Line of Succession to the British Throne

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

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.

Yes, this strict reading was known as the Farran exemption, after Charles Farran, who in the 1950s wrote that the BRF was no longer bound by the RMA because of Queen Alexandra. That interpretation was ignored.

[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

The person who stated that Charles Duke of Coburg and his children lost their place in the succession was wrong. The Titles Deprivation Act stripped Charles of his British peerage (Albany) and royal title (HRH Prince of the UK). It said nothing about succession to the British throne.

Titles Deprivation Act (1917/1919)

Sibylla and his other children had already lost their own British HRHs due to the 1917 Letters Patent which limited the HRH to the Sovereign's grandchildren (the children were Queen Victoria's great-grandchildren).

[Somebody]

Prince Louis has been added to the line of succession on the BRF website. However, one of the queen's other greatgrandchildren, miss Mia Tindall, is still missing. It would be nice if they'd solve that after the birth of her sibling (or when they update Harry's title but that seems less likely).

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Somebody

Prince Louis has been added to the line of succession on the BRF website. However, one of the queen's other greatgrandchildren, miss Mia Tindall, is still missing. It would be nice if they'd solve that after the birth of her sibling (or when they update Harry's title but that seems less likely).

Mia's not really missing, her mother is just the last person listed for some reason. It would be worse if they skipped over her.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

Mia's not really missing, her mother is just the last person listed for some reason. It would be worse if they skipped over her.

That's what I call missing. It is not that they limited it to a certain number of people; in that case Zara would have been removed when Louis was added. The most logical reasoning is that only the queen's descendents are listed (if you have a better theory I'd love to know as this is the one I can comd up with) - but one (only 1!) descendent is missing while her cousins who have a comparable status (great grandchildren of the monarch through the queen's daughter) are listed.

[Gawin]

For some reason it seems the list always ended with Zara (Mrs. Michael Tindall).

For example, here's an archived copy from May 2016 (via the Wayback Machine):
https://web.archive.org/web/20160513....uk/succession

And another from August 2017:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170801....uk/succession

[Tatiana Maria]

I have a question in regard to this quote below from the late Princess of Wales.

BASHIR: It wasn't long after the wedding before you became pregnant. What was your reaction when you learnt that the child was a boy?

DIANA: Enormous relief. I felt the whole country was in labour with me. Enormous relief.

But I had actually known William was going to be a boy, because the scan had shown it, so it caused no surprise.

BASHIR: Had you always wanted to have a family?

DIANA: Yes, I came from a family where there were four of us, so we had enormous fun there.

And then William and Harry arrived – fortunately two boys, it would have been a little tricky if it had been two girls- but that in itself brings the responsibilities of bringing them up, William's future being as it is, and Harry like a form of a back-up in that aspect.

BASHIR: How did the rest of the Royal Family react when they learnt that the child that you were to have was going to be a boy?

DIANA: Well, everybody was thrilled to bits. It had been quite a difficult pregnancy - I hadn't been very well throughout it - so by the time William arrived it was a great relief because it was all peaceful again, and I was well for a time.

(Source)


Under the British succession laws used in 1982, girls were allowed to inherit the throne in the absence of brothers. Seeing as there would be no impediment to the succession if the child or both children were girls, why was it an "enormous relief" and "fortunate" that the child was a boy, and why would it "have been a little tricky if it had been two girls"?

[Mbruno]

I suppose that, being the daughter of a peer whose title descends by agnatic primogeniture only, Diana must have grown up with the idea that it is important to have male offspring.

Of course, you are right though that the succession law was male preference primogeniture at the time William and Harry were born, so there would not have been any change to the order of succession if they were girls instead of boys.

[Lilyflo]

Interesting point Tatiana.

As Mbruno says, Diana's family depended on male offspring & she said herself, as the 3rd girl she was a disappointment to her parents who needed a son. In Sarah Bradford's book 'Diana', she describes how her mother Frances was sent to gynaecologists after her failure to produce a male heir. The British aristocracy was (is) obsessed with male heirs and in our monarchy, women only reigned in the absence of a male. The preference has always been for males so I can understand how a young Princess of Wales would feel pressurised to produce a male heir.

[Denville]

It would not have been I the least "tricky" if they had both been girls...Not tomenton the fact that Diana used to put it out that Charles had wanted Harry to be a girl...

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Denville

It would not have been I the least "tricky" if they had both been girls...Not tomenton the fact that Diana used to put it out that Charles had wanted Harry to be a girl...

Not so. We can't use today's lens to see issues in the 1980s. Sexism was far more rampant and blatant during that time. Especially given how Diana grew up and the humiliating experiences her mother was put through due to not producing a living male heir until Charles Spencer. Notice how Charles wished Harry was a girl AFTER William was already born. Not with William.

[Lilyflo]

Originally Posted by Denville

It would not have been I the least "tricky" if they had both been girls...Not tomenton the fact that Diana used to put it out that Charles had wanted Harry to be a girl...

Diana obviously felt 2 girls would have been a 'little tricky' - it's possible she meant that the expectation would be to keep having children until they had a boy and that would have meant a continued sexual relationship, which she claimed ended after Harry was born.

[Denville]

the queen's father had 2 daughters, and I dont believe anyone said that they had to keep producng children till they had a son...

[Lilyflo]

Originally Posted by Denville

the queen's father had 2 daughters, and I dont believe anyone said that they had to keep producng children till they had a son...

Firstly, the Queen's father wasn't the heir to the throne. Secondly, we have no idea what pressure to produce a son her parents felt or didn't feel because they didn't talk about it, unlike Diana who did.

[EllieCat]

the queen's father had 2 daughters, and I dont believe anyone said that they had to keep producng children till they had a son...

Ah yes, but there was still the expectation that the Prince of Wales (later Duke of Windsor) would marry and produce children. At the time the Duke and Duchess of York had their two little girls, they weren't expected to be major Royals, unlike the Prince & Princess of Wales in the 1980s who definitely were. These days things are different, and rightly so.

[Denville]

tey were still next in line, until David did have children.. ANd Im sure that before the abdication, the RF were getting increasingly sure that he would not marry and have a family.....As I recall George V said that he hoped his son woudlnt marry and have children, so that Lillibet would be the heir...

[Lilyflo]

Originally Posted by Denville

tey were still next in line, until David did have children.. ANd Im sure that before the abdication, the RF were getting increasingly sure that he would not marry and have a family.....As I recall George V said that he hoped his son woudlnt marry and have children, so that Lillibet would be the heir...

That still doesn't mean that if the Queen's father had been 1st in line, they wouldn't have kept trying to have a son after Elizabeth & Margaret. Perhaps they did & failed, we just don't know because they didn't talk about it.

Diana did talk about it & given her background, what she said doesn't surprise me. Of course some people might accuse her of lying but I can't see what she'd have to gain from it considering she did produce a male heir.

[sndral]

Well it could have been tricky in a second sense, if Charles and Diana had had daughters, then divorced and Charles had remarried - say Tiggy (whom Diana slandered when she claimed Tiggy was pregnant by Charles, btw) and Charles and his second wife had produced a male heir that child would have been the next King rather than C&D's daughters and thus Diana's future role as mother of King William would have disappeared, so perhaps that is what her 'tricky' reference was to. Wasn't that the interview where she basically suggested Charles should be bypassed for the throne (ala David I suppose.)

[Fijiro]

Originally Posted by sndral

Well it could have been tricky in a second sense, if Charles and Diana had had daughters, then divorced and Charles had remarried - say Tiggy (whom Diana slandered when she claimed Tiggy was pregnant by Charles, btw) and Charles and his second wife had produced a male heir that child would have been the next King rather than C&D's daughters and thus Diana's future role as mother of King William would have disappeared, so perhaps that is what her 'tricky' reference was to. Wasn't that the interview where she basically suggested Charles should be bypassed for the throne (ala David I suppose.)

David was not bypassed. He became His Majesty The King Edward VIII between 20 January – 11 December 1936 - then he abdicated, and later was created Duke of Windsor.

Originally Posted by Lilyflo

That still doesn't mean that if the Queen's father had been 1st in line, they wouldn't have kept trying to have a son after Elizabeth & Margaret. Perhaps they did & failed, we just don't know because they didn't talk about it.

Diana did talk about it & given her background, what she said doesn't surprise me. Of course some people might accuse her of lying but I can't see what she'd have to gain from it considering she did produce a male heir.

It was also rumoured that Queen Elizabeth II's coronation was delayed by a whole year because the powers that be wanted to be sure that the Queen Mother was not pregnant with a boy.

[Rudolph]

Victoria Arbiter got herself into a bit of ‘trouble’ when Prince George was born. She made a comment that Catherine got it ‘right’ the first time. Meaning William had a boy heir.