Succession to the Crown Act 2013, Part 2: Sep 2022 -

[Marengo]

Arms of The United Kingdom​

Welcome to the thread Succession to the Crown Act 2013, Part 2

Commencing September 1st, 2022 ​

The previous thread can be found here
​

Please take a look at the
TRF Community Rules & FAQs
​

· Only pictures that you have written permission to share can be posted here. You can post links to any pictures.
· It's a copyright violation to post translations of entire articles, so no more than 20% of an article
text should be posted, along with the link to the original article.
· We expect our members to treat each other, and the royals and persons in these threads, with respect.
· The Report Post button is for reporting inappropriate content in a post if no moderators or administrators are online.
· Threads should remain on topic. Posts which are irrelevant or disruptive
will be deleted or moved by one of the moderators.

***​

​

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I wish King Charles III went one step further and revoked the old line current of succession by having it according to birth order as is the current version. Like making it retroactive to have Princess Anne and family be after the Prince of Wales and family and have the Duke of York take a step back behind her.

Is there a suggestion box outside of the palace someone can drop off a note about it?

What for? What is the chance of Anne ever becoming queen? Would it worth the fuss to make the parliament of 15 countries changing their legislation just for a mere reason of making Anne ahead of Andrew on the royal website considering he's unlikely to make appearance in official royal occasion?

That would be a MASSIVE undertaking and not worth it.

Many countries did change their legislation in 2011-2015 in a coordinated project to modify the laws of succession to the British throne.

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2015-03-26/HCWS490

I can't see how Toledo's proposal would have required any additional parliamentary time.

It wouldn't just be Anne for instance but Louise, Alexandra, Lady Helen Taylor etc.

How far back does it go e.g. to put the Harewoods ahead of the Gloucesters (why not ... why should they be lower because they descend from a girl and not a boy). What about the descendants of Queen Victoria's eldest daughter - should they actually be the royal family as Vicky was the eldest child?

Once you start trying for retroactivity you have to ask 'how far back' and 'why stop there'. What makes Anne more deserving than Mary or Vicky or whomever?

One could just as well ask "What makes Anne less deserving than Charlotte (who will not be superseded by her younger brother)?" I'm not sure that is the most helpful way to frame the issue.

If Toledo truly meant to advocate for a retroactive change, then I suppose one could set the retroactive date of effect to Anne's birthdate in 1950. But it if the goal is simply to move Anne ahead of Andrew in the order of succession to the throne, it would have sufficed to apply the changes to living people.

 

[Claire]

Also starting with Anne might be an issue. As many might ask why you cant go back to Princess Mary - hey whey stop there lets go back further. Essential moving to the female line and you will have a completely different royal family

 

[yukari]

(...)
One could just as well ask "What makes Anne less deserving than Charlotte (who will not be superseded by her younger brother)?" I'm not sure that is the most helpful way to frame the issue.

If Toledo truly meant to advocate for a retroactive change, then I suppose one could set the retroactive date of effect to Anne's birthdate in 1950. But it if the goal is simply to move Anne ahead of Andrew in the order of succession to the throne, it would have sufficed to apply the changes to living people.

What makes Charlotte but not Anne? Maybe for the simple reason that the rule has already been in place when Charlotte was born.

And again, would it be worth it to take the time of the 15 countries parliaments to work on making Anne ahead of Andrew while they can use that time to work on other more pressing issue that can affect more people's lives?

 

[Meee]

I’m sure the explanation at the time was that it had been done without being retrospective so as to not affect anyone’s realistic chances of inheriting the throne. All countries have to agree so it must be that there is a Prince somewhere who might well accede, but who would lose the claim to an elder sister if all countries had instead agreed that it would be retrospective.

The monarchy would lose public consent if Andrew got anywhere near the throne, so I don’t think we need to worry about Anne not superseding him as much as I’d like to see it. The people would also like Edward above Andrew but that’s never going to happen unless the latter is excluded.

This way, Beatrice continues to be eligible as a CoS having grown up with some expectation of royal duties and it is not thrust upon Peter who did not.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

What makes Charlotte but not Anne? Maybe for the simple reason that the rule has already been in place when Charlotte was born.

I’m sure the explanation at the time was that it had been done without being retrospective so as to not affect anyone’s realistic chances of inheriting the throne.

Yes, that was the official explanation when the question was asked in Parliament: that the people born before the announcement had "legitimate expectations", to use the government's phrase.

And again, would it be worth it to take the time of the 15 countries parliaments to work on making Anne ahead of Andrew while they can use that time to work on other more pressing issue that can affect more people's lives?

The fact is that the 15 parliaments did do the work and take the time between 2011 and 2015. If they had placed Anne ahead of Andrew, I do not see how it would have taken any more time than it the changes they made. (We are not talking about a separate process, but about hypothetically having included it along with the other changes to the line of succession, such as restoring Prince Michael of Kent, which came into effect in 2015.)

The monarchy would lose public consent if Andrew got anywhere near the throne, so I don’t think we need to worry about Anne not superseding him as much as I’d like to see it.

While the reasoning of the 2011 government makes logical sense, I do wonder if they would have made the same decision if the events of 2018-2022 regarding the Duke of York, Jeffrey Epstein and Virginia Giuffre had occurred before 2011.

 

[yukari]

(...)
The fact is that the 15 parliaments did do the work and take the time between 2011 and 2015. If they had placed Anne ahead of Andrew, I do not see how it would have taken any more time than it the changes they made. (We are not talking about a separate process, but about hypothetically having included it along with the other changes to the line of succession, such as restoring Prince Michael of Kent, which came into effect in 2015.)

Respectfully Tatiana Maria, but my understanding of this conversation (hence my reply to Toledo's) is since Charles III is specifically mentioned, and not Elizabeth II, means that it'd be separate process from one in 2011-2015 as we're not discussing the hypothetical 2013 Act process, but making (changing) it to be retroactive. Surely to make any slight change on one legislation from the previous Monarch's reign would required additional parliamentary time, no? Particularly since they also need to decide how far the retroactivity would be applied.

I wish King Charles III went one step further and revoked the old line current of succession by having it according to birth order as is the current version. Like making it retroactive to have Princess Anne and family be after the Prince of Wales and family and have the Duke of York take a step back behind her.

Is there a suggestion box outside of the palace someone can drop off a note about it?

What for? What is the chance of Anne ever becoming queen? Would it worth the fuss to make the parliament of 15 countries changing their legislation just for a mere reason of making Anne ahead of Andrew on the royal website considering he's unlikely to make appearance in official royal occasion?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Respectfully Tatiana Maria, but my understanding of this conversation (hence my reply to Toledo's) is since Charles III is specifically mentioned, and not Elizabeth II, means that it'd be separate process from one in 2011-2015 as we're not discussing the hypothetical 2013 Act process, but making (changing) it to be retroactive. Surely to make any slight change on one legislation from the previous Monarch's reign would required additional parliamentary time, no? Particularly since they also need to decide how far the retroactivity would be applied.

Sorry, I realize my first post was confusing. Toledo's original proposal was for King Charles III to amend the order of succession to the throne, but - prior to my first reply - you and Iluvbertie had already correctly pointed out (in that reply to Toledo) that succession to the throne is the prerogative of Parliament, not the King, so I assumed the original proposal was no longer under consideration.

Thus, my proposal:

Many countries did change their legislation in 2011-2015 in a coordinated project to modify the laws of succession to the British throne.

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2015-03-26/HCWS490

I can't see how Toledo's proposal would have required any additional parliamentary time.

was that if the aim was to move Anne ahead of Andrew (which is what I meant by "Toledo's proposal" - I can see how my wording was confusing as I was only talking about that part of Toledo's proposal, not the "new amendments by King Charles III" proposal), the most efficient way to accomplish it would be to include it with the other changes of 2011-2015.

 

[Meee]

I have also found the top six thing quite bizarre, as it’s not aligned with the CoS rules in any way (6 rather than 4, and not applying an age restriction; nor is it a round number.) I think even the top 5 of age would be better than the current rule (before someone is of age there is a higher chance of them dying an untimely death in an accident with a parent or sibling) but realise that the age limit would have to be 18 at most, as otherwise you would have a 3 year window to marry someone unsuitable and not be excluded. Even with that it would be theoretically possible for a 16 year old to marry someone unsuitable without either parental consent or the Sovereign’s permission via having the wedding in Scotland.

Ultimately I wonder if the better solution would be permission is needed if you are a child, grandchild (and maybe great-grandchild) of a monarch. I figure you’re not one of those without knowing about it by the time you’re old enough to marry, whether it is the current monarch or a prior one. It seemed to be people not knowing that they were subject to the previous act that was the problem, rather than the Queen being asked for permission by too many people (as she had also been asked by people who weren’t required to seek permission and gave her consent.)

I suspect this number gets looked at if Archie is still required to ask when he becomes of age, especially if he is still living in the US at that time. I wouldn’t find it unreasonable if all of the late Queen’s great-grandchildren had to ask, but it’s a bizarre thing when the line is drawn between two siblings. Limiting it to current monarch’s descendants would be fine for now but were a monarch to die without issue it might be a problem in the future.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I have also found the top six thing quite bizarre, as it’s not aligned with the CoS rules in any way (6 rather than 4, and not applying an age restriction; nor is it a round number.)

The government's justification at the time was that ever since the passage of the Royal Marriages Act of 1772 nobody who had placed further than sixth in line had subsequently succeeded to the throne.

I think even the top 5 of age would be better than the current rule (before someone is of age there is a higher chance of them dying an untimely death in an accident with a parent or sibling) but realise that the age limit would have to be 18 at most, as otherwise you would have a 3 year window to marry someone unsuitable and not be excluded. Even with that it would be theoretically possible for a 16 year old to marry someone unsuitable without either parental consent or the Sovereign’s permission via having the wedding in Scotland.

Ultimately I wonder if the better solution would be permission is needed if you are a child, grandchild (and maybe great-grandchild) of a monarch. I figure you’re not one of those without knowing about it by the time you’re old enough to marry, whether it is the current monarch or a prior one. It seemed to be people not knowing that they were subject to the previous act that was the problem, rather than the Queen being asked for permission by too many people (as she had also been asked by people who weren’t required to seek permission and gave her consent.)

I suspect this number gets looked at if Archie is still required to ask when he becomes of age, especially if he is still living in the US at that time. I wouldn’t find it unreasonable if all of the late Queen’s great-grandchildren had to ask, but it’s a bizarre thing when the line is drawn between two siblings. Limiting it to current monarch’s descendants would be fine for now but were a monarch to die without issue it might be a problem in the future.

I respectfully disagree. In my opinion, the only solution which avoids producing bizarre results is to require permission to remain in line to the throne for the marriage of any person in line. That does not mean that hundreds of distant relatives would need to ask for permission to marry: Most of them could, and should, simply marry and lose their distant rights to the throne, which would be a positive development for the monarchy.

I explained my reasons in a bit more detail in this previous post:

I think the limitation of the persons needing permission to marry to remain in the line of succession to the first six in line was very poorly written.

To illustrate why, imagine the following hypothetical situation.

William is the King. Prince George (1st in line to the throne) was given permission for his marriage and he and his wife have four children, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th in line. Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis are not yet married and are 6th and 7th in line.

Charlotte announces her engagement to a man who has a robbery conviction on his record. The Government is of the opinion that a convicted robber would be unsuitable as the consort of the UK's head of state (as Charlotte would become if something happened to George and his children). Acting on the Government's advice by constitutional convention, the King refuses his permission for the marriage, which will lead to Charlotte losing her place in the line of succession after the marriage.

However, ahead of Charlotte's wedding, Louis meets and marries a woman who has ten robbery convictions on her record. Because he is not one of the first six in line, Louis remains in the line of succession though he never received permission for his marriage. When Charlotte marries and loses her place, Louis moves up one place.

Subsequently, if George and his children were to die in a tragic accident, Louis would succeed as King and his wife would be Queen. The Government's decision that a convicted robber would be an unsuitable prince consort would have directly led to a convicted serial robber becoming the queen consort.


It would have been much better to make the new laws applicable to the entire line of succession. Invalidation of unapproved marriages is no longer part of the law. The only remaining consequence is disqualification from succession to the Crown. The hundreds of people further down the line whose chances of succeeding are nil for all practical purposes would not "have" to ask for consent, because the loss of their theoretical rights of succession would have absolutely no effect on their lives. In fact, I think it would not only acceptable but desirable to eliminate even the theoretical chance of e.g. the Norwegian royals succeeding to the British throne in this way.