The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession

[Super Baroness]

Sorry for bumping this thread, but I was looking at the line of succession on the British Monarchy’s official website (royal.gov.uk), and was surprised to see that it was incorrect.

For #30-36, it lists:

30. The Lady Helen Taylor
31. Master Columbus Taylor
32. Master Cassius Taylor
33. Miss Eloise Taylor
34. Miss Estella Taylor
35. The Hon. Albert Windsor
36. The Hon. Leopold Windsor

Now what caught my eye was that there are Taylors ahead of Windsors, which should not be true (excluding Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella). Albert and Leopold Windsor should definitely be listed ahead of Lady Helen Taylor and her children, because their father was until he lost his place, which probably was the source of the confusion. Not to mention the multiple exclusions in the Earl of St. Andrew's family. Someone just probably added Albert and Leopold after the Taylors when they were born and didn’t think too much of it.

It’s a little sad that the Monarchy’s own website has the line of succession wrong. I know it’s a human error, and not a very important one, but still you would think the official site would have correct information. (Also, the site calls the Duchess of Cambridge “Catherine” in her biography – making it obvious they just copy and pasted from the bio released before the wedding. Every other royal on the site is referred to in their bios by their title or by HRH! (The Prince of Wales’ site is updated though, good for them!)
[A little off topic, but I’m still curious as to why Nicholas’ children have The Hon. in front of their names. There’s really no reason for them to be, so I wonder if it is a mistake along the same lines as the succession mixup. We’ll have to see if Frederick’s children are The Hon. too I guess.]

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Super Baroness

Sorry
[A little off topic, but I’m still curious as to why Nicholas’ children have The Hon. in front of their names. There’s really no reason for them to be, so I wonder if it is a mistake along the same lines as the succession mixup. We’ll have to see if Frederick’s children are The Hon. too I guess.]

As they are the grandchildren of a Duke they are Honourable.

Frederick's children won't be I am sure because they aren't the grandchildren of a peer of the realm but great-grandchildren.

Frederick and Gabriella are actually exceptions to the normal title rules as they are styled as the children of a Duke even though their father isn't one. This is because of the 1917 LPs. Maybe Micheal's male line grandchildren will be Hon - we will have to wait and see. Without the 1917s expressly giving Michael's children the Lord and Lady designation they would be Honourables and their children definietly Miss/Master.

[Super Baroness]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

As they are the grandchildren of a Duke they are Honourable.

Thank you, I didn't know that. So all (male-line) grandchildren of Dukes - besides the heir's children - are the Honourable? Does this apply to all Dukes, even non-royal ones? (I tried to look it up but couldn't find anything about it..it looks like the children of the younger sons of Dukes don't have courtesy titles all. I still don't see why they would in the first place !)

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Super Baroness

Thank you, I didn't know that. So all (male-line) grandchildren of Dukes - besides the heir's children - are the Honourable? Does this apply to all Dukes, even non-royal ones? (I tried to look it up but couldn't find anything about it..it looks like the children of the younger sons of Dukes don't have courtesy titles all. I still don't see why they would in the first place !)

Younger sons of all Dukes are 'Lord' while all daughters are 'Lady'. Only the eldest son uses a courtesy title but their actual title is still really only 'Lord xxxx' buy they are allowed to use the current title holder's second title as a courtesy. This also applies to the other levels of the aristocracy as well.

The children of the sons of a title holder are Honourable e.g. Diana when she was born was The Honourable Diana Spencer as the granddaughter of the then Earl Spencer. Her father, at that time, was styled Viscount Althorp as a courtesy and a sign of his position as his father's heir. When her grandfather died her father became Earl Spencer, her brother was styled as Viscount Althorp and she became Lady Diana Spencer. Of course now her brother is Earl Spencer and his eldest son is Viscount Althorp while his other children are all Lord/Lady.

These rules also apply to the royal dukedoms so both the Duke of Gloucester and Duke of Kent's eldest sons use the courtesy titles of Earl of Ulster and Earl of St Andrews respectively while their eldest sons use the third title of their fathers - Barons Culloden and Downpatrick. The other children of the Dukes are Lord/Lady and all of the other male line grandchildren are Honourables. As Nicholas is the second son his children are Honourable but normally the younger sons of Dukes don't pass on titles at all. It is adding an extra generation to the titles for the male line descendents of royal dukes in the same way that Prince Michael of Kent's children are Lord and Lady whereas non-royal Duke's younger sons children normally hold no title.

So a non-royal dukedom would go:

generation 1 - title holder
generation 2 - courtesy title for heir, lord/lady for younger children
generation 3 - courtesy title for heir (if available), honourable for younger children of heir in generation 2 and no title for the children of the lord/lady from generation 2

but.... with the royal dukedoms there is an extra generation being added for the younger sons

generation 1 - title holder
generation 2 - courtesy title for heir, lord/lady for younger children
generation 3 - courtesy title for heir (if available), lord/lady for younger children of heir in generation 2 and for the children of the lord/s from generation 2
generation 4 - courtesy title for heir (if available), ... honourable for younger children of heir in generation 3 and no title for the children of the lord/lady from generation 3.

We are actually in uncharted territory to a certain extent as this is a consequence of the 1917 LPs and we are really into the beginning of the fourth generation from George V to which these rules apply.

[NGalitzine]

Originally Posted by Super Baroness

Sorry for bumping this thread, but I was looking at the line of succession on the British Monarchy’s official website (royal.gov.uk), and was surprised to see that it was incorrect..]

Albert and Leopold should not be on the list at all since they are Roman Catholics so do not have succession rights.

[Super Baroness]

Originally Posted by NGalitzine

Albert and Leopold should not be on the list at all since they are Roman Catholics so do not have succession rights.

They are baptized Roman Catholics (since they're so young they didn't have a choice), so until they are confirmed into the Catholic Church they retain their succession rights. It happened to their cousins Edward and Marina-Charlotte.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Super Baroness

They are baptized Roman Catholics (since they're so young they didn't have a choice), so until they are confirmed into the Catholic Church they retain their succession rights. It happened to their cousins Edward and Marina-Charlotte.

This is where the Act if a little bit unclear.

Is a baptised child 'holding communion with the Church of Rome'? Given the very young age at which a RC takes communion the question of when they lose/lost their rights could be taken as being from baptism or first communion but certainly not as late as confirmation - unless they haven't already taken their first communion - once they do that they are in communion with Rome and thus our.

[Super Baroness]

However, Lady Amelia Windsor is 15 and is still in the line of succession. I would assume she has been baptized and has had her first communion and will be going though confirmation soon. Unless she's the only one in her immediate family not be a Roman Catholic. I think I read that her sister lost her rights in 2008, around the time she would have been confirmed into the Church.

[Kataryn]

One has to understand that because of the historical background. When the Act was passing legislation it didn't matter to the people if someone was born and baptized a Catholic as it was very common to change the religion in later years. Elizabeth Stuart eg had two daughters who became nuns and later abbesses - one a Catholic in France, the other a Protestant in Germany... which didn't matter to their family at all - some siblings were Catholic, other stayed Protestants but still they stayed in Contact...

So the point that the Act excludes a member of the RF is when he or she becomes a "Papist" through willingly taking communication in a Holy Mass as a grown-up. (Which is after coming to age in the religious sense, which currently is age 14 in Germany, not sure about the UK).

[Iluvbertie]

The simple point is that the Act says -'holding communion with Rome'.

Now what does that mean - to me that is when they are accepted as a Roman Catholic - in the eyes of the RC church - and that is baptism.

That some people argue differently is fine - but if the RC church regards a person as being a member of their church then that person is in communion with Rome and thus out of the line of succession. That recently some lists wait until confirmation to remove a person is actually irrelevant as the act actually only affects a person at the time of the succession. Being RC doesn't have any other bearing on a person and their rights until they are about to succeed and then they are stopped from doing so e.g. strange as it seems if Charles converted to RC it would technically make no difference to his position as heir to the throne but...the moment the Queen died he would be regarded as dead as well and William would succeed but while the Queen was alive Charles would still have all the same rights that he has now.

Now take this scenario - William and Kate have a child and that child is baptised RC, then the Queen dies, Charles dies, William dies - who is the next monarch. From my study of this issue - Harry succeeds as the child would also be regarded as being dead as the child has been accepted into the RC church and would be regarded as RC from the time of the baptism. Now I know that others will argue and that is fine but that is my understanding and what I have been taught by professors etc who have studied this period of history and the legislation.

[NGalitzine]

"As Nicholas is the second son his children are Honourable but normally the younger sons of Dukes don't pass on titles at all."

While Nicholas is styled as Lord as the younger son of a duke his children in fact have no titles and are not styled Honorable...they are plain Master Albert and Master Leopold...the first of the Windsors to enjoy no honorifics at all.

The royal website may give them this courtesy style, but in this and other cases I believe it is wrong. The 1917 Patent only states that children of younger sons, like Prince Michael, shall be styled as younger sons of dukes. It says nothing about more remote descendents... younger sons of dukes have the courtesy title of Lord but they pass on no distinction to their children.

[Duke of Leaside]

Here we go! It seems that Prime Minister Cameron will be discussing possible changes to the Act of Settlement (male primogeniture as well as Roman Catholic issues) with the other realm PMs at the upcoming commonwealth conference.

PM Harper of Canada has previously stated that it's not a priority issue for Canada and potential Canadian constitutional issues have been discussed in this thread above.

Get the can opener ready, as these worms are about to be released.

Fascinating stuff!

[Warren]

The whole issue (or as it has become, issues) is likely to be referred to a committee and that will be the last we hear of it.

[NGalitzine]

Probably correct. Likely the coalition will fall apart and we will have another election before anything happens, plus the Commonwealth process could take quite a long time as well.
The Cambridge's children could well be in school before any changes happen.

[Furienna]

As you might remember, I'm personally more eager about them changing the Roman Catholic thing (which hasn't made sense for, what, three hundred years) than the male primogeniture thing.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Furienna

As you might remember, I'm personally more eager about them changing the Roman Catholic thing (which hasn't made sense for, what, three hundred years) than the male primogeniture thing.

On both issues. the line to the throne and the catholic angle. does anyone feel that there would be a "nay" vote? Just curious.

I'm just assuming that as in the US, the way a person votes when it comes to these kind of issues is made public.

In this day and age to vote no for a child to ascend the throne, no matter what the sex of the child is, brands that vote as as misogynist. To vote against the Roman Catholic thing would brand him as as narrow minded.

Just my opinon

[Iluvbertie]

I can see the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other bishops in the House of Lords voting againts the Roman Catholic change.

Remember that the Church of England is an established church and that the bishops are actually political appointments made by the PM.

[NGalitzine]

The proposed change still requires the monarch to be Church of England, it just allows the possibility that the consort may be Roman Catholic.

[MARG]

Do you mean in the same way as CP Maxima of the Netherlands is?

[Vasillisos Markos]

From what I've read, it is likely the monarch would still need to be Church of England because he or she is the Supreme Governor of the Church, but the proposed change would allow the consort to be RC.