Line of Succession to the British Throne

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 made the marriage retroactively legal in the UK (it was of course already legal in Germany), so their descendants are now considered legitimate under British law, but the exclusion from the line of succession is permanent nonetheless.

Not all of the unapproved marriages were legalized (and their descendants legitimized) under British law by the 2013 Succession to the Crown Act. It states

(5) A void marriage under that Act is to be treated as never having been void if—

(a) neither party to the marriage was one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown at the time of the marriage,

(b) no consent was sought under section 1 of that Act, or notice given under section 2 of that Act, in respect of the marriage,

(c) in all the circumstances it was reasonable for the person concerned not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to it, and

(d) no person acted, before the coming into force of this section, on the basis that the marriage was void.

Georg Wilhelm sought the British king's consent to his marriage under the Royal Marriages Act. For that reason, his marriage fails tests 5(b) and 5(c), and it continues to be unrecognized in the UK. His descendants therefore are even now illegitimate in UK law.

Originally Posted by Mbruno

You could ask the other way around: why not? Most of those 5000 people have no official role in the UK, no British title, no state funding, and it is highly unlikely that anyone outside the first 10 people in the line of succession will ever ascend the throne. So keeping them in the line of succession is in the worst case innocuous and, pragmatically, there is no gain in removing them.

The law frames the question as "why?", not "why not?" Most nationals of the states over which the Crown is sovereign are ineligible to inherit the Crown, which is a privilege reserved for a small, select section of the population.

In answer to "why not": Because in that highly unlikely event of a tragedy, it is highly likely that the majority of those 5000 people would be unsuitable to the official role of UK monarch.

[Prinsara]

The royal.uk page is updated to include Lucas, but no Lili yet.

Does anyone have a guess as to why Lady Louise is listed as "The Lady Louise"?

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Prinsara

The royal.uk page is updated to include Lucas, but no Lili yet.

Does anyone have a guess as to why Lady Louise is listed as "The Lady Louise"?

As the daughter of an earl, Louise is styled "Lady Louise."

"The" means she is also the daughter of the current title holder.

For example, during her father's lifetime Sarah Chatto was styled "The Lady Sarah Chatto." Once her father died and her brother inherited the earldom, she became "Lady Sarah Chatto" (no "The").

Likewise, Charles and Diana's wedding invitations referred to Diana as "The Lady Diana Spencer" because her father Earl Spencer was still living.

[Sunnystar]

Originally Posted by Prinsara

The royal.uk page is updated to include Lucas, but no Lili yet.

Does anyone have a guess as to why Lady Louise is listed as "The Lady Louise"?

Well, she was just born on Friday - give them until at least tomorrow to update it. Maybe they'll add the missing ) after Savannah's year of birth at the same time, lol.

[W.Y.CII]

Fun Fact:

After the birth of little Lilibet, Princess Astrid've dropped outside the top 100 of British line of succession, behind her brother and great/grand/children of her siblings. (I wonder does she even notice that)
https://www.britroyals.com/succession.asp

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Sunnystar

Well, she was just born on Friday - give them until at least tomorrow to update it. Maybe they'll add the missing ) after Savannah's year of birth at the same time, lol.

If the births in the family over the past few years are any guide, the update will take months.

[Tatiana Maria]

I am not sure if this is a legal or a theological matter, but considering the Act of Settlement restricts the line of succession to the Crown to "the said most Excellent Princess Sophia and the Heirs of Her Body being Protestants", what are the royal household's grounds for including newborn royal children (e.g. Sienna Mapelli Mozzi, who was added some time ago) in the Line of Succession article prior to their christenings? Is an infant born of Protestant parents regarded as Protestant even if the child themself has not been baptized in a Protestant church? Or is the royal household mistaken?

[Sunnystar]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

I am not sure if this is a legal or a theological matter, but considering the Act of Settlement restricts the line of succession to the Crown to "the said most Excellent Princess Sophia and the Heirs of Her Body being Protestants", what are the royal household's grounds for including newborn royal children (e.g. Sienna Mapelli Mozzi, who was added some time ago) in the Line of Succession article prior to their christenings? Is an infant born of Protestant parents regarded as Protestant even if the child themself has not been baptized in a Protestant church? Or is the royal household mistaken?

Well, seeing that formerly Roman Catholics were only removed from the Line of Succession once they were confirmed in the RC Church, I don't see any rationale for excluding a child born in wedlock to someone who is in the Line of Succession just because they haven't been baptized in a Protestant Church yet.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Sunnystar

Well, seeing that formerly Roman Catholics were only removed from the Line of Succession once they were confirmed in the RC Church, I don't see any rationale for excluding a child born in wedlock to someone who is in the Line of Succession just because they haven't been baptized in a Protestant Church yet.

If you are referring to the former inclusion of Lord Nicholas Windsor's sons on the list, I believe the Royal Household was in error. Parliament itself established the precedent for excluding all baptized Catholics, whether confirmed or not, when it appointed Princess Sophia of Hanover as heir to the throne in 1701, bypassing numerous infants and young children from Catholic families.

And as mentioned previously the Catholic church itself treats children baptized Catholic as church members. In my opinion it would be strange if an explicitly anti-Catholic statute was interpreted as more generous towards potential Catholics than the Catholic church itself.

But even if Lord Nicholas's sons are considered Protestants in law, my question is why?

[Heavs]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

If you are referring to the former inclusion of Lord Nicholas Windsor's sons on the list, I believe the Royal Household was in error. Parliament itself established the precedent for excluding all baptized Catholics, whether confirmed or not, when it appointed Princess Sophia of Hanover as heir to the throne in 1701, bypassing numerous infants and young children from Catholic families.

And as mentioned previously the Catholic church itself treats children baptized Catholic as church members. In my opinion it would be strange if an explicitly anti-Catholic statute was interpreted as more generous towards potential Catholics than the Catholic church itself.

But even if Lord Nicholas's sons are considered Protestants in law, my question is why?

The RC Church treats baptised but not confirmed people as Catholics partly because it swells their numbers *a lot* (same for other churches including CofE) not because they're being more generous. It's sometimes difficult for adults to remove themselves from parish records when they wish to declare themselves definitely not Catholic or even members of another religion. And I suppose there's a difference between what is Sacramentally/theologically true and what is legally correct here.

It's definitely not the case now but in previous decades and centuries unless you were from an explicitly Catholic or Jewish etc family the presumption was that you were CofE (ish), especially with it being the official state religion. Nor in the more religious Catholic countries do they wait for the Christening to declare their heir officially the heir, even if it takes a few months to plan.

With a succession based on literally being born maybe the legal presumption is that if you otherwise qualify by birth then you have to do something explicit in order to be removed rather than having to do something extra explicit to join? Sienna's parents were baptised CofE, married CofE, she's being "raised protestant" at least in a vague cultural way.

It would be interesting to know the legal outcome if a member of the BRF (or another house with religious requirements) explicitly announced that they weren't having a Christening and were intending to raise the baby explicitly Humanist.

[Moonmaiden23]

Sorry, but your statement about how the RC Church views baptized unconfirmed children as convenient ways to inflate numbers is as cynical as it is incorrect.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, baptism having replaced circumcision in the old Mosaic Law incorporates a person FULLY into the Body of Christ.

In the Eastern Byzantine Rite of the Catholic Church, the Sacrament of Confirmation is conferred immediately after Baptism.

You are a full member of the Church once you are baptized, period. In the Western/Latin Rite Confirmation brings you to full maturity in that Body.

Without Confirmation, you cannot receive Holy Orders or the Sacrament of Matrimony. But you can receive the Eucharist.

[Heavs]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

Sorry, but your statement about how the RC Church views baptized unconfirmed children as convenient ways to inflate numbers is as cynical as it is incorrect.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, baptism having replaced circumcision in the old Mosaic Law incorporates a person FULLY into the Body of Christ.

In the Eastern Byzantine Rite of the Catholic Church, the Sacrament of Confirmation is conferred immediately after Baptism.

You are a full member of the Church once you are baptized, period. In the Western/Latin Rite Confirmation brings you to full maturity in that Body.

Without Confirmation, you cannot receive Holy Orders or the Sacrament of Matrimony. But you can receive the Eucharist.

Fair enough. I should know better being a member of a church that practices child baptism and then confirmation myself (which I did note) I take that back. I just have a couple of friends who found it very difficult to even get a note next to their baptism records that said "no longer a member of the church" and got very cynical about the "generous" comment, although I'm sure that's not the case everywhere. I know there are times/places when various religious organisations use birth ceremony records rather than active, participatory membership in order to seem larger and more influential or receive more money/perks from the government and conflated that and theology which I should not have done.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

And as mentioned previously the Catholic church itself treats children baptized Catholic as church members. In my opinion it would be strange if an explicitly anti-Catholic statute was interpreted as more generous towards potential Catholics than the Catholic church itself.

Originally Posted by Heavs

The RC Church treats baptised but not confirmed people as Catholics partly because it swells their numbers *a lot* (same for other churches including CofE) not because they're being more generous.

I was referring to the Royal Household being more generous than the Catholic Church in their (the RF's) interpretation of the Act of Settlement of 1701 ("if an explicitly anti-Catholic statute was interpreted as more generous"). If the Catholic Church treats a Catholic-baptized infant as Catholic, whereas the Royal Family treats the same infant as Protestant (even if born to a Catholic parent like Lord Nicholas), then the Royal Family's interpretation is more generous to the infant since it allows him or her to remain in line to the throne, whereas the Catholic Church's interpretation does not.

As I said, I think the anti-Catholicism of the Act of Settlement strongly indicates that the generous interpretation was not intended by its drafters. The Act went as far as to ban even Protestants who had converted from Catholicism (whereas Protestant converts from any other denomination or religion were still allowed to take the throne) and, as originally enacted, Protestants married to Catholics (but not Protestants married to members of any other denomination or religion). I find that to be clear evidence that the drafters intended the Act to be expansive, eliminating even persons with only a weak familial connection to Catholicism, as far as was feasible.

Originally Posted by Heavs

It's definitely not the case now but in previous decades and centuries unless you were from an explicitly Catholic or Jewish etc family the presumption was that you were CofE (ish), especially with it being the official state religion.

Interesting! Was a general presumption of Protestantism for people born into Protestant families operative in 1688-1701, when statutes such as the Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement were drafted?

Originally Posted by Heavs

Nor in the more religious Catholic countries do they wait for the Christening to declare their heir officially the heir, even if it takes a few months to plan.

I am having trouble recalling an example (none of the current European monarchies require the monarch to be Catholic, though I'm sure historically there were many such cases). Do you have one in mind?

Originally Posted by Heavs

With a succession based on literally being born maybe the legal presumption is that if you otherwise qualify by birth then you have to do something explicit in order to be removed rather than having to do something extra explicit to join? Sienna's parents were baptised CofE, married CofE, she's being "raised protestant" at least in a vague cultural way.

If the Church of England recognizes unbaptized but Protestant-raised children as Protestants then that would make sense of the royal website's inclusion.

[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

[Duc_et_Pair]

The children of the late Prince Friso of the Netherlands, Joanna Zaria gravin van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg and Emma Luana gravin van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg, were baptized by a former Catholic priest whom was connected to the Amsterdam Students' Ekklesia. That is an ecumenical Christian community which does not belong to any Church.

The two ladies were baptized at Huis ten Bosch Palace. They were baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Afterwards it was communicated that it would be entirely to the two countesses to associate themselves to a Church. If any. Or not at all.

Both ladies are around place 1100 in the line of succession. In effect they belong to no any Church, neither Protestant nor Catholic.

[Mbruno]

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

I agree. It is assumed that children of Anglican parents in the Royal Family will be baptized in the CoE unless there is some strong reason to assume otherwise.

Technically, Tatiana Maria is probably right that the Royal Household should wait for them to be at least baptized to include them in the line of succession list, but 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.

I do think, however, that the situation of the children of Lord Nicholas Windsor is different as, in their case, the default assumption was that they were/would be Catholic and, by now, even if they have not been confirmed yet (I don't know), they must at least have had their first communion based on their ages, so there is no doubt in my mind that they are in "communion with the Church of Rome".

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

I am having trouble recalling an example (none of the current European monarchies require the monarch to be Catholic, though I'm sure historically there were many such cases). Do you have one in mind?

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.

Historically, there must be several examples. The Kings of France, Italy, Portugal and Spain (the latter prior to 1931) were required to be Catholic for example.

[JR76]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Technically, Tatiana Maria is probably right that the Royal Household should wait for them to be at least baptized to include them in the line of succession list, but 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.

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.

[Tatiana Maria]

Moved reply about religious tests in succession laws of other European monarchies here: https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ml#post2467096

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Gawin

All of the Princess Royals descendants received permission to marry under the Royal Marriages Act with the possible exception of her great-granddaughter Sophie Lascelles.

Interesting, could I inquire as to where you confirmed that?

Originally Posted by Somebody

Me too. It would have been pretty easy (i.e., the perfect moment) to include it in the Perth agreement and would have made total sense to restrict the line of succession either to George V's descendants (to include all current senior royals) or to a certain degree of relationship. 4th degree would have included all current senior royals and seems a rather safe number going forward.

Originally Posted by Mbruno

The most efficient way, of course, to slim down the line would be, as Somebody suggested, to limit the number of eligible persons by proximity of blood to the last monarch. In the Netherlands, they use a cutoff in the third degree of consanguinity, which would include children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, siblings, nephews/nieces, and uncles/aunts of the monarch, but no cousins. The UK could go one degree further, i.e. up to the fourth degree, to include first cousins as well.

Moved to Succession to the Crown Act 2013.