The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #121  
Old 01-04-2020, 12:15 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,660
Moved to a different topic.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 01-04-2020, 12:36 PM
theroyalfly's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: N/A, Australia
Posts: 1,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Could anyone on this forum kindly list the potential successors to the UK and Commonwealth realms thrones from number 60 to 80 at least ?

Most online sources stop at the descendants of sons of King George V, the last of whom is currently # 59 in line.
This link is not an updated one but it lists further down the line. (as of 2011)


https://web.archive.org/web/20110517...sion/2011.html
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 01-04-2020, 12:47 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by theroyalfly View Post
This link is not an updated one but it lists further down the line. (as of 2011)


https://web.archive.org/web/20110517...sion/2011.html
So, in short: after the descendants of the sons of George V come the descendants of his only daughter (Mary); as far as they were born in recognized marriages (most of them seem to have been born out of wedlock).

And after that come the descendants of George V's younger sisters; first the Fife's and then the Norwegian royal family. And only after that come queen Victoria's other descendants...
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 01-04-2020, 01:00 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Could anyone on this forum kindly list the potential successors to the UK and Commonwealth realms thrones from number 60 to 80 at least ?

Most online sources stop at the descendants of sons of King George V, the last of whom is currently # 59 in line.
It is worth noting that such lists are unofficial and have not been subjected to validation. The private citizens who may be potential successors are not likely to self-disclose whether they are in communion with the Anglican church or whether their children were born from the use of sperm donation or surrogacy, but these questions are in principle relevant to their succession rights.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 01-04-2020, 02:43 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
So, in short: after the descendants of the sons of George V come the descendants of his only daughter (Mary); as far as they were born in recognized marriages (most of them seem to have been born out of wedlock).

..

The linked list mentions “ legitimation by marriage”. Does that count in British succession law ? I thought it did not.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 01-04-2020, 08:09 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,943
No - legitimation by marriage' doesn't count in the line of succession either to the throne or to a title.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 01-04-2020, 08:31 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Anderson, United States
Posts: 715
Even if this is unofficial, it is fun to go down the list and see just how many members of other royal families are theoretically in the line. I have always laughed when you go down the list and eventually hit the Duke of Edinburgh (#679 at the time). I guess I have a weird sense of humor.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 01-04-2020, 08:55 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
The linked list mentions “ legitimation by marriage”. Does that count in British succession law ? I thought it did not.
The writer of the list places an X instead of a number next to the mention of those descendants, which acknowledges that they are not in the line of succession.

The reason is that the Act of Settlement contains a limitation to "heirs of the body", which common law defines to exclude legitimated issue.
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 01-04-2020, 09:13 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Marlboro View Post
Even if this is unofficial, it is fun to go down the list and see just how many members of other royal families are theoretically in the line. I have always laughed when you go down the list and eventually hit the Duke of Edinburgh (#679 at the time). I guess I have a weird sense of humor.

It is also interesting to realise that Carl-Philip and his descendants are ahead of Victoria and her descendants in the line of succession to the British throne. This is because of the timing of the Succession to the Crown Act.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 01-04-2020, 09:39 PM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
It is also interesting to realise that Carl-Philip and his descendants are ahead of Victoria and her descendants in the line of succession to the British throne. This is because of the timing of the Succession to the Crown Act.
There have been questions raised if the Bernadottes are in the British line of succession at all since Princess Sibylla did not request permission from the British monarch to marry Hereditary Prince Gustaf Adolf. After reading enough discussions on the matter I'm of the opinion that it's impossible to say if they are or not.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 01-05-2020, 07:31 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
The writer of the list places an X instead of a number next to the mention of those descendants, which acknowledges that they are not in the line of succession.

The reason is that the Act of Settlement contains a limitation to "heirs of the body", which common law defines to exclude legitimated issue.
But the writer of the list did not put an X next to the names of individuals who are known to be Roman Catholics, including foreign monarchs like King Felipe VI and King Albert II of Belgium. Why ?
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 01-05-2020, 07:37 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I have never heard that there is any problem.

Neither Gustav Adolf not Sibylla needed consent from the British monarch under the RMA as both are descended from British princesses who had married into foreign royal houses - which the RMA exempted.
Gustaf Adolf descended from a British princess who married into a foreign royal family, but I believe Sybilla descended from Queen Victoria in male line. That is why the legitimacy of her marriage under the RMA is sometimes questioned.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 01-05-2020, 08:52 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Gustaf Adolf descended from a British princess who married into a foreign royal family, but I believe Sybilla descended from Queen Victoria in male line. That is why the legitimacy of her marriage under the RMA is sometimes questioned.

Exactly. The traditional interpretation held that the exemption for descendants of British princesses who married into foreign families did not pertain to male-line descendants of British monarchs. Otherwise, the descendants of King Edward VII would have been entirely exempt as his wife Alexandra was descended from a British princess who married into the Danish royal family.

There doesn't seem to be much question that the Bernadottes descended from Princess Sibylla were illegitimate in the eye of British law under the Royal Marriages Act prior to the Succession to the Crown Act, but the Succession to the Crown Act confused the matter by legitimating some, but not all, marriages and descendants who were formerly illegitimate under the Royal Marriages Act.

ETA: The Succession to the Crown Act states that legitimation under the Act does not affect succession to the throne, so I suppose they remain ineligible. However, legitimation would affect succession to British peerages, which is relevant to Sibylla's brothers.

For those interested, there is a good explanation from Gawin earlier in the thread: http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ml#post2094499


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
But the writer of the list did not put an X next to the names of individuals who are known to be Roman Catholics, including foreign monarchs like King Felipe VI and King Albert II of Belgium. Why ?
He explains on the website that as the limits of the religious requirements have never been definitively determined, he expresses no view on which persons would be prevented from ascending the British throne by the religious restrictions.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 01-23-2020, 04:27 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
The private citizens who may be potential successors are not likely to self-disclose whether they are in communion with the Anglican church or whether their children were born from the use of sperm donation or surrogacy, but these questions are in principle relevant to their succession rights.
As far as I understand people in the Order of Succession do not have to be "in communion with the Anglican church" They merely have to be not Roman Catholics - the Greek Royal Family are Greek Orthodox, the Yugoslav Royal Family are Serbian Orthodox, but they are still in the Order of Succession.

Quote:
Originally Posted by danishjaveed View Post
I am currently researching the line of succession to the British Throne in it's current form and it's previous forms. What I want to know is what did the line look like just before the Perth Agreement and who were affected by it. I know that Senna Lewis, Tāne Lewis, Lyla Gilman, Rufus Gilman, George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews, Prince Michael of Kent and Michael I of Romania were among the members who were affected by it. Who else was not in the line of succession before but was included after the Perth Agreement?
The Crown Prince of Yugoslavia will be have reinstated, after being excluded for marrying a Roman Catholic. Also Prince Ernst August of Hanover.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 01-23-2020, 04:41 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camsterlaird View Post
As far as I understand people in the Order of Succession do not have to be "in communion with the Anglican church" They merely have to be not Roman Catholics - the Greek Royal Family are Greek Orthodox, the Yugoslav Royal Family are Serbian Orthodox, but they are still in the Order of Succession.

One has to be Protestant to be in the line of succession and Roman Catholics are in particular explicitly excluded. The monarch must be in communion with the Anglican church and he/she is required under the Accession Declaration Act to make a declaration upon his/her accession that he/she is a "faithful Protestant" and will uphold the enactments that secure "the Protestant succession to the throne".



A separate provision in the Act of Union 1707 requires the monarch to declare that he/she will preserve the presbyterian Church of Scotland and the Coronation Oath act require him/her to swear he/she will maintain "the true Profession of the Gospel and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law", which I believe means the Church of England.


So a Greek orthodox or a Muslim would not qualify to succeed or, at least, that is my understanding of the British statutes, which are sometimes written in an arcane language, as in the case of the Act of Settlement. The actual text of the Act of Settlement says (emphasis added):


Quote:


and that from and after the Deceases of His said Majesty our now Sovereign Lord and of Her Royall Highness the Princess Ann of Denmark and for Default of Issue of the said Princess Ann and of His Majesty respectively the Crown and Regall Government of the said Kingdoms of England France and Ireland and of the Dominions thereunto belonging with the Royall State and Dignity of the said Realms and all Honours Stiles Titles Regalities Prerogatives Powers Jurisdictions and Authorities to the same belonging and appertaining shall be remain and continue to the said most Excellent Princess Sophia and the Heirs of Her Body being Protestants
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camsterlaird View Post
The Crown Prince of Yugoslavia will be have reinstated, after being excluded for marrying a Roman Catholic. Also Prince Ernst August of Hanover.

King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands was also reinstated after having been excluded when he married Queen Máxima, who is Catholic.
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 02-03-2020, 11:33 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ipswich, Australia
Posts: 38
I have some very interesting questions to ask.
If the unthinkable happened to William and his family. and Harry became heir after Charles,
1, could Harry turn down the big job on his and Archie's behalf?
2. Could Archie become King if Harry refused.
3. Would Andrew become King or be banned
4. Could Beatrice be moved up the line very quickly
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 02-03-2020, 11:47 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carin View Post
I have some very interesting questions to ask.
If the unthinkable happened to William and his family. and Harry became heir after Charles,
1, could Harry turn down the big job on his and Archie's behalf?
2. Could Archie become King if Harry refused.
3. Would Andrew become King or be banned
4. Could Beatrice be moved up the line very quickly

1. Yes

2. Usually it removes the whole line out of succession.

3. Andrew is still, at this point, in the line of succession after Archie.

4. Only if Andrew abdicated unless there is some mechanism in the current law where the government could prevent him from becoming King. I have no idea on that one.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 02-03-2020, 11:47 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,943
I have some very interesting questions to ask.
If the unthinkable happened to William and his family, and Harry became heir after Charles:

1. Could Harry 'turn down' the big job? - Yes he could abdicate. He would cause a lot of heartache as 16 countries would have to pass the legislation but yes he could.
2. Could he also abdicate for Archie? No - once Harry has abdicated for himself Archie is King and Harry has no say in that.
3. If Archie was King before turning 18 then Andrew would be Regent
4. Would Andrew become King - if Harry and Archie - along with all of William's children weren't available? Yes. Why would he be banned? He hasn't been charged with a crime so there is nothing against him. If he is charged and then convicted the situation may change but an allegation isn't a conviction and under British law a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law - not the court of the media
5. Beatrice would only move up via the death of her family members ahead of her in the line of succession
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 02-03-2020, 11:50 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,943
Replying to Pranter:

1. Yes - agree

2. Usually it removes the whole line out of succession - no it doesn't. The line of succession actually comes into effect e.g. 1936 the person who replaced the abdicating King was the next in the line of succession. Edward's abdication included any future children. As he had no existing children that isn't a relevant exclusion. Harry could abdicate for children born after he abdicates but not for an existing child

3. Andrew is still, at this point, in the line of succession after Archie - of course he is. He is still also eligible to serve as a Counsellor of State - as was made clear when he stood down from royal duties

4. Only if Andrew abdicated unless there is some mechanism in the current law where the government could prevent him from becoming King - there is none as the UK believes, officially, in innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 02-03-2020, 11:52 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
1. Yes

2. Usually it removes the whole line out of succession - no it doesn't. The line of succession actually comes into effect e.g. 1936 the person who replaced the abdicating King was the next in the line of succession. Edward's abdication included any future children. As he had no existing children that isn't a relevant exclusion. Harry could abdicate for children born after he abdicates but not for an existing child

3. Andrew is still, at this point, in the line of succession after Archie.

4. Only if Andrew abdicated unless there is some mechanism in the current law where the government could prevent him from becoming King - there is none as the UK believes, officially, in innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Ah ok I was thinking of Edward...and that it would include even born children.


LaRae
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, danish royal family, dutch royal family, norwegian royal family, swedish royal family


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Line of Succession to the British Throne David Lewis Royal Genealogy 23 01-28-2020 12:38 PM
Are the Orleans-Braganza in the line of succession to the French throne? Lecen Royal Families of France 7 12-27-2014 09:49 PM




Popular Tags
abdication abu dhabi american american history anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry baby names baptism biography british royal family brownbitcoinqueen buckingham palace china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing countess of snowdon cpr doge of venice duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex elizabeth ii facts family life family tree fashion and style games george vi hochberg hypothetical monarchs imperial household intro italian royal family jacobite japan jewellery kids movie list of rulers luxembourg mountbatten names nepalese royal jewels plantinum jubilee pless prince constantijn prince dimitri prince harry princess alexia (2005 -) princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn walailak princess eugenie princess ribha queen louise queen mathilde queen maxima random facts resusci anne royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royalty of taiwan royal wedding serbian royal family snowdon thai royal family uae customs united states united states of america videos wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:07 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×