Line of Succession to the British Throne

[principessa]

As far as I remember several reigning and non-reigning monarchs in Europe are also in the line of succession. On which place is which monarch?

Thank you!

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Spheno

There is no any "sticking point" here. Their marriage was grand, very public event with a lot of officials on the hand.

Yes, but that doesn't make any difference. The Royal Marriages Act doesn't state permission isn't required if the marriage is a grand, very public event with officials on hand.

I suspect Charles Edward may have believed his children weren't subject to the Royal Marriages Act, or he simply didn't want to bother requesting permission. Because his children were so far down the line of succession King George and his advisers probably didn't care either. Whether or not the marriage was legal in Britain was a tiny detail that didn't matter in the grand scheme of things. It was still legal in Sweden and Germany.

It's just one of those details of interest to BRF nerds like me.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Gawin

Section 3(5) of the Succession to the Crown Act states:

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.

It seems that (c) is the sticking point. In order for the marriages of Charles Edward's children to be recognized as valid it would need to be established "that it was reasonable for [them] not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to [them]."

I'm not sure how this would be done now that the children are deceased.

Succession to the Crown Act 2013:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...0130020_en.pdf

I would argue the other way around. Given that they (supposedly?) didn't ask permission, we may assume that they didn't think it applied to them (given that they had been deprived of their British titles - a reasonable ground for thinking that you no longer 'matter'). It only needs to be proven that it was 'reasonable' that they might have thought it didn't apply. Unless you can proof that they were very well aware and still decided NOT to seek permission for whatever reason, I would say it is reasonable to assume that they weren't aware that the Act applied to them.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by cepe

I may be misunderstanding but is it the difference between legal (ie true marriage in the eyes of the law and the world) and valid (in terms of the succession)?

No, there was no difference. If permission was required, but not requested or granted, the couple were not legally married according to British law, and any children were illegitimate and incapable of inheriting anything from the royal parent, not just succession rights.

From The Royal Marriage Act:
"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." [i.e, not limited to the succession rights]

This is why Augustus Duke of Sussex's son didn't inherit his title and George Duke of Cambridge's sons didn't inherit his. If the RMA only affected their children's succession rights, the sons still would have been able to inherit their peerages as "heirs male of the body." But because they were illegitimate in the eyes of the British law, they weren't the "heirs male."

The Royal Marriage Act, 1772

Originally Posted by Somebody

I would argue the other way around. Given that they (supposedly?) didn't ask permission, we may assume that they didn't think it applied to them (given that they had been deprived of their British titles - a reasonable ground for thinking that you no longer 'matter'). It only needs to be proven that it was 'reasonable' that they might have thought it didn't apply. Unless you can proof that they were very well aware and still decided NOT to seek permission for whatever reason, I would say it is reasonable to assume that they were aware that the Act applied to them.

Thank you, I think yours is the most reasonable interpretation. Otherwise that entire section is meaningless, since the individuals it applied to are all deceased.

I'm glad I asked!

[Spheno]

Originally Posted by cepe

I may be misunderstanding but is it the difference between legal (ie true marriage in the eyes of the law and the world) and valid (in terms of the succession)?

Yes, now some marriages are legal but children from these marriages don't have succession rights (Succession to the Crown Act 2013).

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Spheno

Yes, now some marriages are legal but children from these marriages don't have succession rights (Succession to the Crown Act 2013).

Yes, the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 changed the penalties for contracting an unapproved marriage.

Royal Marriage Act: The marriage wasn't legal, the children were illegitimate, but the royal who contracted the marriage still had succession rights.

Succession to the Crown Act: The marriage is legal, the children are legitimate, but both the royal contracting the marriage and any children/descendants have no succession rights.

[sarahedwards2]

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.



Some of the descendants are disqualified from the succession because they were born out of wedlock and only legitimated when their parents married:



Hon. Mark Lascelles (b. 1964) - his parents George Lascelles 7th Earl of Harewood and Elizabeth Tuckwell married in 1967.



Martin Lascelles (b. 1962) - his parents Hon. Gerald Lascelles and Elizabeth Collingwood married in 1978.



Lady Emily (b. 1975) and Hon. Benjamin Lascelles (b. 1978), oldest children of David Lascelles 8th of Harewood and his first wife Margaret Messenger, who married in 1979. Because Benjamin is also disqualified from inheriting the Harewood title his younger brother Alexander will become Earl when their father dies.



Tanit Lascelles (b. 1981), daughter of Hon. James Lascelles and his second wife Shadow Lee, who married in 1985.



Lilianda Pearce (b. 2010), daughter of Sophie Lascelles and Timothy Pearce, who married in 2011. According to Marlene Koenig (an expert on the BRF) Sophie may not have requested permission to marry.



Two descendants are excluded because their parents never married:



Leo (born 2008), son of Alexander Lascelles, Viscount Lascelles and his then-girlfriend.



Georgina (born 1988), daughter of Martin Lascelles and his then-girlfriend.

Is Benjamin excluded because his parents married after he was born and then divorced?

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by sarahedwards2

Is Benjamin excluded because his parents married after he was born and then divorced?

Yes, you are correct, he is excluded because he was born before his parents married.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by sarahedwards2

Is Benjamin excluded because his parents married after he was born and then divorced?

His parents' divorce doesn't play into it - Benjamin is excluded simply because his parents weren't married when he was born.

[Kotroman]

Originally Posted by JR76

For instance Carl XVI Gustav of Sweden isn't in the British line of succession through his mother Sibylla of Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha but because of his grandmother Margaret of Connaught.

If he cannot derive his succession rights from his mother, he cannot derive them from his father either. Only children from a valid marriage can have succession rights, and it takes two for a marriage. Since Sibylla did not ask for permission, her marriage to Gustaf Adolf was not valid under British law. Thus, their children were not legitimate according to British law. Gustaf Adolf's own succession rights are irrelevant.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Kotroman

If he cannot derive his succession rights from his mother, he cannot derive them from his father either. Only children from a valid marriage can have succession rights, and it takes two for a marriage. Since Sibylla did not ask for permission, her marriage to Gustaf Adolf was not valid under British law. Thus, their children were not legitimate according to British law. Gustaf Adolf's own succession rights are irrelevant.

Descendants of British princesses who married into foreign royal families did not have to ask permission to marry under the Royal Marriages Act. As a descendant of Margaret of Connaught, whose marriage was valid under British law, Prince Gustaf Adolf was exempted.

So, yes, his marriage to Sibylla was valid and Carl Gustaf is in the line of succession to the British throne.

[Gawin]

Yes, but Sibylla presumably still needed permission, just as her mother-in-law Margaret needed permission when she also married a descendant of a British princess who married into a foreign royal family.

There were also other British royals who needed permission despite marrying a foreign descendant of a British princess, including the Queen's marriage to Prince Philip, George V's to Mary of Teck, and Edward VII's to Alexandra of Denmark. Whether or not their spouses needed permission was irrelevant. The Royal Marriages Act exempted foreign descendants of princesses, not British royals who married them.

It could possibly be argued, under the new marriage rules, that Sibylla didn't know she didn't permission and therefore the marriage is now considered valid.

[Kotroman]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Descendants of British princesses who married into foreign royal families did not have to ask permission to marry under the Royal Marriages Act. As a descendant of Margaret of Connaught, whose marriage was valid under British law, Prince Gustaf Adolf was exempted.

So, yes, his marriage to Sibylla was valid and Carl Gustaf is in the line of succession to the British throne.

As I said, it takes two people to have a valid marriage. If one of the two does not meet the legal requirements, the marriage is not legally valid. Sibylla did not meet the requirements. Gustaf Adolf could have married a Swedish commoner and the marriage would have been legal in the UK; but for Sibylla and him to contract a valid marriage, she needed a permission.

[Humbugged]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Descendants of British princesses who married into foreign royal families did not have to ask permission to marry under the Royal Marriages Act. As a descendant of Margaret of Connaught, whose marriage was valid under British law, Prince Gustaf Adolf was exempted.

So, yes, his marriage to Sibylla was valid and Carl Gustaf is in the line of succession to the British throne.

Sybylla's father (who was the way she qualified anyway) was as mentioned elsewhere on this page stripped of his British titles(as were his children) .his Garter and his place in succession due to WWI that was even before he became a Nazi along with her brothers)

So as of 1919 she was no longer a Princess of Britain and had lost her place as well so she had no standing to pass on to Carl Gustaf whether she asked for permission to marry or not

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Kotroman

As I said, it takes two people to have a valid marriage. If one of the two does not meet the legal requirements, the marriage is not legally valid. Sibylla did not meet the requirements. Gustaf Adolf could have married a Swedish commoner and the marriage would have been legal in the UK; but for Sibylla and him to contract a valid marriage, she needed a permission.

I have a question though: as a descendant in maternal line from Princess Augusta of Great Britain, wouldn't Princess Sibylla be exempted too ? Or does the exemption have to hold in both maternal and paternal lines , which would be a narrower interpretation of the statute ?

[Humbugged]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

I have a question though: as a descendant in maternal line from Princess Augusta of Great Britain, wouldn't Princess Sibylla be exempted too ?

No .

As per my last post the Act of Parliament that stripped her father's rights and position also stripped that of her and her brothers

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Humbugged

Sybylla's father (who was the way she qualified anyway) was as mentioned elsewhere on this page stripped of his British titles(as were his children) .his Garter and his place in succession due to WWI that was even before he became a Nazi along with her brothers)

So as of 1919 she was no longer a Princess of Britain and had lost her place as well so she had no standing to pass on to Carl Gustaf whether she asked for permission to marry or not

You're right, Sibylla's father lost his the Albany title but neither of them lost their place in the succession. Neither did Kaiser Wilhelm for that matter.

Yes, Sibylla was no longer a Princess of Great Britain but Alastair of Connaught lost his princely title as well, so that wouldn't necessarily exempt her from the Royal Marriages Act.

It could however, be argued that the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas believed they were no longer subject to the RMA because they regarded themselves as a German royal family.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Gawin

You're right, Sibylla's father lost his the Albany title but neither of them lost their place in the succession. Neither did Kaiser Wilhelm for that matter.

Yes, Sibylla was no longer a Princess of Great Britain but Alastair of Connaught lost his princely title as well, so that wouldn't necessarily exempt her from the Royal Marriages Act.

It could however, be argued that the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas believed they were no longer subject to the RMA because they regarded themselves as a German royal family.

My question was not about Sibylla being no longer a Princess of Great Britain, but rather about the fact that, through her mother, she was a descendant of a British princess (Princess Augusta, granddaughter of George II) who had married into a foreign family. Did that exempt Sibylla from the provisions of the RMA ?

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

I have a question though: as a descendant in maternal line from Princess Augusta of Great Britain, wouldn't Princess Sibylla be exempted too ? Or does the exemption have to hold in both maternal and paternal lines , which would be a narrower interpretation of the statute ?

No, if that were the case then all of the descendants of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra would have been exempt, since Alexandra was the descendant of two daughters of George II who married into foreign royal houses.

This of course, would include Queen Elizabeth II, her children, and her grandchildren.

The RMA applied to:

(1) Male-line descendants of the sovereign (beginning with George II). This included male-line descendants who also descended from females who were exempt.

(2) Descendants of daughters who did NOT marry a foreigner. That is why the descendants of Princess Louise, who married the Duke of Fife, a British subject, needed permission to marry, but the descendants of her sister Maud, who married the King of Norway, did not.

Whether or not the spouse was also a descendant of George II, and exempt from the RMA, made no difference.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Gawin

No, if that were the case then all of the descendants of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra would have been exempt, since Alexandra was the descendant of two daughters of George II who married into foreign royal houses.

There was actually a theory by someone, whose name I don't recall, that claimed that all descendants of Queen Alexandra were actually exempt precisely for that reason. Have the courts ever ruled on the matter ?

Certainly, on a strict reading of the text of the RMA, there are grounds to argue that.