Summary of Succession Rules For European Monarchies

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by JR76

The "preface" of the Law of succession does state that it's valid for "hans kungl. höghets JOHAN BAPTIST JULII, furstens av Ponte-Corvo, äkta manliga bröstarvingar" (The legitimate male heirs of The Prince of Ponte-Corvo, His Royal Highness Johan Baptist Julii). While §1 was altered in 1979 to include female heirs the rule about legitimate heirs wasn't which would mean that it's still valid.

But doesn't the part of the preface concerning the legitimate male heirs refer to the provisions of the Act of Succession as it was originally enacted in 1810?

Vi CARL [...] göre veterligt: att, sedan Riksens Ständer enhälligt antagit och fastställt den successionsordning, varefter den högborne furstes, Svea rikes utkorade kronprins, hans kungl. höghet prins JOHAN BAPTIST JULII manliga bröstarvingar skola äga rätt till den svenska tronen, samt Sveriges rikes styrelse tillträda, och denna grundlag till Vårt nådiga gillande blivit överlämnad,

We CARL [...] after the unanimous acceptance and confirmation by the Estates of the Realm of the Act of Succession according to which the male heirs begotten by His Noble-Born Highness, the elected Crown Prince of Sweden, His Royal Highness Prince JOHAN BAPTIST JULIUS shall have the right to the throne of Sweden and to accede to the government of Sweden,

If it is interpreted as referring to the current provisions of the Act of Succession, then it is contradicting §1 by stating that only male heirs have the right to the throne.

Originally Posted by JR76

While the Law of succession as you say doesn't explicably state that those included in the Law of succession has to be a member of the Church of Sweden the stipulation that they recognise the decisions of the Uppsala synod of 1593 would disqualify all other Lutheran churches unless the Church of Finland still recognises the decisions of that synod.

Thanks, I hadn't realized that.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

The Catholic Church is still the State Religion of the Principalities of Monaco and Liechtenstein. I assume that means the Sovereign Prince must be Catholic, but I was unable to confirm that independently.

It would be logical for the head of state to belong to the state church, but there are currently no religious requirements for the reigning Prince in the constitution of either principality, or in the Liechtenstein or Grimaldi house laws.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160304...ausgesetz.html
https://www.llv.li/files/rdr/Verfass...01-02-2014.pdf

https://en.gouv.mc/Government-Instit...e-Principality
https://www.legimonaco.mc/305/legism...B!OpenDocument

Originally Posted by Alison H

I think most people regard a baby as belonging to the religion of the parents, whether that's Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim or anything else. If the two parents are of two different religions, that's more complicated

Originally Posted by Mbruno

[...] other Protestant monarchies that also have religious tests for the succession like Sweden or, indirectly, Denmark and Norway, also seem to assume that babies born in the Royal Family have succession rights from birth, so I think that considering it othwerwise would be an unnecessary technicality.

Originally Posted by JR76

To be a member of the Church of Sweden you have to either be baptized or have your parents notify your local parish that they want to put off the baptism until a later date (most often until the instruction before their confirmation). Therefore it would be clear early on (or at confirmation age at the latest) if a child born to someone in the Royal family would not be a member of the Church of Sweden.

I haven't looked into the details yet, but if I recall correctly, membership of the Church of Sweden historically was automatic for children born to church members. I wonder if there is or was (at the time their succession laws were drafted) a similar legal construction at play in Denmark and Norway.

In the European monarchies with religious criteria for the office of head of state, I think it would be wise for legislators to review and clarify the religious tests, because the rise in the proportion of religiously unaffiliated and minority religions and in interfaith couples may eventually cause the assignment of a legal religious affiliation to a child on the basis of their parents to become unfeasible, both legally and in practice.

[JR76]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

I haven't looked into the details yet, but if I recall correctly, membership of the Church of Sweden historically was automatic for children born to church members. I wonder if there is or was (at the time their succession laws were drafted) a similar legal construction at play in Denmark and Norway.

You're right. Membership in the Church of Sweden was automatic for children of members (unless stated otherwise) until 1996.

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

In the European monarchies with religious criteria for the office of head of state, I think it would be wise for legislators to review and clarify the religious tests, because the rise in the proportion of religiously unaffiliated and minority religions and in interfaith couples may eventually cause the assignment of a legal religious affiliation to a child on the basis of their parents to become unfeasible, both legally and in practice.

During the pre-work to the legislation regarding the separation of the Church of Sweden and the State in 2000 the Swedish parliament suggested the removal of the requirement of membership for those in the Line of Succession (LoS), but when the King objected to the suggestion nothing happened.
I do wonder what form a religious test would take. A certificate of baptism or a declaration of the baptism being postponed until possibly during it's period of instruction before the confirmation that's handed in to the Speaker of Parliament would seem the most logical form.
What would happen if the minor chooses not to get confirmed aged 15 and loses it's place in the LoS, but discovers it's faith aged 30 and get both baptized and confirmed. Should they be reinstated in the LoS or is it to late? Can we really expect that a 15 year old is mature enough to realise all the implications that not getting baptized and confirmed will have on their life? Would it even be constitutional to expect that from someone who's not even old enough to vote?

[sarahedwards2]

Why are you not automatically a religion at birth, even though your parents are (i.e. if you are the newborn child of two practicing Catholic parents, why are you not a Catholic until you are baptized)? That makes no sense.

[Muhler]

It does from a constitutional and administrative viewpoint.
By Constitution Denmark is Lutheran country. The Lutheran church is the official State Church. It's a service to citizens and residents.

So you are automatically a member of the State Church from the moment you are christened within the State Church, and when the time comes you will pay a tax to the State Church. Unless you sign out.

If you are not christened, you are not a member of the State Church. Unless you sign up and is christened later.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

The UK, like a few other monarchies like Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands, was actually historically progressive in terms of allowing women to succeed to the Crown when most European kingdoms/empires had strictly agnatic succession.

In 1917 women were allowed to succeed to the crowns of approximately half of the European kingdoms and empires. Women had no succession rights to the crowns of the Italy, the German Empire, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Montenegro, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, or Belgium. But female succession to the crowns of the UK, Spain, the Netherlands, Russia, Austria, Bavaria, Saxony, Württemberg, and Greece was allowed under these countries' laws.

Where the succession laws of the UK and Spanish monarchies (but not yet the Netherlands as of 1917), and Portugal before it became a republic in 1910, were distinctive was that a woman was allowed to succeed to the crown even if there were male heirs available in more junior branches of the family. The successions of Queen Mary II and Queen Anne to the British throne were in line with European standards, since there were no remaining agnates after the overthrow of King James II and the exclusion of his son the Prince of Wales from the crown. But the successions of Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II would not have occurred in most other European monarchies which allowed female succession; the Duke of Cumberland or the Duke of Gloucester respectively would have taken the crown instead.

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

In 1917 women were allowed to succeed to the crowns of approximately half of the European kingdoms and empires. Women had no succession rights to the crowns of the Italy, the German Empire, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Montenegro, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, or Belgium. But female succession to the crowns of the UK, Spain, the Netherlands, Russia, Austria, Bavaria, Saxony, Württemberg, and Greece was allowed under these countries' laws.

Where the succession laws of the UK and Spanish monarchies (but not yet the Netherlands as of 1917), and Portugal before it became a republic in 1910, were distinctive was that a woman was allowed to succeed to the crown even if there were male heirs available in more junior branches of the family. The successions of Queen Mary II and Queen Anne to the British throne were in line with European standards, since there were no remaining agnates after the overthrow of King James II and the exclusion of his son the Prince of Wales from the crown. But the successions of Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II would not have occurred in most other European monarchies which allowed female succession; the Duke of Cumberland or the Duke of Gloucester respectively would have taken the crown instead.

When was there female succession in Wurttemberg, Bavaria, Saxony at the time monarchy was present in those states? You stated that there was no female succession to the German Empire, but the three German states pre-1918 were part of the Empire, unless you are referring to the Imperial and Royal Prussian succession?

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

When was there female succession in Wurttemberg, Bavaria, Saxony at the time monarchy was present in those states?

I'm afraid I don't know exactly when female succession was first introduced in those states. But the monarchical constitutions which allowed female succession and were in effect in those states in 1917 (the year which was discussed in my post) dated to 1819 in Württemberg, 1818 in Bavaria, and 1831 in Saxony.

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

You stated that there was no female succession to the German Empire, but the three German states pre-1918 were part of the Empire, unless you are referring to the Imperial and Royal Prussian succession?

Yes, I was referring to succession to the crown of the German Empire, which was held by the kings of Prussia.

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

I'm afraid I don't know exactly when female succession was first introduced in those states. But the monarchical constitutions which allowed female succession and were in effect in those states in 1917 (the year which was discussed in my post) dated to 1819 in Württemberg, 1818 in Bavaria, and 1831 in Saxony.




Yes, I was referring to succession to the crown of the German Empire, which was held by the kings of Prussia.

Then for the first part above, I’m sure there was a provision such as in the event of the extinction of all (legitimate) male heirs, then female succession.

Than you for clarifying on my second inquiry.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

Then for the first part above, I’m sure there was a provision such as in the event of the extinction of all (legitimate) male heirs, then female succession.

You are correct. The only European kingdoms in 1917 which allowed female succession before the extinction of all legal male male-line heirs were the UK and Spain. (That is what I meant in my original comment.)

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

In 1917 women were allowed to succeed to the crowns of approximately half of the European kingdoms and empires. Women had no succession rights to the crowns of the Italy, the German Empire, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Montenegro, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, or Belgium. But female succession to the crowns of the UK, Spain, the Netherlands, Russia, Austria, Bavaria, Saxony, Württemberg, and Greece was allowed under these countries' laws.
.

So 10 out of 19 countries that you listed had strictly agnatic succession, which means that my statement that most (i.e., more than half) of the European kingdoms or empires did not allow female succession at all was correct. Out of the 9 that did, only 2 (the UK and Spain) had male-preference cognatic primogeniture (and were in that sense, quite progressive for their time). All the others, some of which were actually subnational monarchies like Bavaria, Saxony and Württemberg, had variations, if I understood it correctly, of semi-Salic law, meaning that female succession, albeit possible, would be expected to be comparatively less frequent.

Did the other German princely states (duchies and grand duchies for exmple, as opposed to kingdoms) use semi-Salic law too?

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

So 10 out of 19 countries that you listed had strictly agnatic succession, which means that my statement that most (i.e., more than half) of the European kingdoms or empires did not allow female succession at all was correct. Out of the 9 that did, only 2 (the UK and Spain) had male-preference cognatic primogeniture (and were in that sense, quite progressive for their time). All the others, some of which were actually subnational monarchies like Bavaria, Saxony and Württemberg, had variations, if I understood it correctly, of semi-Salic law, meaning that female succession, albeit possible, would be expected to be comparatively less frequent.

Did the other German princely states (duchies and grand duchies for exmple, as opposed to kingdoms) use semi-Salic law too?

Just as a clarification, my intention wasn't to criticize your statement (and I apologize if I gave that impression!) but to use the opportunity to review the European royal and imperial succession laws of that era, as I've noticed that many underestimate the number of monarchies which had adopted semi-Salic law.

I haven't looked into the number of German grand duchies, duchies and principalities which used semi-Salic law, but Heraldica is very informative in regard to the house laws of nineteenth-century German states, if you are interested.

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Just as a clarification, my intention wasn't to criticize your statement (and I apologize if I gave that impression!) but to use the opportunity to review the European royal and imperial succession laws of that era, as I've noticed that many underestimate the number of monarchies which had adopted semi-Salic law.

I haven't looked into the number of German grand duchies, duchies and principalities which used semi-Salic law, but Heraldica is very informative in regard to the house laws of nineteenth-century German states, if you are interested.

The Schwarzburg princely family that died out in the 70s had a succession in the event of extinction of all males then females would take over, unfortunately all the branches died out but the daughter of the last Prince has descendants. One of the Wettin branches has semi-Salic succession

[sarahedwards2]

What exactly is semi-Salic law?

[Somebody]

It seems there are different versions of semi-salic law:
1) a woman cannot inherit herself but her male-descendants can. See this short explanation.
2) women can only inherit if no males are available (after which a return to males is made once again. Wikipedia describes it as the woman who inherits will be considered male for this specific purpose. See below:

The so-called Semi-Salic version of succession order stipulates that firstly all-male descendance is applied, including all collateral male lines; but if all such lines are extinct, then the closest female agnate (such as a daughter) of the last male holder of the property inherits, and after her, her own male heirs according to the Salic order. In other words, the female closest to the last incumbent is "regarded as a male" for the purposes of inheritance and succession.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by sarahedwards2

What exactly is semi-Salic law?

It is a label used for systems of inheritance under which females and/or their descendants will inherit if, and only if, there are no remaining male descendants in the male line who have rights of inheritance.

In most but not all systems which use both primogeniture (meaning that the inheritance is given undivided to the eldest son, instead of being divided amongst all the sons) and semi-Salic law: when every male line has become extinct, the last male is succeeded by his eldest daughter or, should he have no surviving daughters, by his closest female relative in the male line.

[sarahedwards2]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

It is a label used for systems of inheritance under which females and/or their descendants will inherit if, and only if, there are no remaining male descendants in the male line who have rights of inheritance.



In most but not all systems which use both primogeniture (meaning that the inheritance is given undivided to the eldest son, instead of being divided amongst all the sons) and semi-Salic law: when every male line has become extinct, the last male is succeeded by his eldest daughter or, should he have no surviving daughters, by his closest female relative in the male line.

So is the British royal family semi-Salic?

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by sarahedwards2

So is the British royal family semi-Salic?

No, it was male-preference primogeniture but nowadays it is just primogeniture (meaning the eldest child will inherit independent of whether they are a boy or a girl).

[Prinsara]

If it was semi-Salic, nieces would not have been able to inherit ahead of uncles, which they notably have.