Succession to the Throne


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Joined
May 18, 2021
Messages
1
City
Waterford
Country
Ireland
A genuine question here, that I don’t know the answer to but have taught about before. If God forbid Prince Charles was to die before the Queen would Prince William be next in line to the Throne or would it be Prince Andrew as the Queen’s next oldest son.

Has it happened that the next in line to the throne died before the reigning monarch died, and if it has who took over on the Monarch’s death.
 
A genuine question here, that I don’t know the answer to but have taught about before. If God forbid Prince Charles was to die before the Queen would Prince William be next in line to the Throne or would it be Prince Andrew as the Queen’s next oldest son.

Has it happened that the next in line to the throne died before the reigning monarch died, and if it has who took over on the Monarch’s death.

Next in line to the throne would be Prince William who is second in line to the throne.
Prince Andrew is 9th in line to the throne.
 
A genuine question here, that I don’t know the answer to but have taught about before. If God forbid Prince Charles was to die before the Queen would Prince William be next in line to the Throne or would it be Prince Andrew as the Queen’s next oldest son.

Has it happened that the next in line to the throne died before the reigning monarch died, and if it has who took over on the Monarch’s death.


It would be Prince William who would be next in line as he's the eldest child of the heir to the throne. Following William would be his three children George, Charlotte and Louis. Then it would be Prince Harry and his two children Archie and Lillibet. Then it would move to Prince Andrew etc..


Here's more information for you on the line of succession for the British monarchy for the first twenty four which includes the Queen's four children, eight grandchildren and twelve great-grandchildren.

https://www.royal.uk/succession



As to the second part of your question, yes it has happened before that the heir to the throne died and then a younger sibling moved up in the line of succession. This is how Henry VIII became the heir after his elder brother Arthur died.
 
Last edited:
There are also examples of grandchildren taken over from their grandparent. King Carl Gustaf of Sweden is one of them.
 
There are also examples of grandchildren taken over from their grandparent. King Carl Gustaf of Sweden is one of them.
Even great-grandchildren. Louis XV of France and Navarre took over from his great-grandfather Louis XIV.
 
Not sure where to place this - but as it is about how much is permitted for those in line to the throne, I figured this might be an appropriate place (as the discussion above will not be revived given that Charles now is king):

I am amazed at what some royals (spares) can get away with from a government point of view - as they are still in line to the throne even though some of them have decided (or it has been decided for them) to fully live their own lives - and in doing so sometimes damage the monarchy.

Is there no such thing as 'ministerial responsibility' in other countries? In the Netherlands, the ministerial responsibility applies to all members of the royal house (previously that was equal to those in line to the throne and their spouses - which makes most sense to me-; now the king's nieces and nephew although still in line to the throne are not included). Meaning that those closest in line to the throne (in practice children and siblings of monarchs - if they remain in line to the throne) cannot just do and say as they please because the prime minister bears responsibility for what they do and say and will need to answer for their actions in parliament if push comes to shove. To me this makes sense given that each of them could become the future monarch (or spouse) and therefore should be 'above reproach' and their actions reflect on the Monarch and monarchy - by virtue of them not only being close family members but eligible to become the future monarch; in most cases that is only one terrible accident away.
 
Last edited:
It's a good question. And a bit of an Achilles' heel for monarchies I suppose.

I think the only course of action is making it clear that any such individuals do not represent the monarch. As I understand they have done in Norway? If they did succeed to the throne then presumably there would be some sort of constitutional crises if most people simply didn't want them. So the question would then be what is the mechanism (if any) for the removal of an unwanted monarch. A constitutional convention followed by a referendum on a republic or changing the line of succession possibly.

A nightmare scenario.
 
Last edited:
It's a good question. And a bit of an Achilles' heel for monarchies I suppose.

I think the only course of action is making it clear that any such individuals do not represent the monarch. As I understand they have done in Norway? If they did succeed to the throne then presumably there would be some sort of constitutional crises if most people simply didn't want them. So the question would then be what is the mechanism (if any) for the removal of an unwanted monarch. A constitutional convention followed by a referendum on a republic or changing the line of succession possibly.

A nightmare scenario.

I would suggest that including parliament in decisions on who remains in line to the throne upon marriage would be a small step that might mitigate some of the issues (although some issues arise after marriage); as it seems most monarchs nowadays are rather reluctant to withhold (official) permission from their close family member to marry - even if they would marry someone who is deemed fully unsuitable by everyone else. In that case being able to blame parliament (or deciding not to ask permission given that the outcome might be guaranteed) would be a way to diffuse such a situation.

Distancing yourself from someone who remains in line to the throne, to me is contradictory. If that person is so 'toxic' that public distancing is required, that person should not remain in the line of succession imho.

The advantage of having additional mechanisms to remove people from the line of succession if they decide their membership of the royal house is too much of a burden as it limits them in their professional lives (distinguishing between a royal house and royal family is meaningful in that situation as well), might actually enhance family relationships as personal and business matters can be separated.
 
Not sure where to place this - but as it is about how much is permitted for those in line to the throne, I figured this might be an appropriate place (as the discussion above will not be revived given that Charles now is king):

I am amazed at what some royals (spares) can get away with from a government point of view - as they are still in line to the throne even though some of them have decided (or it has been decided for them) to fully live their own lives - and in doing so sometimes damage the monarchy.

Is there no such thing as 'ministerial responsibility' in other countries? In the Netherlands, the ministerial responsibility applies to all members of the royal house (previously that was equal to those in line to the throne and their spouses - which makes most sense to me-; now the king's nieces and nephew although still in line to the throne are not included). Meaning that those closest in line to the throne (in practice children and siblings of monarchs - if they remain in line to the throne) cannot just do and say as they please because the prime minister bears responsibility for what they do and say and will need to answer for their actions in parliament if push comes to shove. To me this makes sense given that each of them could become the future monarch (or spouse) and therefore should be 'above reproach' and their actions reflect on the Monarch and monarchy (by virtue of them not only being close family members but eligible to become the future monarch; in most cases that is only one terrible accident away).


I don't know how it works in the Netherlands, but ministerial responsibility normally applies to official acts of the monarch that are carried out on ministerial advice. For example, the ministers bear responsibility for any order approved by the monarch in a meeting of the Privy Council or, generally, for any appointment of a public officer made by the monarch, or for a royal proclamation dissolving or proroguing Parliament, or declaring war.


By extension, I suppose ministerial responsibility also applies to official acts undertaken by the heir and other members of the RF on behalf of the King. So, for example, if William is on a official visit representing the UK and gives a speech in connection with that visit, I understand that falls under ministerial responsibility too.


Ministerial responsibility does not extend in my opinion, however, to the royals' private lives. Furthermore, as Harry and Meghan are no longer working royals, and no longer officially represent the United Kingdom, nor act on the advice of British ministers, they are personally responsible for whatever they say or do.


I would suggest that including parliament in decisions on who remains in line to the throne upon marriage would be a small step that might mitigate some of the issues (although some issues arise after marriage); as it seems most monarchs nowadays are rather reluctant to withhold (official) permission from their close family member to marry - even if they would marry someone who is deemed fully unsuitable by everyone else. In that case being able to blame parliament (or deciding not to ask permission given that the outcome might be guaranteed) would be a way to diffuse such a situation.


Parliament is not directly involved, but the government is since the King's consent to a marriage of one of the first six persons in line is declared in the Privy Council, so, in my opinion, it falls under ministerial responsibility too.


Involving the King and the government seems to be the standard approach as far as royal marriages are concerned. It is, in one form or another, what is done in practice in the UK, Denmark, Belgium, and, more explicitly, Sweden. The Netherlands is the only European kingdom where an act of Parliament is required to consent to a marriage of someone in the line of succession. Spain, on the other hand, is a bit of an outlier in the sense that consent is not required, but, in order to effect a prohibition of the marriage that may affect the line of succession, both the King and the Parliament have to be involved.
 
Last edited:
Maybe individuals should be given the ability to renounce their succession rights? Similar to renouncing peerages.

I suspect that might be the best answer. At least that way no one can complain that they are "trapped".
 
Maybe individuals should be given the ability to renounce their succession rights? Similar to renouncing peerages.

I suspect that might be the best answer. At least that way no one can complain that they are "trapped".
Plus signing an contract that they cannot renege on renouncing their succession rights along with/without descendants (you can’t change the choice once you’ve signed the contract).
 
Back
Top Bottom