Line of Succession to the British Throne

[Somebody]

Moved to a different topic.

 

[theroyalfly]

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/20110517155140/http://www.wargs.com/essays/succession/2011.html

 

[Somebody]

This link is not an updated one but it lists further down the line. (as of 2011)


https://web.archive.org/web/20110517155140/http://www.wargs.com/essays/succession/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...

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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.

 

[Mbruno]

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.

 

[Iluvbertie]

No - legitimation by marriage' doesn't count in the line of succession either to the throne or to a title.

 

[Lady Marlboro]

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.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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.

 

[Iluvbertie]

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.

 

[JR76]

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.

 

[Mbruno]

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 ?

 

[Mbruno]

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.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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/forum...o-the-british-throne-44513-2.html#post2094499

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.

 

[Camsterlaird]

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.

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.

 

[Mbruno]

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):

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

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.

 

[Carin]

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

 

[Pranter]

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.

 

[Iluvbertie]

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

 

[Iluvbertie]

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.

 

[Pranter]

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

 

[LauraS3514]

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...

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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/20110517155140/http://www.wargs.com/essays/succession/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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

 

[Mbruno]

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.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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.

 

[Heavs]

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.

 

[Mbruno]

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.

 

[Heavs]

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.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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.

 

[Somebody]

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.

 

[Durham]

The other possibility is the creation of a regency (see Hungary) pending the monarch being identified.