The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by HRHThePrince

A
I'm under the assumption that Elizabeth would've still become Sovereign as she had no brothers from her father's first marriage, but acquired a brother due to his remarriage. I was thinking back to King William III whose heir apparent was Princess Anne of Denmark (later Queen Anne), his sister in law. If he had remarried, his offspring would've been further down the line of succession after Princess Anne & her descendents.

No, her halfbrother would have become the heir of his father. It doesn't matter from which marriage a son is, important is that the marriage was valid. The case of king William was different as he became king due to the fact that he was married to queen Mary and was the next in (protestant) line after Mary and Anne, as he was their cousin, his mother was the sister of James II and Charles II (Mary, Princess Royal) and had married to the Netherlands, thus he was William of Orange. But he was next after Anne, so while his children with Mary would have taken precedence over Anne's, his own children would have been after Anne's children.

[Iluvbertie]

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.

[padams2359]

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?

[NGalitzine]

Originally Posted by padams2359

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.

[Artemisia]

Originally Posted by padams2359

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).

[csw]

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.

[padams2359]

It was rumored that Wallis was unable to have children due to troubles in her first marriage.

[Iluvbertie]

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.

[McKeen]

Originally Posted by csw

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.

[DCVO]

Originally Posted by McKeen

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.

[BWB2]

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?

[Meraude]

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

[VictoriaB]

Originally Posted by BWB2

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.

[BWB2]

That is exactly the answer I was looking for, thank you!