose a different name to avoid bringing up disputes by those who might consider the dead Charles as having been a king.

 

[Kotroman]

I am especially interested in regnal names which originate from the Kingdom of Scotland. Prince Henry of Wales could reign as David III, for example - it is a popular name nowadays and it would be a nice gesture to the Scots in the time when more and more Scots want independence. Viscount Severn could reign either as James VIII or Alexander IV - both names of Scottish kings! I also hope that the next queen regnant will reign as Mary III!

Anyway, I recall reading somewhere that the English law presumes that the older person died first when the exact time of death can't be determined. So, if it is not possible to determine who died first, the law would presume that Elizabeth II died before Charles. Can you confirm this?

 

[Iluvbertie]

In Australia, based on British law (common or otherwise I don't know and whether it is still the case in Britain I haven't the faintest idea) it is assumed that the elder dies first in the sort of case that you describe.

The reason I know this is that my mother was 7 weeks older than my father and she always said that due to that fact if they died in a car accident or otherwise at the same time that the law would determine that she had died first. The reason for this is to determine which will has to be probated first and therefore to determine inheritance properly. If my parents had died together then Mum's will would be done first and then Dad's and this is important for instance with Dad's superannuation being a lot more than Mum's. Had Dad died first, then Mum would have been able to claim a super payout from Dad's superannuation of about $A250,000 but with Mum going first Dad was only able to claim about $A50,000 due to Mum's smaller superannuation.


Based on that fact the assumption is that Charles would be king, even if for only a very short period of time. William may even declare that fact to make it clear.

 

[Kotroman]

In Australia, based on British law (common or otherwise I don't know and whether it is still the case in Britain I haven't the faintest idea) it is assumed that the elder dies first in the sort of case that you describe.

That's what I was thinking too, but I am not sure about the UK either. Well, we're sure that he would at least be King of Australia

 

[Royal Fan]

What are the chances for The Michaels Children becomming Monarch ?

 

[Elspeth]

Very, very slim. Lord Frederick wouldn't succeed unless the whole Mountabatten-Windsor family, Princess Margaret's descendants, all the Gloucesters, the Duke of Kent, Amelia Windsor (assuming she doesn't join the Catholic Church which she probably will), Albert Windsor (ditto), and Lady Helen Taylor and her four children predeceased him.

 

[Royal Fan]

Master Albert Windsor is a member of the RCC as far as I Know

 

[Elspeth]

He's too young to be a member of any church. I think you have to be confirmed in the Catholic church before you count as a Catholic, at least for the purposes of the Act of Settlement.

 

[Iluvbertie]

He's too young to be a member of any church. I think you have to be confirmed in the Catholic church before you count as a Catholic, at least for the purposes of the Act of Settlement.

My understanding is that if baptised as a Roman Catholic then you are barred by the Act of Settlement.

Although the child may later reject Roman Catholicism they are RC from baptism.

This is why many of the Kent decendents have been baptised Anglican and then raised as RC so that they can make up their own minds about their religion and their place in the Order of Succession.

The Act does specify communion not confirmation and many RC take their first communion at about 7 years of age.

The RC church regards baptism as the time when a person enters the church.

Based on those ideas it seems to me that any child baptised a Roman Catholic would be barred from the line of succession.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Considering that both her elder siblings have converted and she's still a pre-teen (if I remember right), I have a feeling her conversion is just a matter of time.

But times are fast changing at the moment for Catholics - due to the current discussion about the Pius-brotherhood and the Holocaust-denial of one of them a lot of Catholics at the moment are leaving the Roman church - so maybe she is not converting. But you're right - we'll see.

 

[Royal Fan]

What is the Ferran Exemption

 

[Ella Kay]

The Ferran Exemption? I don't understand what you're asking, Royal Fan.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Ferran Exemption? I don't understand what you're asking, Royal Fan.

Under the Royal Marriage Act descendents of princesses who marry into foreign royal houses are exempt from the RMA.

As Princess Alexandra of Denmark (Queen Alexandra, wife of Edward VII) was the descendent of such a princess the Farran Exemption argues that the RMA doesn't apply to her descendents and thus many of the people who apply to the Queen for permission don't need to do so. These people would be all those descendents of Edward VII, including the present Queen, her sister's children, and the Gloucesters, Kents and Harewoods (along with the descendents of The Princess Royal, Princess Louise).

 

[Elspeth]

My understanding is that if baptised as a Roman Catholic then you are barred by the Act of Settlement.

Although the child may later reject Roman Catholicism they are RC from baptism.

This is why many of the Kent decendents have been baptised Anglican and then raised as RC so that they can make up their own minds about their religion and their place in the Order of Succession.

The Act does specify communion not confirmation and many RC take their first communion at about 7 years of age.

The RC church regards baptism as the time when a person enters the church.

Based on those ideas it seems to me that any child baptised a Roman Catholic would be barred from the line of succession.

I wonder if that could be challenged legally. I mean, infant baptism occurs before a person is able to give informed consent, which means that someone else is making the decision on behalf of the child that he/she will be excluded from the line of succession. It just seems strange to me that someone can be regarded as "a Papist" when they're a few weeks old. Mind you, a lot of stuff pertaining to religion seems strange to me, so I don't know why I'm surprised.

 

[Skydragon]

Changes to the line of succession

Gordon Brown and Buckingham Palace have discussed plans to change the rules of succession to the throne, including giving royal women equal rights.

BBC NEWS | UK | PM and Palace 'discussed reform'

Revolution at the palace as Brown plans to give female Royals equal succession rights

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ns-female-Royals-equal-succession-rights.html

 

[HSHDukeFelician]

Changes to the line of succession

In line with PM Brown's proposed changes to the Line of Succession, how great would these changes be.
Would they involve female heiresses such as Beatrice inherit their fathers dukedoms, additionally would members excluded by the Catholic ban, such as Prince Michael and Lord St. Andrews be entitled to reclaim their claim on the throne.

It is quite an interesting topic.

 

[NotAPretender]

Well, I don't know a lot of the details. Just taking a wild stab, I'd think that the changes in the succession part would begin with William and Harry on both counts, not retroactive to put Anne ahead of Andrew or Edward.

With regard to the reinstatment of those excluded by the Catholic ban - anyone's guess.

 

[chaimae]

Revolution at the palace as Brown plans to give female Royals equal succession rights

Revolution at the palace as Brown plans to give female Royals equal succession rights | Mail Online[/quote]
i think its an excellent idea and one that not even the most reactionary of traditionalists could object to. If it helps make the monarchy a more inclusive institution that can only be a good thing.
its wll be great to see 'queen Anne " as the next UK queen

 

[muriel]

I think it is early days. Details of what the legislation may cover or include are not known at this stage, but it wouldbe interesting to see how they deal with the issue of the Established church.

 

[HSHDukeFelician]

yes I would imagine the Government would only make provisions as far down as Princess Alexandra or the Earl of Harewood,
in reality it will only affect William and Harry

in fact Alex would overtake would overtake Lord Frederick in line of succession, it seems that Freddie and Ella will suffer the most in partial demotion.

With their promotion would you see Peter and Zara being awarded noble titles if they requested

royal.gov.uk only lists the first 40 anyway

 

[Al_bina]

Well, I don't know a lot of the details. Just taking a wild stab, I'd think that the changes in the succession part would begin with William and Harry on both counts, not retroactive to put Anne ahead of Andrew or Edward.

With regard to the reinstatment of those excluded by the Catholic ban - anyone's guess.

I tend to agree with you. I do not think that the succession line will undergo drastic changes. It is unlikely for the new law to re-instate Prince Michael and Lord St.Andrews. The new succession line may promote Princess Anne's children. At the same time, chances of them ascending the throne are slight.

 

[Skydragon]

yes I would imagine the Government would only make provisions as far down as Princess Alexandra or the Earl of Harewood,
in reality it will only affect William and Harry

in fact Alex would overtake would overtake Lord Frederick in line of succession, it seems that Freddie and Ella will suffer the most in partial demotion.

From the interview with a government minister I saw this morning, there would be no alteration to the line of succession at all, it would start with William's children.

 

[Claire]

I think the newspapers are confused then. They all seem to think that the whole line of succession will then be shuffled.

 

[Skydragon]

Is that anything new? The Telegraph article has attempted accuracy

If this were changed retrospectively, the Princess Royal would move ahead of her younger brother the Duke of York in the line of succession.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...o-end-discrimination-in-royal-succession.html
--------------------------
It's been blocked -

A backbench bid to end the discrimination in succession rules against women and Roman Catholics was blocked today, with Justice Secretary Straw saying a bill, introduced by Liberal Democrat Evan Harris, was not the 'appropriate vehicle' for change of this scale

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ss-ahead-plans-Royal-succession-overhaul.html

The reports seem to be getting hysterical or at the very least fanciful.

Repeal of the Act might even call into question the right of the Queen to be monarch.

The remnants of the Stuart dynasty now living in southern Germany might feel they had a better claim to the throne

.

 

[White Princess]

I'd like if the british adopted full line succession law.

 

[Sister Morphine]

I agree with those who say that this change, should it be implemented, will start with William and Harry's kids. I think at this stage of the game, it would be ridiculous to make it retroactive as Elizabeth and Philip's first born wasn't a girl. Had Anne been born before Charles, I could understand some desire to make it start with the Queen's children.

As for barring Catholics from inheriting the throne or marrying into the royal family (and thus keeping their place in the line of succession), it just smacks of bigotry and it's about time it was done away with. Who can truly say whether a Catholic will rule better than an Anglican? Is there some unfounded fear that a Catholic monarch will put England under the heel of Rome, as was thought waaaaaay back in Tudor times?


I applaud them for at least discussing it; I never thought it would get this far.