This has also been pointed out in the Peerage News Google group. Apparently the Albany title might be available. But the matter would have to be investigated & the facts established before the title could be used. I suspect the Queen will just avoid it.
Line of Succession to the British Throne
- Thread starter danishjaveed
- Start date
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
This has also been pointed out in the Peerage News Google group. Apparently the Albany title might be available. But the matter would have to be investigated & the facts established before the title could be used. I suspect the Queen will just avoid it.
There is no need to investigate really .The last official one Charles Edward fought for the Germans in WW1 and was stripped of the Garter in 1915 and of his title in 1919 - after that he became a Nazi (he was a SA General ),had working knowledge of the Death Camps as head of the German Red Cross and had to be de-Nazified at the end of the war .All his sons fought in the Wermacht in WW2 .
Him and few others were stripped under an Act of Parliament
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_Deprivation_Act_1917
None of the heirs (and CE's sons all had morganatic marriages anyway) ever re applied to regain the title (it's been 100 years at this point ) and I imagine they would have been told to take a running jump if they had .
So Albany is available but is still far too dodgy to be used .It took 200 years after James II took the throne (it was also his fathers title )for it to be used again (it was combined with the Ducal title of York under the Hanovers and 3 times it died with it's childless holder)
Dead King ,deposed King and a Nazi as 3 of the last 4 holders
Yes, you are correct, Charles Edward was stripped of his peerage (and royal title) by the Titles Deprivation Act. But the Act also gave his successors the right to petition the Crown for revival of the title - "It shall be lawful for the successor of any peer whose name has been so removed, to present a petition to His Majesty praying to have the peerage restored and his name placed on the Peerage Roll."
Titles Deprivation Act (1917/1919)
Charles Edward's oldest son Johann Leopold did marry morganatically but because the concept of morganatic marriage isn't recognized in Britain that's irrelevant. Although it prevented Johann Leopold and his sons from inheriting Charles Edward's German titles (Coburg) they would still be able to succeed to his British titles (Albany).
What is important is that neither Johann Leopold nor his brother appear to have requested permission to marry as required by the Royal Marriages Act. If this is true, his descendants cannot petition the Crown for a revival. This is what would need to be investigated before the Queen could grant Albany to someone else.
This is also why the Cumberland title isn't available. The last Duke was also deprived under the Titles Deprivation Act but his current successor Ernst August of Hanover could petition the Crown for a revival of the title.
Titles Deprivation Act (1917/1919)
Charles Edward's oldest son Johann Leopold did marry morganatically but because the concept of morganatic marriage isn't recognized in Britain that's irrelevant. Although it prevented Johann Leopold and his sons from inheriting Charles Edward's German titles (Coburg) they would still be able to succeed to his British titles (Albany).
What is important is that neither Johann Leopold nor his brother appear to have requested permission to marry as required by the Royal Marriages Act. If this is true, his descendants cannot petition the Crown for a revival. This is what would need to be investigated before the Queen could grant Albany to someone else.
This is also why the Cumberland title isn't available. The last Duke was also deprived under the Titles Deprivation Act but his current successor Ernst August of Hanover could petition the Crown for a revival of the title.
Something I've wondered about...the children of Charles Edward Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha apparently didn't seek permission to marry as required under the terms of the Royal Marriages Act. This apparently included his daughter Sibylla, wife of Prince Gustaf Adolf of Sweden and mother of King Carl XVI Gustaf.
Royal Musings: Royal Marriages Act - and who was actually eligible?
If Sibylla's marriage was invalid under British law then under British law her children were illegitimate. But wouldn't this mean Carl Gustaf and his sisters have NO British succession rights even through their father, who was also a descendant of Queen Victoria. Is this interpretation correct?
For example, because Augustus Duke of Sussex didn't receive permission to marry Lady Augusta Murray their two children were considered to be illegitimate. The son Augustus d'Este was not only barred from the succession but he also could not inherit the Sussex title when his father died.
From The Royal Marriages 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."
The Royal Marriage Act, 1772
Royal Musings: Royal Marriages Act - and who was actually eligible?
If Sibylla's marriage was invalid under British law then under British law her children were illegitimate. But wouldn't this mean Carl Gustaf and his sisters have NO British succession rights even through their father, who was also a descendant of Queen Victoria. Is this interpretation correct?
For example, because Augustus Duke of Sussex didn't receive permission to marry Lady Augusta Murray their two children were considered to be illegitimate. The son Augustus d'Este was not only barred from the succession but he also could not inherit the Sussex title when his father died.
From The Royal Marriages 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."
The Royal Marriage Act, 1772
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2003
- Messages
- 7,462
- City
- Esslingen
- Country
- Germany
But the descendants of Princesses who married in a foreign Royal House di not need to ask for Permission. And the swedish Royals are the descendants of Princess Margaret of Connaught. So perhaps this was the reason Gustadf Adolf and Sibylla did not ask for Permission.
Yes, Gustaf Adolf didn't need permission. But Sibylla did, just as her aunt Alice of Albany needed permission to marry Alexander of Teck even though he was a descendant of a Princess who married into a foreign Royal House.
So did Gustaf Adolf's mother Margaret of Connaught whose husband Gustaf VI Adolf was also a descendant of a Princess who married into a foreign Royal House.
Other princesses who married a descendant of a Princess who married into a foreign royal house but still needed permission:
Helena, daughter of Queen Victoria, married Christian of Augustenberg.
Maud, daughter of Edward VII, married Carl of Denmark.
Queen Elizabeth II, married Philip of Greece.
In addition, several princes married princesses who were exempt for the same reason, including Edward VII (married Alexandra of Denmark, a descendant of George II's daughters Louisa and Mary) and George V (married Mary of Teck, the daughter of Princess Mary Adelaide).
So marriage to a descendant who was exempt made no difference.
Given the fact that Charles Edward had been deprived of his British title (Title Deprivation Act) and his children were no longer British HRHs (1917 Letters Patent) I suppose he didn't want to be bothered with requesting permission from the British monarch.
Don't worry, their marriage was legal (see Succession to the Crown Act 2013)
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/2013/20/pdfs/ukpga_20130020_en.pdf
cepe
Majesty
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2012
- Messages
- 6,333
- City
- London
- Country
- United Kingdom
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)?
principessa
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2006
- Messages
- 3,756
- City
- Schweinfurt
- Country
- Germany
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!
Thank you!
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. ?
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2017
- Messages
- 10,320
- City
- BC
- Country
- Canada
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.
Last edited:
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
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!
Last edited by a moderator:
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).
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
Courtier
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2012
- Messages
- 726
- City
- Hamilton
- Country
- Canada
Yes, you are correct, he is excluded because he was born before his parents married.
Ish
Moderator Emeritus
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 4,112
- City
- Vancouver
- Country
- Canada
His parents' divorce doesn't play into it - Benjamin is excluded simply because his parents weren't married when he was born.
Kotroman
Nobility
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2009
- Messages
- 468
- City
- -
- Country
- Bosnia and Herzegovina
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.
Last edited:
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.
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
Nobility
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2009
- Messages
- 468
- City
- -
- Country
- Bosnia and Herzegovina
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.
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
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 ?
Last edited:
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
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 ?
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.
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
Similar threads
