The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession 1: Ending 2022

[Zonk]

Maybe your sister read something about a Regency?

This scenario would be if the Queen dies, Charles is dead and William is under the age of 18, than the possibility exists that Andrew could serve as Regent or on the regency council for William.

According to Wikipedia A regent, from the Latin regens, "[one] reigning", or regency council is a person or group of persons selected to act as head of state because the ruler is a minor, not present, or debilitated.[1] The period of rule of a regent or regents is referred to as a regency.

But Andrew is still NOT the King. Back in the day (think Henry VI or Edward VI) a regency could lead to war or a change in power.

There was a saying (and I am paraphrasing) woe is the day when a child is the king. I can't find the accurate quote.

 

[Renata4711]

Zonk, I have chosen the New English and the New American Standard Bible translation:

Woe to you, O land, whose king is a lad and whose princes feast in the morning.

It's based on a passage from Isaiah: I will make boys their officials; mere children will govern them. (Is. 3:12)

 

[Zonk]

Thank you Renata....is the first one Shakespeare?

I think there is another version as well but that is the basic jest of the thought. I think I read it in the book about Richard III.

 

[Furienna]

I think it's a shame though, when a generation gets skipped over, which also is what happened here in Sweden. Our king's father died in an accident very early on, and thus, Carl Gustaf had to succeed his grandfather, not his father, to the thrown. Because four princes had been thrown out of the succession for marrying "the wrong woman", the succession was uncertain while Carl Gustaf was a little boy and his grandfather, Gustaf VI Adolf, was our king. Prince Bertil, who was CG's only uncle, who hadn't married a commoner and lost his place in the succession, was supposed to lead a regency, if something happened to the king before the crown prince was off age. That never happened though, and thus, one generation was skipped over.

I know that was almost off topic, as this is a British Royals section, but I really hope, that Charles will become king one day, so his generation won't be skipped over. I believe that hasn't happened in Britain either since George III, who succeeded his grandfather, not his father.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think there is a difference between being 'skipped over' and not having monarch in a particular generation.

If Charles dies before his mother then William will be the next King. I don't see that as being 'skipped over' as it follows the normal course of events. The alternative would be that Andrew succeeds his mother and then who - William or Beatrice??

If something were to happen and the parliament pass the legislation to strip Charles of the right to be King - then I would call that 'skipping over' and would think it was definitely the wrong thing to do as there is no valid reason for Charles not to succeed his mother.

I also wonder about the people who make this call. What do they think William would think about this? We know William loved his mother - and no issue there - but do people really think he hates his father to that extent? That he would accept his father's birthright while his father is still alive?

 

[Esmerelda]

I think William would accept the throne while Charles is still alive only if the alternative would be the end of the monarchy. That's unlikely so Charles will most probably be King if he outlives his mother.

There's another example for a generation being skipped over: King Juan Carlos of Spain became King after Franco died although his father was still alive. That was a very unique situation, though.

 

[Furienna]

I think there is a difference between being 'skipped over' and not having monarch in a particular generation.

If Charles dies before his mother then William will be the next King. I don't see that as being 'skipped over' as it follows the normal course of events. The alternative would be that Andrew succeeds his mother and then who - William or Beatrice??

If something were to happen and the parliament pass the legislation to strip Charles of the right to be King - then I would call that 'skipping over' and would think it was definitely the wrong thing to do as there is no valid reason for Charles not to succeed his mother.

I also wonder about the people who make this call. What do they think William would think about this? We know William loved his mother - and no issue there - but do people really think he hates his father to that extent? That he would accept his father's birthright while his father is still alive?

Hmm... You make some good points. But some monarchies have practiced another kind of succession, where every (male) member of the royal family got their chance to sit on the thrown, as long as they lived enough. This kind of succession hasn't existed in Europe though, but it did in the Mayan empire and in the Ottoman empire. And here, a monarch was more likely to be succeeded by his younger brother than by his oldest son.

 

[branchg]

I think William would accept the throne while Charles is still alive only if the alternative would be the end of the monarchy. That's unlikely so Charles will most probably be King if he outlives his mother.

There's another example for a generation being skipped over: King Juan Carlos of Spain became King after Franco died although his father was still alive. That was a very unique situation, though.

The only way William would become King while his father was still alive after The Queen's death would be for Charles to willingly abdicate with Parliament agreeing by passing an Act of Abdication.

I can't see that scenario playing out unless The Queen lives to an extraordinary age and Charles is too old and infirm to be able to discharge his duties as The Sovereign. Even then, he could still become King and William would immediately become The Prince Regent until his father's death, like George IV did as Prince of Wales for his father, George III.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The only way William would become King while his father was still alive after The Queen's death would be for Charles to willingly abdicate with Parliament agreeing by passing an Act of Abdication.

I can't see that scenario playing out unless The Queen lives to an extraordinary age and Charles is too old and infirm to be able to discharge his duties as The Sovereign. Even then, he could still become King and William would immediately become The Prince Regent until his father's death, like George IV did as Prince of Wales for his father, George III.

Not 'could' but 'would'.

If Charles is alive when the Queen dies he automatically becomes King. If he is unable to carry out the duties of King then you are right William would become Regent.

 

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Act of Succession now will be looked at

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]

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.

 

[Furienna]

But that Roman-Catholics are specifically targeted by a law in this day and age, is just weird. I wouldn't have said much about it, if the law had said "the consort must belong to the Church of England", that is, all other religions than the CoE were forbidden. But basically, a prince of a princess could marry a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu etc, but not a Catholic. I know there are reasons for why this law came about, but that was three hundred years ago.

It does make sense though, that the monarch should belong to the Church of England, as he or she also is the head of said church. But his or her consort should be able to belong to another religion, even the Roman-Catholic church.