Line of Succession to the British Throne

[Denville]

That was not my understanding ....

I'm sure if I'm wrong someone will correct me, but that was my understanding, at least that the children while legitimate would not be in line of succession... that was the point of the Royal marriages act, to control whom royals married, by making royals have to ask for permission to marry from the Sovereign. So if someone within the first 6 heirs marries without royal permission, their marriage would be legal but their children (and possibly themselves) would be out of the succession.
Anyone able to clarify?

 

[Iluvbertie]

I'm sure if I'm wrong someone will correct me, but that was my understanding, at least that the children while legitimate would not be in line of succession... that was the point of the Royal marriages act, to control whom royals married, by making royals have to ask for permission to marry from the Sovereign. So if someone within the first 6 heirs marries without royal permission, their marriage would be legal but their children (and possibly themselves) would be out of the succession.
Anyone able to clarify?

That is my understanding.

If they marry without consent they and their subsequent descendants are all removed from the line of succession. The marriage would be legal and the children legitimate but out of the LoS

 

[Iluvbertie]

How about India Hicks and David Flint Wood. All their children (except the one adopted who wouldn't be in the succession anyway) were born "out of wedlock". Would their marriage have legitimised their children?

Legitimised - if that is what happens in the country where their marriage took place but wouldn't have put them in the line of succession as seen with the Harewood's who had a child before marrying and that child can't inherit the title or be in the LoS

 

[Iluvbertie]

I am rather confused on this point - if a Princess married into a foreign Royal House, so her descendants did not need to seek permission - does that mean her descendants are also barred from the succession?

No e.g. the Kaiser's descendants are still in the line of succession as are the descendants of Princess Margaret of Connaught and most importantly the descendants of Princess Louisa daughter of George II - from whom the current BRF descend via Queen Alexandra.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

just an observation - it is my understanding that whether a marriage has been sanctioned by the Royal Marriages Act or not, it does not alter the person's place in the succession.

You are correct! When a George II descendant who was covered by the Royal Marriages Act married without permission, their marriage was not legal, and their children were illegitimate and out of the line of succession. The parent remained in line. (King George IV succeeded to the throne after his illegal "marriage" to Mrs. Fitzherbert when he was Prince of Wales.)

Crossposting from the thread on the Royal Marriages Act:

Approval for marriages under the 1772 Royal Marriages Act had nothing to do with succession rights to the British throne.

Descendants who married without the King or Queen's permission were not disqualified from the British throne. The penalty for contracting a marriage without permission was that the marriage was null and void in British law:

[...]"and that every marriage, or matrimonial contract, of any such descendant, without such consent first had and obtained, shall be null and void, to all intents and purposes whatsoever."

https://www.heraldica.org/faqs/rma1772.html​

In other words, even if the couple may have exchanged vows in a wedding ceremony, there was no legal marriage in the eyes of the state.

Naturally, the royal descendant who "married" illegally was not disqualified from anything, since in the eyes of the law they had simply remained unmarried.

But since there was no legal marriage, the "spouse" was officially an unmarried partner, and the children of the relationship were illegitimate, for UK purposes. Their illegitimacy barred them from succeeding to the British throne, British peerages, and (in the old days) British hereditary property.

If this is true, should posts on the Royal Marriages Act be covered in a different thread?

You're right, there is a separate thread for discussion of the Royal Marriages Act.

The Royal Marriages Act of 1772 and Royal Marriages

That said, the Royal Marriages Act continues to influence the current line of succession to the throne, because the descendants who were formerly illegitimate (and thereby barred from inheriting) under the Royal Marriages Act are still excluded from succession to the throne, even though they have now been legitimated by the Succession to the Crown Act.

There is by the way also a specific thread about the Succession to the Crown Act:

Succession to the Crown Act 2013

 

[Mbruno]

Limiting the line of succession to the descendants of George V would have indeed made sense in the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 and would not have endangered the continuity of the monarchy as the eligible descendants of George V, not including Princess Mary's descendants, are already in the vicinity of 60 people.

I agree, however, that the other European monarchies now have lines of succession that might be considered too short: 7 people in Norway; 8 in the Netherlands; 10 in Spain; 11 in Denmark and also in Sweden; 16 in Belgium. The Spanish line of succession presumably will grow exponentially over time since it is not subject to disqualifications by religious tests or unconsented marriages (only marriages against explicit prohibitions by the King and the Parliament result in disqualifications, and that is unlikely to happen). The Swedish, Danish, and Belgian lines may be kept limited by future generations in collateral line not receiving or asking for consent to marry, whereas the Dutch and Norwegian lines are inherently limited by restrictions to the degree of kinship to the current monarch.

In the UK, since the requirement of consent to royal marriages now applies only to the first 6 persons in line, that is unlikely to have a significant impact on the growth in the line of succession (presumably, none of the first 6 persons in line, given their proximity to the throne, will contemplate marriage without consent, and the hundreds/thousands of people below them will continue to get married anyway). Religious tests might disqualify a certain number of future successors, but, other than the explicit exclusion of Roman Catholics, the application of the test pertaining to "Protestant descendants" of Sophia of Hanover is somewhat confusing. Does a potential successor have to be baptized and confirmed in a Protestant church for example? I don't think that criterion has ever been applied in that way. Otherwise, the Greek RF (baptized in the Greek Orthodox Church) would not be listed in the British line of succession for instance, as they normally are.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Does a potential successor have to be baptized and confirmed in a Protestant church for example? I don't think that criterion has ever been applied in that way. Otherwise, the Greek RF (baptized in the Greek Orthodox Church) would not be listed in the British line of succession for instance, as they normally are.

While the Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement regrettably didn't list particularized criteria to define "Protestant", I don't think baptized, practicing Orthodox Christians can be considered Protestant by any stretch of the imagination.

I have never seen the Greek ex-royals cited as being in line to the British throne in any legal authority. I think their inclusion in lists compiled by royal watchers reflects ignorance of the law (or possibly ignorance of the differences between Christian denominations).

 

[Mbruno]

Suppose that a King has two children A and B, where A is older than B.

Child A converts to Roman Catholicism before he has any children of his own, and child B then becomes the heir to the throne. Afterward, however, the Catholic child A has a child of his (or her) own and baptizes him (or her) in the Church of England. Does child A's child replace then child B as the heir ?

A related, and perhaps more complicated question: what if the King passes away and child B ascends the throne before child A has any children? Does the birth of a Protestant child of child A affect the legal position of child B as King?

 

[Somebody]

Suppose that a King has two children A and B, where A is older than B.

Child A converts to Roman Catholicism before he has any children of his own, and child B then becomes the heir to the throne. Afterward, however, the Catholic child A has a child of his (or her) own and baptizes him (or her) in the Church of England. Does child A's child replace then child B as the heir ?

It seems the BRF treats children of Catholics as if they aren't Catholics (as even the children of Lord and Lady Nicholas Windsor remained in line to the throne according to some sources - at least as long as they aren't confirmed in the Roman Catholic Church). So yes, I'd say in this hypothetical situation, the child of A is the new heir.

A related, and perhaps more complicated question: what if the King passes away and child B ascends the throne before child A has any children? Does the birth of a Protestant child of child A affect the legal position of child B as King?

This one seems less complicated. Once someone is the monarch, any future birth (unless already conceived before the death of the previous monarch (as they are treated as if they were already born unless it is a stillbirth in that case they are expected to never have existed (for these purposes) - at least in some monarchies, not sure about the British) is irrelevant to the position of the monarch. From that moment on, the monarch is the monarch, and the position cannot be challenged by the birth of a niece or nephew from an older sibling. The new succession is decided based on their relative position to the new monarch.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It seems the BRF treats children of Catholics as if they aren't Catholics (as even the children of Lord and Lady Nicholas Windsor remained in line to the throne according to some sources - at least as long as they aren't confirmed in the Roman Catholic Church).

I assume your sources are referring to the old version of the British royal website listing Lord Nicholas Windsor's children as part of the line of succession. That was discussed in detail here (with a linked source).

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...o-the-british-throne-44513-5.html#post2195505

For the reasons I explained there, I think that was a clear error from the BRF.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Suppose that a King has two children A and B, where A is older than B.

Child A converts to Roman Catholicism before he has any children of his own, and child B then becomes the heir to the throne. Afterward, however, the Catholic child A has a child of his (or her) own and baptizes him (or her) in the Church of England. Does child A's child replace then child B as the heir ?

A related, and perhaps more complicated question: what if the King passes away and child B ascends the throne before child A has any children? Does the birth of a Protestant child of child A affect the legal position of child B as King?

The material sections of the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement are:

That all and every person and persons that is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall professe the Popish Religion F3... shall be excluded and be for ever uncapeable to inherit possesse or enjoy the Crowne and Government [...]

And the said Crowne and Government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being Protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said person or persons soe reconciled holding Communion or Professing F4... as aforesaid were naturally dead

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2
​

the Crown and Regall Government [...] shall be remain and continue to the said most Excellent Princess Sophia and the Heirs of Her Body being Protestants

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3/12-13/2
​

A parliamentary briefing paper cites this explanation of the clause "heirs of the body" from Constitutional and Administrative Law, A Bradley and K Ewing, 15th ed, 2011, p234. (Note that it was written before 2015, the Succession to the Crown Act overruled the common law in regard to preference for sons over daughters.)

The limitation to the heirs of the body, which has been described as a parliamentary entail, means that the Crown descends in principle as did real property under the law of inheritance before 1926. That law inter alia gave preference to males over females and recognised the right of primogeniture. The major exception to the common law rules of inheritance is that for practical reasons the right of two or more sisters to succeed to real property as co-parceners does not apply: as between sisters, the Crown passes to the first born.

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP12-81/RP12-81.pdf
​

Therefore, given
(1) the statutory symmetry between the law of property inheritance before 1926 and the law of succession to the crown, and
(2) the treatment of Catholics and ex-Catholics as "naturally dead" for the purpose of succession to the crown,

the answer to your first question

"Child A converts to Roman Catholicism before he has any children of his own, and child B then becomes the heir to the throne. Afterward, however, the Catholic child A has a child of his (or her) own and baptizes him (or her) in the Church of England. Does child A's child replace then child B as the heir ?"​

should be the same as the answer to the question

"Before 1926, Son A dies before he has any children of his own, and son B then becomes the heir to their parents' real property. Afterwards, however, Son A's widow gives birth to Son A's child. Does Son A's child replace Son B as the heir to the property?"​

Likewise, the answer to your second question

"What if the King passes away and child B ascends the throne before child A has any children? Does the birth of a Protestant child of child A affect the legal position of child B as King?"​

should be the same as the answer to the question

"What if, before 1926, a father passed away and son B inherited his property before predeceased son A had any children? Does the birth of a posthumous child to son A's widow affect the legal position of son B as owner of the property?"​

Unfortunately, I can't provide the answers as I have not researched the English common law on property inheritance prior to 1926, but I hope that will be of help.

 

[Curryong]

Surely in that case the widow of son (A) would inform the surviving family that a posthumous child was coming and in those circumstances one would think that where titles and direction of property was concerned it would all be in legal abeyance until the birth?

If it was a son then surely he would inherit (if the estates were under entail as the vast majority of estates owned by the Peerage were.) After all it would only have been the matter of a few months not years. If it was a daughter then of course the titles and land would go to son B.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Surely in that case the widow of son (A) would inform the surviving family that a posthumous child was coming and in those circumstances one would think that where titles and direction of property was concerned it would all be in legal abeyance until the birth?

I don't know, but if you or anyone else have information from legal authorities it would be much appreciated.

If it was a son then surely he would inherit (if the estates were under entail as the vast majority of estates owned by the Peerage were.) After all it would only have been the matter of a few months not years. If it was a daughter then of course the titles and land would go to son B.

In most cases, the common law of inheritance did not apply to peerages (or estates entailed to devolve alongside peerages). The inheritance of peerages was (and still is) regulated by letters patent or similar instruments which usually restricted the succession to heirs male of the body.

But under the common law which applied to the inheritance of most English land and property before 1926, daughters were allowed to inherit if there were no sons. Unlike sons, however, primogeniture was not the common law rule for daughters. If there were multiple daughters, they inherited equal shares of the land, instead of the eldest daughter taking all (as would be the rule under common law for an eldest son).

 

[Somebody]

However, in the (second) case that Mbruno presented we aren't talking about someone who is pregnant but about someone who is alive and kicking - but Roman Catholic (so 'death' for the sake of inheritance of the crown) whose child might be born years after the sibling took the throne.

To help us visualize:
Let's pretend Charles and Anne are the queen's only children. Charles converts to Roman Catholicism in the early 70s, so is removed from the line of succession. The queen dies in the late 70s and Anne becomes the new queen with baby Peter as her heir. However, a few years later Charles marries and decides to have his child baptized in the Church of England (as his wife insists on it). Is this child suddenly the rightful king?

 

[Curryong]

Why would Charles as such a devout convert to Roman Catholicism as to give up his claim to the throne for it, agree years later that his child should be a Protestant?

And I do feel that should such a thing occur as Anne becoming monarch in her brother’s place and having an heir to the throne as well in Peter, that Parliament and the Court would make darned certain that all the ts were crossed and I’s dotted just to make it iron clad sure that such a thing as you have described would never ever be able to shake Anne and Peter’s claims to the throne. In modern times if your actions mean that you lose your claim to the throne then that would be made permanent for you and your heirs.

 

[Carin]

Don't most of the Royals who abdicate, also renounce the throne for any future descendants? I know Edward VIII did. So I presume it would be the same for any Catholic monarch. If a younger protestant heir become monarch,He/she is monarch, not a niece or nephew from an older sibling It certainly would be be ethical. It would be different id both heirs were Protestant, and heir 1 dies with a pregnant wife. Then there would probably be a regency umtil said child came of age.

 

[Curryong]

Yes, exactly. I remember a discussion on this thread or another similar one about Princess Victoria’s claim to the throne being upheld or not if the Dowager Queen Adelaide had been proved to be pregnant with a posthumous child of William IV’s.

That however is a very different scenario to the one described above involving a RC Charles and his Protestant child.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

However, in the (second) case that Mbruno presented we aren't talking about someone who is pregnant but about someone who is alive and kicking - but Roman Catholic (so 'death' for the sake of inheritance of the crown) whose child might be born years after the sibling took the throne.

To help us visualize:
Let's pretend Charles and Anne are the queen's only children. Charles converts to Roman Catholicism in the early 70s, so is removed from the line of succession. The queen dies in the late 70s and Anne becomes the new queen with baby Peter as her heir. However, a few years later Charles marries and decides to have his child baptized in the Church of England (as his wife insists on it). Is this child suddenly the rightful king?

For new readers, please refer this post: https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...-the-british-throne-44513-16.html#post2500417.

I assumed the time period of "months" versus "years" wasn't of legal significance, but you're right, that could indeed be a wrong assumption.

So I will modify my answer to say that answer to your question ("Is this child suddenly the rightful king?") would be the same as the answer (under the provisions of English common law prior to 1926) to the question:

"Let's pretend Charles Smith and Anne Phillips (née Smith) are Mrs. Smith's only children. Charles Smith dies in the early 1910s. Mrs. Smith dies in the late 1910s and Anne Phillips becomes the new owner of Mrs. Smith's farm with baby Peter Phillips as her heir. However, Charles Smith (somehow, in spite of being dead) has a legal child a few years after Mrs. Smith's death. Is this child suddenly the rightful owner of the late Mrs. Smith's farm?"

 

[Somebody]

Victoria Melita's children were descendants of King George I on their father's side. Since that descent was through a princess who had married into a foreign house Kirill Vladimirovitj would not have had to ask for formal approval to marry from the British monarch and their children would still be in the British line of succession?
Even if that's not the case this discussion show how ridiculous the current British line of succession and the laws surrounding it is. They should cut it off after the descendants of George V or even better after the descendants of Elizabeth II.

Given the role the queen's cousins have played, I wouldn't want to exclude them from the line of succession. However, I agree that it would be better to cut off anything beyond the descendants of George V (after all, currently it is also limited to the descendants of a specific person). In that way there are no longer kings of foreign countries in the line of succession either...

Alternatively, they could limit the line to people in a certain degree of kinship of the current monarch (like the Dutch do - they work with 3 degrees but with the smaller family sizes I'd recommend 4 degrees, so cousins can inherit as well; they are still 'grandchildren' of a monarch) - or to any monarch (in that case it can be more easily reduced to 2 or 3 degrees: grandchildren or great-grandchildren of A monarch (or heir apparent) (or one who was supposed to be monarch but died prematurely).

 

[Hallo girl]

Yes, exactly. I remember a discussion on this thread or another similar one about Princess Victoria’s claim to the throne being upheld or not if the Dowager Queen Adelaide had been proved to be pregnant with a posthumous child of William IV’s.

That however is a very different scenario to the one described above involving a RC Charles and his Protestant child.

I think I am correct in saying that when Edward V111 abdicated , it also referred to his heirs not having a claim to the throne. So I would have thought that a hypothetical Charles removing himself from the succession would also refer to his heirs.

 

[DukeOfAster]

I would say that when Edward VIII abdicated he has no children at all. They took the possibility of the twice divorced Wallis Warfield Simpson from bareing a child that would be in the line of succession when they did this to Edward VIII. Today Charles III has two children and one that is indeed the direct heir to the throne with three kids of his own and if his Dad were to abdicate all of society have never had a issue with William being King so I would say at Charles III age they would not do to him what they did to Edward VIII and take away his children rights to succeed him.

 

[Hallo girl]

I would say that when Edward VIII abdicated he has no children at all. They took the possibility of the twice divorced Wallis Warfield Simpson from bareing a child that would be in the line of succession when they did this to Edward VIII. Today Charles III has two children and one that is indeed the direct heir to the throne with three kids of his own and if his Dad were to abdicate all of society have never had a issue with William being King so I would say at Charles III age they would not do to him what they did to Edward VIII and take away his children rights to succeed him.

I did not intend to infer that William would be removed, I believe the hypothetical situation being discussed was children born after Charles hypothetically had removed himself from the succession. I possibly didn't explain my response in full or possibly misunderstood the earlier post in the first place.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Members of the Orthodox Church are considered Protestants, which is why members of the Romanian and Serbian royal families are in line.

Which British authorities consider Orthodox Christians to be Protestants? The generally accepted historical view is that Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism are the three primary divisions of Christianity, and that the schism between Orthodoxy and Catholicism took place several centuries before the Protestant Reformation divided Catholicism from Protestantism.

ETA:

The statutory provisions are as follows:

Bill of Rights 1688

[...] And the said Crowne and Government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being Protestants [...]​

Act of Settlement 1700

[...] and for Default of Issue of the said Princess Ann and of His Majesty [King William III] respectively the Crown and Regall Government [...] shall be remain and continue to the said most Excellent Princess Sophia and the Heirs of Her Body being Protestants [...]

That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this crown shall joyn in communion with the Church of England as by law established [...]​

A House of Commons briefing paper explains that the last clause actually debars even some Protestant denominations:

At first the effect of this was to exclude all members of other churches. However, members of certain other Protestant churches may not now be debarred. Since 1972, by the Church of England’s Admission to Holy Communion Measure18, and the [Church of England] Canon (B15A) that followed it, “baptised persons who are communicant members of other churches which subscribe to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and who are in good standing in their own Church” shall without further process be admitted to Holy Communion in Church of England churches.

This means, for instance, that a Methodist, Congregationalist, Church of Scotland, or Baptist member can take Anglican Communion, though a Unitarian (who would reject the concept of the Trinity) and Quakers (who do not subscribe to the concept of the Lord’s Supper) could not. Hence in the strict sense of the wording of the Act of Settlement, members of most Protestant churches would not now be excluded.​

 

[Durham]

I think in the late C17th "protestant" was essentially shorthand for non Roman Catholic. At the time I suspect no one envisaged a marriage between a British prince & an Orthodox Christian. And if they had would probably not have objected so long as the individual converted to CofE.

Britons at the time saw allegiance to Rome as political & fundamentally anti-British. Unsurprising given Jacobitism, conflict with the France of Louis xiv, the revocation of the Edict of Nantes etc. Orthodoxy was an exotic "other" that was politically neutral. I don't think it aroused any strong feelings either way in Britain.

 

[Prinsara]

Queen Victoria's son Alfred was married in an Orthodox ceremony as well as a Protestant one, and I don't believe Marie was required to convert. None of which would have happened if it was seen as contentious.

 

[Durham]

Queen Victoria's son Alfred was married in an Orthodox ceremony as well as a Protestant one, and I don't believe Marie was required to convert. None of which would have happened if it was seen as contentious.

Indeed she didn't convert. In fact an Orthodox chapel was constructed for HR&IH at Clarence House. I suppose it was dismantled after her death?

This is two centuries after the late C17th however so by that time attitudes to conversions had changed somewhat.

 

[Prinsara]

...So while Marie was obviously not a Protestant herself and there seemed to be very little issue with that, by the same token she was not just allowed to raise her children as Orthodox, so there obviously is a difference.

Do you have to be a Protestant to be in the line of succession, or do you just not have to be Catholic? Two different things.

 

[Durham]

...So while Marie was obviously not a Protestant herself and there seemed to be very little issue with that, by the same token she was not just allowed to raise her children as Orthodox, so there obviously is a difference.

Do you have to be a Protestant to be in the line of succession, or do you just not have to be Catholic? Two different things.

I think just not RC.

There must be many people in line by now who don't belong to any church. So not even protestant.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

At the time I suspect no one envisaged a marriage between a British prince & an Orthodox Christian. And if they had would probably not have objected so long as the individual converted to CofE.

The Act of Settlement never debarred a person who was married to an Orthodox Christian, or a Protestant who had converted from Orthodox Christianity to Protestantism.

But it did require the successor themself to be Protestant, and to never have been a Catholic.

I think in the late C17th "protestant" was essentially shorthand for non Roman Catholic. [...] I think just not RC.

There must be many people in line by now who don't belong to any church. So not even protestant.

The definition of the word "Protestant" was fundamentally the same in the 17th century as it is now (and if you read the parliamentary briefing, there is no suggestion that its meaning has shifted). 17th-century Britons would not have labeled Muslims, Hindus, atheists, etc. as "Protestants" just because they were not Roman Catholic, any more than 21st-century Britons would. As "heathens", perhaps.

The statutory provisions are as follows:

Bill of Rights 1688

[...] And the said Crowne and Government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being Protestants [...]​

Act of Settlement 1700

[...] and for Default of Issue of the said Princess Ann and of His Majesty [King William III] respectively the Crown and Regall Government [...] shall be remain and continue to the said most Excellent Princess Sophia and the Heirs of Her Body being Protestants [...]

That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this crown shall joyn in communion with the Church of England as by law established [...]​

A House of Commons briefing paper explains that the last clause actually debars even some Protestant denominations:

At first the effect of this was to exclude all members of other churches. However, members of certain other Protestant churches may not now be debarred. Since 1972, by the Church of England’s Admission to Holy Communion Measure18, and the [Church of England] Canon (B15A) that followed it, “baptised persons who are communicant members of other churches which subscribe to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and who are in good standing in their own Church” shall without further process be admitted to Holy Communion in Church of England churches.

This means, for instance, that a Methodist, Congregationalist, Church of Scotland, or Baptist member can take Anglican Communion, though a Unitarian (who would reject the concept of the Trinity) and Quakers (who do not subscribe to the concept of the Lord’s Supper) could not. Hence in the strict sense of the wording of the Act of Settlement, members of most Protestant churches would not now be excluded.​

 

[Durham]

Heathens? Yes indeed they would.

I should have made clearer that protestant essentially meant non RC but also Christian. But yes I take about your point about the strict definition of the word protestant in parliament.

Incidentally, without wanting to go off on a tangent are Unitarians Christian? If you follow the teaching of Christ but don't accept the doctrine of the trinity are you accepted as Christian by most churches?