The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession

[Lady Marmalade]

LOL!!

I have...good one Elspeth! You are right on that....

I know this is off topic for a moment, but has anyone heard any news on that new movie by Stephen Frears about the Queen?

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade

I know this is off topic for a moment, but has anyone heard any news on that new movie by Stephen Frears about the Queen?

See: News thread for the late Princess Diana, part 3
Post #47

[Lady Marmalade]

Originally Posted by Warren

See: News thread for the late Princess Diana, part 3
Post #47

As always...thank you, Warren!! :)

[Paula**]

who is lady Davina Windsor? anybody has a picture of her?

[LaMinka]

Originally Posted by Paula**

who is lady Davina Windsor? anybody has a picture of her?

Here is one from her wedding day last year: (from www.smh.com.au)

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Paula**

who is lady Davina Windsor? anybody has a picture of her?

She's the elder daughter of the Duke of Gloucester, and now that she's married her name is Lady Davina Lewis. She shows up at no. 20 on the list in post 1.

[Paula**]

The princess Royal should be first than The earl of wessex if the world wasn't sexist

[Lady Marmalade]

Originally Posted by Paula**

The princess Royal should be first than The earl of wessex if the world wasn't sexist

If I am reading you post correctly, rather than the male child having precendence, you feel the throne should go to the oldest child regardless of sex.

Charles and his sons would still be 1-3, and then the Princess Royal and her children if that were the case. Edward, being the youngest, would be after Andrew and his two daughters, as he is now anyway.:)

[Beck]

I think that when the time comes for Prince William to have children they will perhaps change the law of succession, so whether he has a son or a daughter first, that child will be next in line, regardless of any future siblings. At the moment there is no need to change the law; Charles is next in line, then William and then Harry. All male.

[auntie]

Personally I don't see what is wrong that the monarchy goes down through the male line if there is a male, and if not to the females, as in the UK and Denmark. Even the king of Sweden was upset that his son was usurped from his title as Crown Prince. Interestingly enough, today in those Royal families where the first born will reign regardless to gender, were the royal houses that a woman couldn't reign, even if she were the only child,(with the exeption of Holland) like Sweden, Norway and Belgium, and the closest male would be the Crown Prince.

[Lady Marmalade]

Okay everyone. I have read all of your posts on many of the British royals threads and I feel we need one to once and for all clear up the laws, rights, acts, etc. which determine who gets to sit on the throne and when.

Let's clear up a few of the more interesting ways.

The monarch, as much as some of you may think, is not chosen or derived from the powers of the heavens...you can substitute your religious beliefs there.

It is not up to the Queen herself who gets to sit to be king or queen after her.

As an American, I shake my head at some of the more crazy ways I have read of how a person in line to the throne actually gets there.

So, let's use the forum to clear up all the inconsistencies and not wishful thinking on all our parts.

[BeatrixFan]

Brilliant Idea Lady Marmalade.

I'm going to post my two perceptions on this issue;

1) What I understand to be the Law

The Line of Succession is worked out by birth and thats based on salic law. So men take precedence over women. The eldest child of the Sovereign becomes the Monarch. Women only take the throne in the absence of a legitimate male heir. A Monarch can abdicate and the throne passes to the next in Line. Succession skips nobody unless the Government makes a point of passing a bill that skips that person - much like they tried to do with James II.

2) What I believe as a Catholic

That God decides who will rule and that those in the line of succession are born to be in that place. Monarchs rule by divine right and are answerable only to God.

Now, what I understand to be the law is what I apply in legal terms and what I believe as a Roman Catholic is a personal belief that I keep seperate. What I understand to be the law is actually the law and what I believe as a Catholic is what I'd like to be the law but isn't.

[Lady Marmalade]

Thank you Beatrixfan. This is what I am hoping to see on here, facts, applications, examples and so on. :)

[ysbel]

Well let's get the actual line of succession. I believe it is:

1. Charles
2. William
3. Harry
4. Andrew
5. Beatrice
6. Eugenie
7. Edward
8. Lady Louise
9. Anne
10. Peter Philips
11. Zara Philips
12. Viscount Linley
13. Lady Sarah Chatto
14. Duke of Kent
15. his children (except for the one that converted to Catholicism)
16. Duke of Gloucester
17. his children
18. Lord Lascelles
19. his descendents

My understanding is that its strict primogenture with male preference excluding the ones who've either died, converted to Catholicism, or married a Catholic (Prince Michael) Past that I don't know. It covers all of King George's and Queen Mary's descendents.

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[Elspeth]

Ysbel, the Gloucesters are senior to the Kents; it's their profile that's lower, not their position!

1. Charles
2. William
3. Harry
4. Andrew
5. Beatrice
6. Eugenie
7. Edward
8. Lady Louise
9. Anne
10. Peter Philips
11. Zara Philips
12. Viscount Linley
13. Charles Armstrong-Jones
14. Margarita Armstrong-Jones
15. Lady Sarah Chatto
16. Samuel Chatto
17. Arthur Chatto
18. Duke of Gloucester
19. Earl of Ulster
20. Davina Lewis
21. Rose Windsor
22. Duke of Kent*
23. Marina Windsor (daughter of the Earl of St Andrews, who married a Catholic)
24. Amelia Windsor
25. Helen Taylor
26. Columbus Taylor
27. Cassius Taylor
28. Eloise Taylor
29. Estella Taylor**
30. Frederick Windsor
31. Gabriella Windsor
32. Princess Alexandra
33. James Ogilvy
34. Alexander Ogilvy
35. Flora Ogilvy
36. Marina Mowatt
37. Christian Mowatt
38. Zenouska Mowatt
39. Lord Lascelles
40. His children and grandchildren
41. Children and grandchildren of Gerald Lascelles

*The Earl of St Andrews and his son Baron Downpatrick are excluded because of the Catholic thing, as is the Earl's brother Nicholas, who would otherwise follow Amelia Windsor.

**Prince Michael of Kent is excluded for the same reason.

[BeatrixFan]

Amazing to think that once Princess Alexandra was 6th and she's now 32nd!

Important to point out that although some of his family are Roman Catholics, the Duke isn't out of succession because his wife and children converted after his marriage to Katherine.

[Elspeth]

Which just goes to show. I mean, if Catholicism is such a problem, you'd think that conversion of a spouse would also be a problem. If the Princess of Wales converts to Catholicism the day after marrying the Prince, then he's still in the line of succession, but if she does it the day before the wedding, he's history.

They really should do something about it.

In the meantime, here's what the royal family website has to say:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page389.asp

Interesting that it specifically says that a sovereign can be removed by Parliament for misgoverning.

[BeatrixFan]

Parliament, under the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, also laid down various conditions which the Sovereign must meet. A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne; nor may the Sovereign marry a Roman Catholic.

And as you rightly say Elspeth - if she's Catholic before he becomes Sovereign then it doesn't matter a jot.

Interesting that it specifically says that a sovereign can be removed by Parliament for misgoverning

An oxymoron if ever there was one!

[moosey60]

Why are there stars next to Estella Taylor's name? Is she not included in the line of succession?

[BeatrixFan]

I think the stars show where Prince Michael would be if he wasn't excluded.