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
 
  #901  
Old 11-12-2012, 06:53 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,602
Jump back to Henry VIII.

His first daughter was by his first wife. His second daughter by his second wife and then his son by his third wife and he (Edward VI) immediately jumped ahead of his older half-sisters in the line of succession simply because he was a boy.

The only thing a child needs it to be the legitimate son of the current monarch regardless of how many spouses there are e.g. if Andrew remarried and had a son that boy would be ahead of Beatrice and Eugenie in the line of succession (and heir to the York title as well.)

William and Mary's situation is somewhat different because at the time of their accession the line of succesion (excluding the Old Pretender) was Mary, Anne and then William in his own right so any child that he had from a wife other than Mary would have a claim through him but that claim would be after the claim of any child of Anne's or any child that he had with Mary.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #902  
Old 12-04-2012, 08:27 PM
padams2359's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 388
Had Edward VIII married Wallis with a Morganic marriage, children or not, would QE2 succeeded him in the 1970s? Of course provided that her father's death preceded Edward's, or would the succession moved down?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #903  
Old 12-04-2012, 09:23 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by padams2359 View Post
Had Edward VIII married Wallis with a Morganic marriage, children or not, would QE2 succeeded him in the 1970s? Of course provided that her father's death preceded Edward's, or would the succession moved down?
Had Edward VIII reigned and died without heirs the succession would have moved to the line of his next brother Albert, Duke of York who would have been heir presumptive during his life time. Had Albert died while his elder brother still reigned then Alberts elder daughter HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh would have become heiress presumptive on her fathers death and then succeeded to the throne on the death of her uncle Edward VIII in 1972.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #904  
Old 12-05-2012, 04:54 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by padams2359 View Post
Had Edward VIII married Wallis with a Morganic marriage, children or not, would QE2 succeeded him in the 1970s? Of course provided that her father's death preceded Edward's, or would the succession moved down?
The concept of morganatic marriage simply doesn't exist in Britain; if Edward VIII had married Wallis Simpson, she would have legally been his Queen.

If they had children, then the eldest boy among those children would have succeeded his father. As it is, Edward and Wallis never did have children during their marriage so even if Edward VIII had not abdicated, changes to succession would have been minimal: there would have been no George VI (because he pre-deceased his elder brother) and Elizabeth II would have become Monarch 20 years later, in 1972 (upon the death of her uncle, Edward VIII).
Reply With Quote
  #905  
Old 12-05-2012, 01:52 PM
csw csw is offline
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Columbus, United States
Posts: 387
I often wonder if Edward and Wallis deliberately avoided having children. I wonder if they may have had children if he had kept the throne.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #906  
Old 12-05-2012, 08:51 PM
padams2359's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 388
It was rumored that Wallis was unable to have children due to troubles in her first marriage.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #907  
Old 12-05-2012, 11:44 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,602
It was also rumoured that Edward was unable to conceive a child due to measles/mumps as a child although there are a number of rumoured children around the world.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #908  
Old 12-07-2012, 03:19 AM
AnnEliza's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Seattle, United States
Posts: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by csw View Post
I often wonder if Edward and Wallis deliberately avoided having children. I wonder if they may have had children if he had kept the throne.
Wallis didn't have children with any of her husbands. I wonder if it's because she prized thinness so much or she couldn't have them.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #909  
Old 12-07-2012, 03:32 AM
DCVO's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Tacoma, United States
Posts: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by McKeen View Post

Wallis didn't have children with any of her husbands. I wonder if it's because she prized thinness so much or she couldn't have them.
I have absolutely no idea about the veracity of this, but in the movie "W. E." it shows Wallis miscarrying when her first husband beat her and kicked her in the stomach. A trauma like that could well have made her infertile. Again, IF it happened. Movies aren't known for sticking with the facts.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #910  
Old 02-04-2013, 04:49 PM
BWB2's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Tampa, United States
Posts: 3
Dukedom and Royal Line of Succession

I am new here and you must forgive me if this has been asked and answered at some point. If all know members of the British Royal Family were to die off, and all that was left were the peerages, would the highest ranking Duke left then take over as the Sovereign?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #911  
Old 02-04-2013, 04:57 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: City on islands, Sweden
Posts: 1,087
As the Line of Succession to the British throne today consists of about 1 000 people, including members of most of the other European royal houses, it's most unlikely that there wouldn't be someone left to inherit the throne. For more information, see this thread: The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #912  
Old 02-04-2013, 06:06 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 340
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWB2 View Post
I am new here and you must forgive me if this has been asked and answered at some point. If all know members of the British Royal Family were to die off, and all that was left were the peerages, would the highest ranking Duke left then take over as the Sovereign?
It depends on what you mean by known members of the British Royal Family.

This website has taken the trouble to extensively list the persons in line to the British throne although it doesn't look to have been updated in the last few years as it doesn't include Peter Phillips' and Davina Lewis' most recent children.

Home Page

The most senior Duke in the UK is the Duke of Norfolk but he is Catholic and therefore could not inherit the crown but also, simply because he is the senior Duke would not make him a shoe-in for monarch even if he were not Catholic. If everyone in the list were bumped off for some reason, then I imagine Parliament would decide who to offer the crown to (as they did in the past) and that would not necessarily be a member of the peerage.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #913  
Old 02-04-2013, 08:05 PM
BWB2's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Tampa, United States
Posts: 3
That is exactly the answer I was looking for, thank you!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #914  
Old 04-14-2014, 08:21 PM
Ana Von Cleves's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: henderson, United States
Posts: 32
Queen Anne

I'm new to the forums, so forgive me if this subject has been recently discussed.

I have read in various sources that there were anything up to 500 possible successors to Queen Anne besides the Hanovers. If you disallow her step siblings and other Catholics, who were the top contenders and why didn't they make a fuss? This also goes to another point about so called "right" which I will talk about in my next post.

Anyway, I have looked for this information and not been able to find any satisfactory answers.

Thanks,
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #915  
Old 04-14-2014, 08:27 PM
BritishRoyalist's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 760
Queen Anne

Make a Fuss? Have you heard of The Jacobite Risings/Rebellion? The Stuarts (James II, His Son and then his Grandson) tried a few times between 1689 and 1745 to regain their Throne. Each Time failed.
__________________
Long Live the Queen!! The Real Queen of Hearts!
Reply With Quote
  #916  
Old 04-14-2014, 08:40 PM
Ana Von Cleves's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: henderson, United States
Posts: 32

But I specifically discounted the step siblings who were of course the jabobite heirs.
. . . . . . . . . . .

I have been giving the question of "right" some thought since I watched the program about Richard III and one Ricardian positively wailed about his "right" to rule and Henry VII had no "right."
This is kind of the way I see it: There was a period of time where "might" made "right" and there is now, where Parliament gives "right."

The whole medieval period is filled with men proving their "right" with the sword. They felt god was deciding of course, or at least that was the propaganda they used.

I put the demarcation line at Elizabeth I / James I & VI since parliament at least agreed to his succession, but he was also the senior heir as far as I can tell. So you could also put the demarcation line at Charles I /Cromwell / Charles II, where parliament unquestionably deposed Charles I and then allowed Charles II to come back after they couldn't figure out how to control the government after Cromwell then kicked out James II and his children by Mary of Modena in favor of William III & Mary II.

There are various examples of parliament granting the "right" to rule even up to George VI, when it was common knowledge that the government was giving serious thought to appoint Prince George Duke of Kent King because of George VI's stammer and Kent had a son. At least, I have read this in more than one source. There is also the point that it is the government that forced Edward VIII to choose. In the era of "might" Edward IV got to force the wife of his choice on everyone, with somewhat questionable results, of course. Which brings us back to Richard III, who was able to force his will on a defenseless widow and young boy, but not on a grown man with an army and a duplicitous step father.

Does this make sense?

Ana
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #917  
Old 04-14-2014, 08:47 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,594
Put simply, we were (and still are) a constitutional monarchy and it was for Government to determine the person most suitable. Related by blood and protestant. It didnt matter if people thought they were more suitable, the Government decided and were prepared to fight to maintain their choice on the throne.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #918  
Old 04-14-2014, 08:47 PM
Ana Von Cleves's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: henderson, United States
Posts: 32
In plainer language, who besides the Jacobite heirs, other catholic heirs & the protestant Hanovers could have been considered to succeed Anne?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #919  
Old 04-14-2014, 09:19 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,360
A couple corrections.

First of all, it wasn't Anne's step-siblings that were passed over, it was her half-brother, his descendants, an her half sister and her descendants. All were Catholic.

Then, it was the descendants of Anne's aunt, Henrietta, who were also Catholic.

Then it went to the descendants of Anne's great-aunt, Elizabeth. Most of Elizabeth's children died without legitimate issue, the exceptions being Charles I Louis, Edward, and Sophia. Edward was a Catholic, and Charles had entered into a marriage that wasn't acceptable by British standards.

Charles' descendants were the only ones of the 50 or so people who were passed over that could have made a claim to being acceptable in regards to religion. However, if they accepted that the British Parliaments had the right to chose their own monarch then they had to accept the fact that they were not the ones chosen. If they wanted to claim primogeniture, then they held no legitimate claim as the descendants of Charles I (most importantly the still living descendants of James II) were far higher up than them.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #920  
Old 04-14-2014, 09:20 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,602
Any descendants of earlier kings. There were about 56 I believe with a better blood claim than Sophia of Hannover, through descent from James I and VI's but they were excluded due to either being RC or married to RC.

These people accepted the right of the British parliament to make the laws to decide who would become the monarch of the island nation.

The descendants of James II's son - both the Old and Young pretenders didn't accept that right of parliament and led rebellions - which were defeated.

Since then it has been plain sailing with the succession following the legitimate and logical lines of father to first born son, or brother etc so

George I - son - George II - grandson (son having died) - George III - son - George IV - brother (brother in between had already died) William IV - neice (brother having died) - Victoria - son - Edward VII - son - George V - son Edward VIII - brother (following legislation allowing for the abdication) - George VI - daughter - Elizabeth.

There has been no contested succession since parliament took control in 1649 and determined via legislation who would be the rightful successors.
__________________

__________________
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





Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess mabel princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:52 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]