The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #141  
Old 02-04-2020, 11:10 PM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Silicon Valley, United States
Posts: 641
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

As was said above, Harry could abdicate for himself but not for Archie. If Harry REALLY doesn't want his family on the throne, he and Archie (and future children) could always become Roman Catholic which would automatically bar them. I would hope, though, that any religious conversions would be for faith, and not expediency...
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 07-05-2020, 07:47 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
The last time anyone tried to do a full count was 2011 and it was at 5000 people. Here’s a link: https://web.archive.org/web/20110517...sion/2011.html

It is hard to talk about people further down the line as they aren’t well documented, plus it doesn’t really matter when you get past the descendants of George V.
If a catastrophe sufficiently apocalyptic to eliminate the first 4999 people in the line of succession were to actually occur, does anyone actually believe the (probably new) British government would be directing its energies to recomputing the line of succession, hunting down the person formerly in position #5000, organizing their travel to London and their schooling on the duties of the Sovereign, and installing them as monarch?

So, I think the concept that thousands of people are in line to the British throne can be rightly considered nothing but a polite fiction.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
A Roman Catholic is confirmed as such and at that moment is removed from the line of succession. The Earl of St Andrews children were all baptised RC but remained in the line of succession until they were each confirmed. Amelia has never been confirmed RC and so she remains in the line of succession. She may prefer the Roman Catholic rites but she has not committed herself to that denomination and so remains in the line.

The Tindalls' have had Mia baptised as CoE and presumably either has or will baptise Lena accordingly. Only when they reach an age where they publicly declare they are Roman Catholic will they be removed from the line of succession. Not being confirmed won't be a barrier - until such time as they actually are to be crowned as they do need to be able to take communion in the CoE during the Coronation ceremony.

The Succession to the Crown Act specifies that the monarch must be 'in communion with the CoE' and will uphold the 'established Church of England' and the 'established Church of Scotland' and uphold 'the protestant succession'. Most Roman Catholics would be unable to do any of those things. the Succession to the Crown Act actually is more specific than the Act of Settlement - which it amended in many ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Has any official decision or judgment validated that interpretation of the Act of Settlement? In my opinion, it seems evident that anyone who is known not to be a Protestant would be barred by the clause "the Heirs of Her Body being Protestants" (though non-Protestant heirs of her body who have never been Roman Catholics would gain a place in the line of succession on conversion to Protestantism).

In 1714, there were children too young to have been confirmed as Roman Catholics who were nonetheless skipped, including the crown prince of France (age 4) and the crown prince of Spain and his brothers (ages 2 to 6).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The children, in 1714, who were skipped were done so because the legislation had been passed 13 years earlier and so they were largely not even born at that time.
Persons who were children in 1701 were also skipped, including the children of the exiled King James and his second wife, who were 13 and 8 years old. The next nearest relatives were the Duchess of Savoy and her sons, who were 2 years old and 1 month old respectively when the Act of Settlement was promulgated in 1701.

To the present day the Catholic church itself treats children baptized Catholic as church members. I think it would be highly out of character if the same Parliament that called Roman Catholics "Papists" and excluded baptized-Catholic infants (and even former Catholic converts to Protestantism) intended a more "generous" definition to apply to future generations.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraS3514 View Post
As was said above, Harry could abdicate for himself but not for Archie.
I know of no mechanism by which a dynast could unilaterally renounce their rights of succession to the British throne, other than by renouncing the Protestant faith or marrying without the consent of the Sovereign while they are amongst the first six persons in the order of succession. New legislation would surely be a necessity, as it was 1936 and 2011-2015.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 07-05-2020, 08:18 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraS3514 View Post
As was said above, Harry could abdicate for himself but not for Archie. If Harry REALLY doesn't want his family on the throne, he and Archie (and future children) could always become Roman Catholic which would automatically bar them. I would hope, though, that any religious conversions would be for faith, and not expediency...



Neither Harry nor Archie can unilaterally abdicate, or renounce their sucession rights before they ascend. They could announce an intention to abdicate (if they have already ascended) or to renounce their succession rights (if they have not ascended yet), but that would not automatically change the line of succession, which is defined by law and law can only be changed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.



On top of that, I suppose that, because of the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, 1931, any law changing the order of succession would require the consent of the Parliaments of the Commonwealth realms. That provision originally applied only to the Dominions at the time (the Dominon of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State, and Newfoundland), but, during the process of enactment of the Succession to the Crown Act, 2013, the British government interpreted it as applying to the current 15 Commonwealth realms and, accordingly, did not issue the Order in Council commencing the validity of the act until all 15 realms had notified London of their consent.


Finally, in the Commonwealth realms where the succession laws are considered part of the domestic law too, then, before giving their consent, those realms also have to amend their own law (according to their constitutional procedures) to bring it in line with UK law. In the case of Australia, for example, that was actually quite complicated, because the interpretation was that the succession law was part of the law of each Australian state and each of them had to amend it. In the end, the solution they found was to use a special provision in the constitution of Australia where the states, by law, delegated to the federal Parliament to right to legislate on their behalf with respect to the succession law.



Canada was /is the opposite case as the government of Canada claimed (and the Canadian courts have so far confirmed it at least twice) that Canada does not have a domestic law of succession (i.e. succession to the Canadian Crown is deemed to be entirely governed by British law alone), so there was no domestic law to amend in that respect. In order to comply with the Statute of Westminster, which is still part of Canadian law though (as amended by the Canada Act, 1982), the Parliament of Canada only had/has to pass an act consenting to the act of the UK Parliament that changed the succession, which is what it did in 2013.


In any case, the bottom line is that removing Harry or Archie from the line of succession, even if they want it, is a difficult process and, in fact, more difficult today than when Edward VIII abdicated in the 1930s. As you have correctly said, however, there is an easy way for Harry not to renounce his succession rights, but rather to disqualify himself: it suffices for him to become a Roman Catholic.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 07-05-2020, 08:52 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
As you have correctly said, however, there is an easy way for Harry not to renounce his succession rights, but rather to disqualify himself: it suffices for him to become a Roman Catholic.
And even that would only be necessary if he wished for the disqualification to be legally irrevocable. If not, then, as you pointed out earlier, it would suffice for him to exclude himself from the Anglican church without joining any other Protestant church, as the Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement allow only Protestants to take the throne.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 07-05-2020, 09:05 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
If a catastrophe sufficiently apocalyptic to eliminate the first 4999 people in the line of succession were to actually occur, does anyone actually believe the (probably new) British government would be directing its energies to recomputing the line of succession, hunting down the person formerly in position #5000, organizing their travel to London and their schooling on the duties of the Sovereign, and installing them as monarch?

So, I think the concept that thousands of people are in line to the British throne can be rightly considered nothing but a polite fiction.
I think if something happened and it became necessary to look past the first 20 in line to the throne then there would be serious calls for a republic (maybe even the first 10) but that doesn't mean the list is a polite fiction. It's entirely theoretical but that doesn't make it fiction because it has legal and historical basis.
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 07-05-2020, 09:16 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
I think if something happened and it became necessary to look past the first 20 in line to the throne then there would be serious calls for a republic (maybe even the first 10) but that doesn't mean the list is a polite fiction. It's entirely theoretical but that doesn't make it fiction because it has legal and historical basis.



I think that tracking down or, more precisely, verifying the eligibility of anyone below the Lascelles or the Fifes would not be an easy task. I am particularly concerned for example about the implications of the Royal Marriages Act, which has been repealed, but with no effect on the line of succession for the people who were subject to it before the repeal (and, consequently, their descendants too).


The discussion is mostly academic though. The only "line of succession" that is normally taken seriously into consideration or even published by the Royal Household is that among the descendants of Elizabeth II, George VI, and George V (in male line) and we are already talking about 59 people here. I assume that, over time, e.g. in the next reign, the Gloucesters and the Kents will be forgotten too, as the Lascelles and the Fifes have been.
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 07-05-2020, 09:36 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
The discussion is mostly academic though. The only "line of succession" that is normally taken seriously into consideration or even published by the Royal Household is that among the descendants of Elizabeth II, George VI, and George V (in male line) and we are already talking about 59 people here. I assume that, over time, e.g. in the next reign, the Gloucesters and the Kents will be forgotten too, as the Lascelles and the Fifes have been.
It's entirely academic as the country would be a republic long before anything or that the descendants of QE2 would be considered and even then in a disaster I would say it's more likely than King Edward the 9th for example.

I believe many of the Kents followed the Duchess into Roman Catholicism. Only the Earl of St Andrews and his daughter Lady Amelia and Lady Helen Taylor and children are in the line of succession. The Dukedom of Kent will eventually become the highest ranking Catholics in the country, knocking the Dukes of Norfolk off that perch.

BBC America did a funny fake reality show about two British aristocrats who were allegedly somewhere in the line of succession, and where they were exactly kept changing every episode and getting lower, showing how unimportant they were and how beyond the descendants of George V no one really knows.
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 07-05-2020, 09:38 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
I think if something happened and it became necessary to look past the first 20 in line to the throne then there would be serious calls for a republic (maybe even the first 10) but that doesn't mean the list is a polite fiction. It's entirely theoretical but that doesn't make it fiction because it has legal and historical basis.
Would "legal fiction" be a better phrase? What I meant is that, past the first few dozen or so, I think the theoretical line is analogous to any other historical laws that officially remain on the books but of which the average citizen has no awareness and which no authorities even make the slightest attempt to enforce.

If a catastrophe left a person such as Lady Margarita Armstrong-Jones as first in the line of succession, I think there would remain at least a slim chance that the British government would track her down, verify her eligibility, and proclaim her Queen. But in a catastrophe apocalyptic enough to eliminate the first 1000 people, I cannot imagine the British government expending the energy to track down an anonymous German relative, verify their legitimacy and religion, and proclaim them King or Queen of the United Kingdom - even though that is what the law requires.

Incidentally, although this hypothetical decimation of the line of succession would most likely occur through deaths, it would also be theoretically possible if something occurred to make Europeans abandon the Protestant religion in droves.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 07-05-2020, 09:40 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 4,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
It's entirely academic as the country would be a republic long before anything or that the descendants of QE2 would be considered and even then in a disaster I would say it's more likely than King Edward the 9th for example.

I believe many of the Kents followed the Duchess into Roman Catholicism. Only the Earl of St Andrews and his daughter Lady Amelia and Lady Helen Taylor and children are in the line of succession. The Dukedom of Kent will eventually become the highest ranking Catholics in the country, knocking the Dukes of Norfolk off that perch.
No, it won't. As the next duke won't be a royal duke, the duke of Kent will be lower in precedence then the duke of Norfolk; as for non-royal dukes the order of precedence is based on the date of the current creation; which is 1483 for the Duke of Norfolk and 1934 for the Duke of Kent.

Once the current royal dukedoms cease to be royal, their order of precedence among them (and after all previously created dukedoms) is:
- Duke of Gloucester (1928)
- Duke of Kent (1934)
- Duke of Sussex (2018)
So, depending on whether Archie will be a royal highness, as a duke he will either have precedence over all non-royal dukes, including the future dukes of Gloucester and Kent, or all of them will have precedence over him.

I assume the dukedoms of Edinburgh and Cambridge will merge with the crown and the dukedom of York will go extinct. Assuming the dukedom of Edinburgh will be recreated for Edward, the future non-royal dukes of Edinburgh will come after the duke of Sussex.
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 07-05-2020, 09:49 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 776
The other possibility is the creation of a regency (see Hungary) pending the monarch being identified.
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 07-05-2020, 10:04 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post

I believe many of the Kents followed the Duchess into Roman Catholicism. Only the Earl of St Andrews and his daughter Lady Amelia and Lady Helen Taylor and children are in the line of succession. The Dukedom of Kent will eventually become the highest ranking Catholics in the country, knocking the Dukes of Norfolk off that perch.
They won't.

During the present reign the Duke of Kent takes his precedence based on being a grandson of a monarch and an HRH.

When he dies his son will be the lowest ranked Duke - as the ranks for non-royal dukes is based on date of the creation of the Dukedom, not on relation to the Crown or line of succession e.g. the Duke of Fife is in the line of succession while the Duke of Norfolk isn't but the Duke of Fife ranks way down the Dukes due to the date of creation.

Norfolk is the 2nd highest based on date of creation - behind Cornwall.
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 07-05-2020, 10:06 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I think that tracking down or, more precisely, verifying the eligibility of anyone below the Lascelles or the Fifes
That is an easy one ... and someone who knows how to do the job - HM The King of Norway followed by the Crown Prince of Norway then his son and then his daughter (the children are the other way round in the line of succession to the Norwegian throne than they are to the British throne due to being born before 28th October 2011).
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 07-05-2020, 10:16 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
They won't.

During the present reign the Duke of Kent takes his precedence based on being a grandson of a monarch and an HRH.

When he dies his son will be the lowest ranked Duke - as the ranks for non-royal dukes is based on date of the creation of the Dukedom, not on relation to the Crown or line of succession e.g. the Duke of Fife is in the line of succession while the Duke of Norfolk isn't but the Duke of Fife ranks way down the Dukes due to the date of creation.

Norfolk is the 2nd highest based on date of creation - behind Cornwall.
Yeah I got confused between this and another article about how they're still the highest ranked Catholics in terms of being Windsors/members of the extended family.
__________________

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: 1 (0 members and 1 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 11:38 AM
Are the Orleans-Braganza in the line of succession to the French throne? Lecen Royal Families of France 7 12-27-2014 08:49 PM




Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abdication abu dhabi althorp american history anastasia bangladesh belgian royal family bridal gown chittagong cht clarence house countess of snowdon danish history diana princess of wales dna dutch dutch history dutch royal family edo facts family tree genealogy habsburg henry v hill historical drama house of grimaldi house of orange-nassau house of saxe-coburg and gotha intro jewelry jumma languages list of rulers lithuanian castles mail maxima mbs netherlands northern ireland norway norway history palaces palestine prince daniel princely family of monaco queen paola random facts royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding royal wedding gown russian court dress settings shakespeare snowdon spain spanish royal swedish history swedish royal family tips tracts uae customs united kingdom visit from sweden wittelsbach working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:28 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×