Line of Succession to the British Throne

[Kataryn]

People have voted for William over Charles and it didn't matter. Why should it matter now that they don't want Prince Harry? I personally think it is more that they don't want Meghan as future queen, for why should have Harry changed so much from how he was before besides marrying Meghan?? Stupid people. Vote them out or keep them in the line the law sees them in.

 

[Curryong]

I do not believe that Harry will be removed from the line of succession, not now nor in the future. Not least because if he is removed by Parliament (and in the realm's legislatures) there may well be questions asked publicly as to why Andrew, a man mired for many years in much more controversy than Harry has ever been, was still there.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I understand that such individuals would at best be Overseas British Citizens? So eligible for UK citizenship but not technically UK citizens? Happy to educated further as they say.?

That is not what the ruling said. It was a court ruling that said that all the descendants of the Electress Sophia were still British citizens.

The parliament then limited that right to those born before 1948. Any born after that date have to meet the existing rules about citizenship and not because they descend from the Electress Sophie e.g. Harald of Norway is a British citizen but his descendants aren't and they would have to apply in the same way as anyone else.

British Overseas Citizens are a different category and the descendants of the Electress Sophia don't meet that criteria.

In another 30 or or years there will be no one overseas who will qualify under the Sophia Naturalisation Act, which gave full British citizenship to her descendants in perpetuity.

 

[QueenMathilde]

Harry needs to be cut out of the line of succession. He doesn't even want to live in England and he wanted out of the royal family. He certainly doesn't want to be king.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The British parliament, along with those of the other realms, have a lot more important things to deal with than passing a law to remove one person from the line of succession - and what about his descendants - are they to be removed due to his decision or does this process have to happen for each one when they decide to live overseas?

Why shouldn't Harry live overseas when the vast majority - about 98% of those in the line of succession live overseas? While the law doesn't require a person to live in the UK to be in the line of succession why pick on just Harry?

 

[Osipi]

Harry needs to be cut out of the line of succession. He doesn't even want to live in England and he wanted out of the royal family. He certainly doesn't want to be king.

Y'know, looking at the line of succession, I don't think Harry has anything to really worry about and no reason on earth to start planning his coronation anytime soon.

Parliament has so many more pressing matters to deal with than to tie things up debating and then working to remove Harry from something that isn't even really a threatening possibility for him right now. And... to be concise, the Sussexes wanted out of working for the "Firm". Not out of the family.

I think it's best we leave Harry out of this thread and resume the line of succession conversations. I get tired of Sussexes popping up in all the threads once one is closed in their threads.

Just sayin'

 

[Alison H]

There really is no need to remove him, he is so far down in line of succession anyway. I don't know the purpose or need for this poll.

It's just one of those pointless poll results that appear in the press all the time, like what sort of biscuits are best for dunking in tea, or what are your partner's most annoying habits, or who's the best TV soap opera character of all time. Someone's always running a poll about something!

Parliament hasn't got the time or the inclination to remove Harry from the line of succession, and I very much doubt that either the Queen, Prince Charles or Prince William would want to do something that would make the family tensions even worse than they already are. If Harry did something really, really bad, things might change, but I don't think that making snarky replies to a Buckingham Palace announcement or giving an interview to Oprah are in that league.

 

[Mbruno]

That is not what the ruling said. It was a court ruling that said that all the descendants of the Electress Sophia were still British citizens.

The parliament then limited that right to those born before 1948. Any born after that date have to meet the existing rules about citizenship and not because they descend from the Electress Sophie e.g. Harald of Norway is a British citizen but his descendants aren't and they would have to apply in the same way as anyone else.

British Overseas Citizens are a different category and the descendants of the Electress Sophia don't meet that criteria.

In another 30 or or years there will be no one overseas who will qualify under the Sophia Naturalisation Act, which gave full British citizenship to her descendants in perpetuity.

Thanks, that clarifies the matter, especially the information that the Act only applies now to people born before 1948.

 

[LauraS3514]

They should have chosen to limit the line of succession together with the new Crown Act. Perhaps to the descendants of George V. and then an autmatism in the law so that when Charles succeeds it is limited to the descendants of George VI. Similar to how it is done in the Netherlands or Monaco.

I thought the same thing at the time, except for the re-set clause for each new reign. As of today, there are 79 descendants of George V in line to the UK throne, 27 from George VI, and 21 from Elizabeth II. I've wondered if they chose not to go that route to avoid removing Princess Alexandra and the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent from the line; that would have been a truly awful way to "thank" them for all of their unselfish years of service.

 

[Denville]

Thank you for reminding me.

On the other hand Australia was of course part of the British Empire so at the time it wouldn't have been considered "abroad" as we would understand it.

That wasn't "living abroad". It was doing a job of representing the King in one of his dominions.. for a period of time... They were working for the RF and intending to move back to Britain when the job was done...

 

[Sandy345]

It's just one of those pointless poll results that appear in the press all the time, like what sort of biscuits are best for dunking in tea, or what are your partner's most annoying habits, or who's the best TV soap opera character of all time. Someone's always running a poll about something!

Parliament hasn't got the time or the inclination to remove Harry from the line of succession, and I very much doubt that either the Queen, Prince Charles or Prince William would want to do something that would make the family tensions even worse than they already are. If Harry did something really, really bad, things might change, but I don't think that making snarky replies to a Buckingham Palace announcement or giving an interview to Oprah are in that league.

Harry never really did anything bad as I see it. The Queen did give her permission. There is absolutely no reason for removing Harry from line of succession the main reasons being he did nothing wrong and he is nowhere near being close to becoming King. I doubt CHarles would do it and William IMO would be unwise if he even thought about it. Sarah Ferguson did get interviewed by Oprah and even did a reality show for her network, she was not penalized for it. ANd she still has the DUchess of York title. Harry may be more popular than the some in the RF may think and there would be a backlash if they even thought about it.

 

[Durham]

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2021/02/22/59cd9/2

Not sure if this has already been posted. It more or less fits in with other polls about them. Roughly half are negative towards the Sussexes & the rest split between don't care/don't knows & those who are positive.

So roughly two-thirds of those that do have an opinion are negative towards them. It would be interesting to know what opinion is between those who are supportive/ok with the monarchy & those who are republicans - approx 20-25% of the British population. I suspect negativity towards them is higher than two-thirds among monarchists. Probably as high as three quarters at least.

Sarah Duchess of York is just styled as the divorced wife of a peer btw. There isn't actually any title to take off her.

 

[Sandy345]

It depends who took the survey.

 

[Durham]

Survey respondents will be a representative sample of the British people. It's not like a self selecting poll in a magazine or newpaper. Yougov is a respected & legitimate polling company.

Here's their methodology:

https://yougov.co.uk/about/panel-methodology/

"Active Sampling ensures that the right people are invited in the right proportions. In combination with our statistical weighting, this ensures that our results are representative of the country as a whole. Not just those with internet access, but everyone"

 

[Kataryn]

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2021/02/22/59cd9/2

Not sure if this has already been posted. It more or less fits in with other polls about them. Roughly half are negative towards the Sussexes & the rest split between don't care/don't knows & those who are positive.

So roughly two-thirds of those that do have an opinion are negative towards them. It would be interesting to know opinion between those who are supportive/ok with the monarchy & those who are republicans - approx 20-25% of the British population. I suspect negativity towards them is higher than two-thirds among monarchists. Probably as high as three quarters at least.

Sarah Duchess of York is just styled as the divorced wife of a peer btw. There isn't actually any title to take off her.

But how do these people count? Yes, they have an opinion but Royalty doesn't work like this except for removal of the whole system and then it would need several votes.



What did Harry do that he should be removed from his inherited place in the line? He is not the monarch, he is one of the family. There are no laws forcing members of the family to work in the UK's public for the public's joy and general wellbeing. There are no laws that he and his wife have to do the work the palace and government give them as part of their "service".



Now they are doing stuff they think is working for other people (not only those in the UK), to inform, to create money, to help charities. They have a good profile without any scandals, love each other, have a family life and come out occasionally to do something for others. The Uk could do worse than having Harry as their monarch! But it's William who is the heir and Harry took his legal freedom to move with his family to his wife's homecountry and try to make things work for them there.



I like that and I am happy when we see him showing up on the TV circus to learn a bit more about the person "Henry Mountbatten-Windsor" because the "prince of the Uk" is just a label put on him by birth, not character. And I honestly like that they go slowly now besides doing what they have to do to finance their life and take the time to enlarge their family and enjoy their family life.

 

[Durham]

The survey is about the succession & this thread is about the succession. So it seems rational to provide a link to the survey in this thread. It adds context to the debate.

 

[Mbruno]

But how do these people count? Yes, they have an opinion but Royalty doesn't work like this except for removal of the whole system and then it would need several votes.

The decision to remove someone from the line of succession (other than by the ordinary means) is , as you have argued, very rare, but, in a parliamentary democracy, it is up to the members of Parliament to make any such decision. The people who were polled are mostly British voters probably, so their opinion matters to politicians.


Having said that, as it has been argued extensively here, his bad polling notwithstanding, it is highly unlikely that Harry will be removed from the line of succession and, in any case, the process to remove him is unlikely to begin unilaterally. Most likely, Harry would have to announce first that he intended to renounce his succession rights, just as King Edward VIII announced his intention to abdicate. The parliaments of the UK and the Commonwealth realms would then proceed to legalize the renunciation.


The main value of those YouGov polls is not that they will realistically trigger a renunciation, but rather to show the Sussexes how they have burned their bridges with the British public and have no way back.

 

[Denville]

People have voted for William over Charles and it didn't matter. Why should it matter now that they don't want Prince Harry? I personally think it is more that they don't want Meghan as future queen, for why should have Harry changed so much from how he was before besides marrying Meghan?? Stupid people. Vote them out or keep them in the line the law sees them in.

No, niether of them are wanted....

 

[Kataryn]

No, niether of them are wanted....

Not wanted by whom and why? I don't think most of the British media are going to be "nice" to them (most never were!) and thus their readers won't get information that gives them the chance to make up their own mind at all. it can't be changed and so Harry and his family went away. So how does it matter anymore? I mean I'm German and the past saw how the media could convince German people that Hitler simply didn't "know" what bad things happened in germany ("wenn das nur der Führer wüßte"). That principle of mass media works vice-versa as well: never report good things and make up bad ones.


But, as Harry thinks, I do, too: it makes no sense to try to change that world. But just know about it! And concentrate on the future of the monarchy which is not Harry and meghan but William and Catherine.

 

[Sandy345]

some want to concentrate more on Harry and Meghan. William and Kate have years to wait to be King and Queen Consort. Charles is next and he is the immediate future after HM. And some might want to focus on Charles as the next King. Harry and Meghan can make a difference without being King and Queen Consort; I hope he continues his great work with veterans who very much need support.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

If the throne ever did come to Prince Harry and he was to become King Henry IX and he absolutely did not want to be the sovereign, could he abdicate for both himself and Archie?

 

[Mbruno]

If the throne ever did come to Prince Harry and he was to become King Henry IX and he absolutely did not want to be the sovereign, could he abdicate for both himself and Archie?

Harry could abdicate if he were already king. Archie, not being king himself, could not "abdicate", but he could renounce his succession rights.

In any case, as it has been extensively discussed in this forum, both abdications and renunciations would have to be legally ratified in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms following their own respective constitutional rules.

 

[Durham]

The issue for this country is clear. We have an individual who no longer lives here & has made it perfectly obvious that he does not want to.

In that case it is entirely reasonable for the powers that be to think about possible future scenarios. Far better to resolve matters now before we are forced to by some unforeseen circumstance. That would be a constitutional nightmare.

A mature democracy cannot let its governance be impacted by the caprice of any one individual.

 

[Countessmeout]

The issue for this country is clear. We have an individual who no longer lives here & has made it perfectly obvious that he does not want to.

In that case it is entirely reasonable for the powers that be to think about possible future scenarios. Far better to resolve matters now before we are forced to by some unforeseen circumstance. That would be a constitutional nightmare.

A mature democracy cannot let its governance be impacted by the caprice of any one individual.

He has actually made it perfectly clear he plans to continue to live in both the UK and the US. And for his children to know both sides.

So far he just hasnt been willing to risk his infant son to fly during a pandemic for a vacation in the UK.

They wouldn't have kept their home in the UK, and paid it off, if not. Nor their British charities. But people seem to choose to over look that.

Haakon doesn't seem to have any plans to live in the UK, should he be removed. The reality is that they would have to think of the entire Cambridge family being wiped out in one stroke for Harry to come to the throne. Thats not really a 'reasonable' excuse to think about kicking Harry out of succession.


If Chales, William, George and Charlotte suddenly die, and there is only Louis between Harry and the throne, then perhaps they'll need to discus.



But you're right a grown man decided to move to another country. Democracy is teetering on the edge of destruction.

 

[Durham]

Well it's a matter for the people of Britain whatever others may think & as the poll clearly shows only a minority would object to his removal.

 

[Mbruno]

Haakon doesn't seem to have any plans to live in the UK, should he be removed.

.

With all due respect, the two situations are not comparable as Haakon is not 6th in line and one of the sons of the future king.

The question, however, that I would ask you as a Canadian is whether the Canadian government would agree to consent to removing Harry and Archie from the line of succession if asked by the British government.

My opinion, as expressed in an earlier post, is that, realistically, the process would have to start with Harry himself making and signing a "Declaration of Renunciation" just as Edward VIII made his Declaration of Abdication. I don't think Harry would do it on his own free will, but he may be asked by his father/brother and the UK government to do so. In that scenario, I think the Commonwealth realms would consider the matter; otherwise, it is not inconceivable that there could be a split between the UK government and the governments of the other realms.

Well it's a matter for the people of Britain whatever others may think & as the poll clearly shows only a minority would object to his removal.

However, for a transnational/shared monarchy, it is a matter not only for the people of Britain, but also for the people of the other realms and we don't know how they feel about it.


The situation in 1936 was actually simpler than it is today. The Statute of Westminster had not been ratified yet in Australia and New Zealand, so they didn't have a say in Edward VIII's abdication. Ireland on the other hand probably saw the abdication as an opportunity to cut down even further on any constitutional role for the King in the Free State. So, only Canada and South Africa had in practice to be brought on board and both eventually supported the abdication.



In a hypothetical renunciation today, not only would 15 realms have to be on board, but also in countries like Australia for example, even individual subnational units, e.g. all Australian states, would have to approve it too.

 

[Durham]

The issue is not going to go away & it's not personal. And it shouldn't be viewed in an emotional way. It needs to be approached dispassionately. It's what's best for Britain.

As to the duke unilaterally setting in train a process of renunciation that's an interesting idea.

 

[Alison H]

Haakon doesn't seem to have any plans to live in the UK, should he be removed. The reality is that they would have to think of the entire Cambridge family being wiped out in one stroke for Harry to come to the throne. Thats not really a 'reasonable' excuse to think about kicking Harry out of succession.

If Chales, William, George and Charlotte suddenly die, and there is only Louis between Harry and the throne, then perhaps they'll need to discus.

I'm inclined to agree. It'd take up a load of time which Parliament hasn't got to spare, possibly cause arguments with other Commonwealth countries, spark off an argument in the media which all the culture war keyboard warriors would be right on to, and cause upset within the Royal Family. Also, the person who'd be next in line after the Cambridges would then be Prince Andrew, who's even less popular than Harry. No-one's going to cause all that hassle when there are 5 people ahead of Harry in the line of succession.

 

[AC21091968]

With all due respect, the two situations are not comparable as Haakon is not 6th in line and one of the sons of the future king.

The question, however, that I would ask you as a Canadian is whether the Canadian government would agree to consent to removing Harry and Archie from the line of succession if asked by the British government.

My opinion, as expressed in an earlier post, is that, realistically, the process would have to start with Harry himself making and signing a "Declaration of Renunciation" just as Edward VIII made his Declaration of Abdication. I don't think Harry would do it on his own free will, but he may be asked by his father/brother and the UK government to do so. In that scenario, I think the Commonwealth realms would consider the matter; otherwise, it is not inconceivable that there could be a split between the UK government and the governments of the other realms.





However, for a transnational/shared monarchy, it is a matter not only for the people of Britain, but also for the people of the other realms and we don't know how they feel about it.


The situation in 1936 was actually simpler than it is today. The Statute of Westminster had not been ratified yet in Australia and New Zealand, so they didn't have a say in Edward VIII's abdication. Ireland on the other hand probably saw the abdication as an opportunity to cut down even further on any constitutional role for the King in the Free State. So, only Canada and South Africa had in practice to be brought on board and both eventually supported the abdication.



In a hypothetical renunciation today, not only 15 realms would have to be on board, but in countries like Australia for example, even individual subnational units, e.g. all Australian states, would have to approve it too.

As Australia was mentioned in the 2013 Succession of the Crown Act and how it took the longest, most Australian States have bicameral legislature (two chambers) like the Federal Government. The only exceptions are Queensland, Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory. I think if bills are going to pass through 15 realms in removing a person/group of people from line of succession, Australia would take the longest.

As you kindly mentioned earlier, the situation in 1936 was different compared to now, given that Australia has already passed The Australia Act in 1986.

 

[Osipi]

Perhaps a question that should have been asked along with the opinion of whether or not Harry should be removed from the line of succession is also to ask on a scale of 1-10, how important is it for Parliament to address this issue at the present time.

Even though a lot of people would feel Harry should be removed, the issue may not be of such a dire nature that they felt Parliament should look into it and act right away. Especially in the middle of a pandemic. ?