The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #501  
Old 08-09-2008, 11:09 PM
Ella Kay's Avatar
Courtier
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Anywhere, United States
Posts: 952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odette View Post
Thank you Elspeth. Besides the Duke of Kent's sons and Prince Michael are there any other close to the Queen who lost their rights to succesion because of marriages to Catholics?
Two of the Earl of St Andrews's children have lost their rights to succession, but through conversion, not marriage. Baron Downpatrick and Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor both converted and have lost their spots. Their sister, Lady Amelia Windsor, has remained a Protestant and so gets to stay.

That, to me, has always been a weird quirk of this system -- that a person who marries a Catholic loses his/her spot, but their children, so long as they aren't raised as Catholics, get to stay. Case in point: Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella Windsor, children of Prince Michael of Kent.

I agree with angela and Elspeth: it's long past time to repeal that part of the Act of Settlement. It was relevant in 1701, with the constant struggle between Catholics and Protestants that started with Henry VIII and came to a head with James II, but today, it's really not. The provision for the monarch to be Anglican is still quite relevant, as he/she is the head of the church, but tensions between Catholics and Protestants in England are really a non-issue anymore, IMO.
__________________

__________________

"I have to be seen to be believed."
HM The Queen
Reply With Quote
  #502  
Old 08-09-2008, 11:21 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ella Kay View Post
Two of the Earl of St Andrews's children have lost their rights to succession, but through conversion, not marriage. Baron Downpatrick and Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor both converted and have lost their spots. Their sister, Lady Amelia Windsor, has remained a Protestant and so gets to stay.
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 we'll see in a few years whether she chooses to remain Protestant or converts like her brother and sister.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #503  
Old 08-09-2008, 11:33 PM
Ella Kay's Avatar
Courtier
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Anywhere, United States
Posts: 952
I think it's pretty probable. Lady Amelia turns 13 later this month, and she currently goes to the same Roman Catholic boarding school that her sister attends.
__________________

"I have to be seen to be believed."
HM The Queen
Reply With Quote
  #504  
Old 11-11-2008, 12:23 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Monterey, United States
Posts: 2,325
What will be the number of this Prince Sven lets say or Princess Sarah of Denmark
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #505  
Old 11-11-2008, 06:08 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal Fan View Post
What will be the number of this Prince Sven lets say or Princess Sarah of Denmark
According to Wikipedia the new child will come in at 226 (assuming that no other baby higher in order is born first or that someone else higher in order dies or converts to Catholicism or marries a Roman Catholic).

Line of succession to the British throne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #506  
Old 02-14-2009, 10:24 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Dayton, United States
Posts: 1
Line of Succession

If Charles were to die before ascending the throne, would Prince William inherit or would one of Charles' brothers?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #507  
Old 02-14-2009, 11:16 PM
madeleine victoria's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: cavite, Philippines
Posts: 775
It will be William who will inherit the throne. After all, he is the next in line after his father. If Charles dies without a child then that's the only time his brother (Prince Andrew) will inherit the throne and if ANdrew dies, the throne will pass to her daughter, Beatriz. This will only happen IF Charles does not have any sons but he does have 2 sons so the throne will continue to his line.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #508  
Old 02-18-2009, 12:38 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 463
When it comes to exclusion of Catholics, I agree with all of you to some point. However, you have to agree that a Catholic couldn't be head of the Church of England, just like a descendant of the Sun goddess (i.e. The Emperor of Japan; legendary) couldn't publicly worship any divinity other than kami.

Besides, most of the other royal families have unwritten rules of discrimination. An infante of Spain would never marry a non-Catholic, even though there is no law which would prevent him from doing so. The Duke of Edinburgh and Princess Marie of Denmark both converted to Protestantism even though their conversion was not required by law. Let alone the fact that the sovereign of a Protestant country could never be Catholic or vice versa. When I think of a Protestant ascending the Spanish throne, the next which comes to my mind is another Spanish revolution.

In the end, I feel that British princes will be de facto barred from marrying Catholics even if the Act is changed and therefore I see no point in changing the act which, today, gives Elizabeth II the right to reign (if Catholics and those married to Catholics weren't barred from succession, the UK's current monarch would be called Francis).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #509  
Old 02-19-2009, 10:46 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
However, you have to agree that a Catholic couldn't be head of the Church of England ...
Well, the Catholic Kings of Saxony were head of the Saxon Evangelic Church, if I recall correctly. Besides, the Queen doesn't really run the CofE.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #510  
Old 02-19-2009, 02:48 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 463
The Kings of Saxony reigned in 19th century and I believe they were de facto absolute monarchs. Therefore they cannot be compared to 21st century constitutional monarchs who actually reign by the grace of people. Besides, if The Prince of Wales is superstitious enough to consider reigning as George VII because of Charles I and Charles II, then we can only imagine what he thinks about a Roman Catholic head of the Church of England (remember James II & VII, the last Roman Catholic Supreme Governor of the Church of England). I know that James lived 300 years ago, but so did his father and brother.

I have nothing against allowing Roman Catholics and those married to Roman Catholics to succeed. However, I doubt that any future British monarch will be Roman Catholic, just like I doubt that any future Spanish monarch will be Protestant. Religion is a very sensitive matter and there will be some sort of religious discrimination (whether de jure or de facto) for as long as religion exists.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #511  
Old 02-27-2009, 01:50 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Seattle, United States
Posts: 25
British Line of Succession always goes to the oldest child and then there oldest child .
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #512  
Old 02-27-2009, 02:58 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRH Bella View Post
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
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #513  
Old 02-27-2009, 05:05 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRH Bella View Post
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!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #514  
Old 02-28-2009, 11:11 AM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 463
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?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #515  
Old 02-28-2009, 12:04 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Grundisburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,727
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.
__________________
J
Reply With Quote
  #516  
Old 02-28-2009, 12:22 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 463
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?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #517  
Old 02-28-2009, 05:59 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,349
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #518  
Old 03-01-2009, 05:07 AM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
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
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #519  
Old 03-01-2009, 01:06 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Monterey, United States
Posts: 2,325
What are the chances for The Michaels Children becomming Monarch ?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #520  
Old 03-01-2009, 02:33 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
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.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
act of settlement, catholicism, line of succession, succession


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





Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events danish royals engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta cristina infanta elena infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg ottoman pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince laurent prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess elisabeth princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia spain state visit wedding william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:36 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]