Line of Succession to the British Throne

[Durham]

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.

These are interesting points that have been touched on before but it isn't strictly speaking a shared monarchy. It's a shared monarch. For the moment at least.

The realms are in a probably transitory personal union. They don't have to have the same line of succession any more than the UK & Hannover did.

 

[Durham]

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.

I can see all that Alison & feel conflicted over this issue but I think sometimes it's best to just lance the boil so to speak. York is not acceptable either of course.

The reason for being conflicted has a lot to do with the issue of once you start tampering with the succession where does it end.

 

[Prinsara]

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.

As another Canadian, I am not sure our current government would even want to be involved. Isn't there a way of kicking the can back, similarly to how I believe the succession law here was tied back to the UK?

 

[Durham]

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. ?

Wouldn't disagree with that. But when does it become important enough? It's an interesting question.

 

[Osipi]

Wouldn't disagree with that. But when does it become important enough? It's an interesting question.

When the need arises? ?

 

[Durham]

When the need arises? ?

Yes but when would that be??

 

[Prinsara]

I think I would imagine that should TPTB ever remove Harry and family they would have to remove Andrew simultaneously, for decency's sake.

With the amount of upheaval and fuss that would ensue, I'm not sure I see the decision being made anytime soon, unless it somehow proceeds in strict confidentiality.

 

[Osipi]

And once it happened to Harry and Andrew, in the future, anyone that caused themselves to be disgraced or went against (in any way, shape or form) against the norm, would be threatened with removal.

Once a snowball starts rolling, it can turn into an avalanche.

 

[Alison H]

The reason for being conflicted has a lot to do with the issue of once you start tampering with the succession where does it end.

That's very true. Nobody's perfect! Well, with the possible exception of the Queen ?. Prince Charles confessed to adultery. Princess Anne's got a criminal record for failing to control her dogs! It could just get silly.

 

[Mbruno]

These are interesting points that have been touched on before but it isn't strictly speaking a shared monarchy. It's a shared monarch. For the moment at least.

The realms are in a probably transitory personal union. They don't have to have the same line of succession any more than the UK & Hannover did.

Even assuming it would be possible to do it, it would be a huge mistake for the UK to change the line of succession unilaterally bypassing the Commonwealth Realms. In fact that would be a huge boost to the republicans in those countries.

As another Canadian, I am not sure our current government would even want to be involved. Isn't there a way of kicking the can back, similarly to how I believe the succession law here was tied back to the UK?

Not an expert here, but, as far as I understand, what the Canadian courts said is that:

1. The rules of succession are not part of Canadian law or the Canadian constitution.


2. The principle of symmetry in the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867 implies that the person who occupies the throne of the United Kingdom under the British laws of succession is automatically the King or Queen of Canada.

3. It follows from (1) and (2) that no change to Canadian law or the Canadian constitution is necessary to change the rules of succession. However, under the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, 1931, which is still in force in Canada and is part of Canadian law, the Parliament of Canada is required to assent to any act of the UK Parliament changing the law of succession. That is why the Parliament of Canada had to pass the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 . Note that the text of the linked Canadian act does not change any point in Canadian law, but rather merely assents to the British Succession to the Crown Act.


BTW, the Supreme Court of Canada refused in 2020 leave to appeal against the ruling above of Court of Appeal of Quebec, so that interpretation, as weird as it is, is now the law of the land in Canada.

It is weird because, in 1936, in addition to an act of the Canadian Parliament merely assenting to the UK Parliament's Abdication Act under the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, the government of Canada also issued an Order in Council consenting to the same act under S.4 of the Statute of Westminster (now repealed in Canada), which dealt specifically with incorporation of acts of the British Parliament into Canadian law. The plaintiffs used that latter fact as evidence that the law of succession was indeed part of Canadian law, but the Court of Appeal rejected that opinion in a somewhat convoluted ruling where it argued that the Abdication Act was different in nature from the Succession to the Crown Act because it not only changed the order of succession and the rules for disqualification, but also affected the principle of hereditary succession which, according to the Court, is part of the Canadian constitution.

Australia, on the other hand, took a diametrically opposed position and asserted that the law of succession is not only part of Australian federal law, but also actually part of the law of each individual Australian state,. Since S.4 of the Statute of Westminster was repealed in Australia by the Australia Act, 1986 and no act of the UK Parliament can now extend to Australia , there was no alternative but to amend both federal and state law, which is partly why it took two years for Australia to ratify the Succession to the Crown Act.

 

[Countessmeout]

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. ?

If ever.

He is 6th in line. In the 21st century with modern medicine, and royals not going into battle, he might as well be 60th in line for the throne. There is a minute chance that even Charlotte would see the throne. Not alone Louis or Harry. Nor is the government likely to blame an innocent baby (Archie) for what ever issues his father did.

What exactly has Harry done wrong to removed from succession?

Again its sad how controlled the BRF is. Even those who aren't the heir are expected to be confined to royal duties. And to the borders of the UK. If Harry was born into any other royal family he would be free to have a job and move abroad and no one would blink. Or demand his removal from succession.

It would be one thing if Harry committed a crime. Or was doing something to damage the monarchy. Like his nazi leaning great Uncle Edward. Or his child molester friendship Uncle Andrew.

But depriving a royal of their place in succession for simply getting a job and moving, is harsh and sets a horrible precedent.


People keep talking about the 'slimmed down monarchy'. What happens when Charlotte or Louis want to have jobs or perhaps work abroad, in the 'slimmed down monarchy'. The precedent would be set that they would have to be stripped of their title and place in succession like their Uncle was.


Parliament has more to worry about then the fickleness of the public. 5000 people are surveyed. Next week opinions will shift. Sadly some people are lemmings at times following the press over a cliff.


There is a reason succession can't be changed at a whim.

 

[Mbruno]

What exactly has Harry done wrong to removed from succession?

Again its sad how controlled the BRF is. Even those who aren't the heir are expected to be confined to royal duties. And to the borders of the UK. If Harry was born into any other royal family he would be free to have a job and move abroad and no one would blink. Or demand his removal from succession.

It is not that simple. Princess Benedikte's children were removed from the Danish line of succession because they were not raised in Denmark and Benedikte is now only 11th in line, I think. Likewise, Princess Leonore was about to be removed from the Swedish line of succession because she would turn 6 and start Grade School in the US in contravention of the clause in the Act of Succession that requires that "princes and princesses of the Royal House be raised in the realm" (i.e. in Sweden). The Royal Court came up with a "creative reading" of the Act of Sucession to keep her succession rights, but the price she had to pay was to cease to be a "Princess of the Royal House".


Anyway, the point is that a potential successor raised in a foreign country like Archie is still an issue too at least in the Scandinavian monarchies for example.

 

[Mbruno]

I have located the statement made in 2015 by then Deputy PM Nick Clegg to the British House of Commons about the commencement of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, see link below,


https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2015-03-26/HCWS490


As you can see, according to the Deputy PM:

• Six Realms in addition to the United Kingdom chose to legislate to give effect to the changes in the line of succession: Australia, Barbados, Canada, New Zealand, St Kitts and Nevis, and St Vincent and the Grenadines.
• Nine Realms concluded that the legislation was not necessary: Antigua and Barbuda; Bahamas, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, St Lucia, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu.

Moreover, a detailed timetable of the legislative action taken by each of 7 involved Realms can be found in the Wikipedia's article on the Perth Agreement .

As you can see again by clicking on the link, the UK Parliament passed the Succession to the Crown Act on April 25, 2013. By December 13, all other Realms which judged that legislative action was necessary had already finalized the process, except Australia. Apparently, the process there was held back by the state of Western Australia, which didn't pass enabling legislation until March 3, 2015. After all states had acted, the Australian federal parliament finally passed the Succession to the Crown Act 2015 on March 18, 2015, nearlly two years after the original UK act was passed.

I conclude from that experiment that, had it not been for the delay in Australia, it would have been feasible to enact changes to the line of succession within a timetable of one year at most, which is not that bad. If the Quebec court case that I mentioned before had succeeded, matters would have become more complicated because all Canadian provinces would have gotten a say in the matter too and a possibly separatist province like Quebec would have acquired a de facto constitutional veto, which it could have in turn used as a bargaining chip with the federal government to push for other constitutional changes. However, with the ruling of the Quebec Court of Appeal and the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to refuse leave to appeal, the matter is settled for now.

Assuming that potential renunciations of succession rights by members of the BRF will be handled in the same manner, I believe that it is feasible to formalize them within a reasonable time frame if there are no more holdouts as it happened in Western Australia in 2013-2015. A potential abdication, e.g. by Queen Elizabeth II or the future King Charles III , could be trickier as the decision of the Court of Appeal in Quebec suggests that, in this latter case, the simplified procedure adopted by Canada in 2013 might not apply and the full constitutional amendment route might be necessary.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The agreement though was made on 28th October, 2011 and it still took 18 months to get the legislation into a form that would meet the requirements of the different constitutions. It isn't enough to look simply at the period from it passing in the UK until gazetted but from the date of the agreement. Each country even had someone on the panel to write the legislation and it took them 18 months to get that right before anyone even started the process of actually passing the legislation.

I wouldn't be surprised if Australia took even longer if such an issue were to arise again with people even asking 'why waste our time at all?'. With many of our states being Labor states and thus pro-republican it is possible they would simply see no need to pass any such legislation again in the future.

 

[Mbruno]

The agreement though was made on 28th October, 2011 and it still took 18 months to get the legislation into a form that would meet the requirements of the different constitutions. It isn't enough to look simply at the period from it passing in the UK until gazetted but from the date of the agreement. Each country even had someone on the panel to write the legislation and it took them 18 months to get that right before anyone even started the process of actually passing the legislation.

I wouldn't be surprised if Australia took even longer if such an issue were to arise again with people even asking 'why waste our time at all?'. With many of our states being Labor states and thus pro-republican it is possible they would simply see no need to pass any such legislation again in the future.

You make an interesting point. My understanding, however, is that the Realms could not have acted before a Succession bill was actually laid out before the the UK Parliament. So I blame mostly the British government for the 2011-2013 delay. Canada's Succession to the Throne Act for example was passed in March 2013, actually one month before the British Succession to the Crown Act completed its progress through the UK Parliament.



In the event of a renunciation or abdication, I understand it would be in the interest of all parties, or at least of the British government, to expedite the process.

 

[Durham]

Even assuming it would be possible to do it, it would be a huge mistake for the UK to change the line of succession unilaterally bypassing the Commonwealth Realms. In fact that would be a huge boost to the republicans in those countries.

It

I agree it would be less than desirable. It's certainly not something to be wanted. I think there are C21st political benefits to be had (at least for the CANZUK nations) in being in personal union. We are after all greater than the sum of our parts & the crown can still serve a purpose as a symbol of uniquely shared bonds of history.

 

[Durham]

I have located the statement made in 2015 by then Deputy PM Nick Clegg to the British House of Commons about the commencement of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, see link below,


https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2015-03-26/HCWS490


As you can see, according to the Deputy PM:

Thanks for the link. It's an interesting topic.

 

[SLV]

Question about that long list of people in line to the throne.
Isn't it the rule that you must have the Queens permission to marry in order for it to be valid and stay in line of the throne?
If so, did ALL of those people do so ( I have only heard of Prince Ernst-August of Hannover doing so when marrying princes Caroline of Monaco). If not, will this list not be a LOT shorter.
Somehow I doubt the other Royal Families apply to HM.

 

[Princess Duchess]

Question about that long list of people in line to the throne.
Isn't it the rule that you must have the Queens permission to marry in order for it to be valid and stay in line of the throne?
If so, did ALL of those people do so ( I have only heard of Prince Ernst-August of Hannover doing so when marrying princes Caroline of Monaco). If not, will this list not be a LOT shorter.
Somehow I doubt the other Royal Families apply to HM.

That was the rule but they updated it so that only the first 6 need to ask. Anyone 7th in line and below don’t need to. Hence why Harry had to ask yet Beatrice and Eugenie didn’t.

 

[Mbruno]

Question about that long list of people in line to the throne.
Isn't it the rule that you must have the Queens permission to marry in order for it to be valid and stay in line of the throne?
If so, did ALL of those people do so ( I have only heard of Prince Ernst-August of Hannover doing so when marrying princes Caroline of Monaco). If not, will this list not be a LOT shorter.
Somehow I doubt the other Royal Families apply to HM.

The rule you mentioned (set out in the Royal Marriages Act 1772) was actually repealed by the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, but, as far as the line of sucession to the Crown is concerned, it is still valid for marriages that were contracted prior to that.

Marrying wthout consent didn't actually disqualify the person who got married, but the issue of that marriage (and consequently all the future descendants too) were considered illegitimate and, therefore, disqualified. Descendants of British princesses who married into foreign royal families were exempt, but you are right that, if needed, it would be quite hard to verify if someone way down the line had been disqualified or not under the Royal Marriages Act.

The new rule that is in force after the commencement of the Succession to the Crown Act is much more straightforward: only the first six persons in line require the monarch's consent to marry; the marriage is legally valid despite the lack of consent (i.e. any future child is legitimate), but the person who marries without consent and all the descendants from that marriage are disqualified from the succession.


EDIT: I am not quite sure, but I think there was a loophole in the Royal Marriages Act under which a person who was refused consent to marriage, provided he/she was 25 or over, could still have a legal marriage within one year after giving notice of his/her intention to marry to the Privy Council, unless both houses of Parliament opposed it.

 

[Heavs]

You can look back at some of the engagement and wedding threads here and occasionally find people who would be hundreds of places down the line of succession noting that they had asked for and received permission from HM prior to 2013. I suppose it was just part of the family tradition and possibly bragging rights for some.

 

[Durham]

Slightly off topic but when was the last time it was refused I wonder?

 

[Osipi]

Slightly off topic but when was the last time it was refused I wonder?

My guess would be this came into play when Princess Margaret wanted to marry Peter Townsend. The Queen gave her permission with a consequence. If she married Peter, she'd lose her place in the line of succession.

"There was a catch, though: To marry Townsend under this plan, Margaret would have had to give up her right of ever succeeding to the throne and those of her children, too. It’s not clear if this is why Margaret eventually broke off her relationship with Townsend, but the scandalous near-marriage never occurred."

https://www.history.com/news/why-princess-margaret-sacrificed-love-for-the-crown

 

[Curryong]

Permission was refused in 1946 for the marriage of Prince George Wilhelm of Hanover to Princess Sophie of Hesse (she had been married to Prince Cristoph of Hesse who was killed in action in WW2.)

The then Duke of Brunswick wrote to King George VI for permission on behalf of his son but it was never granted due to the bride and groom (and the Hanover family) being regarded as enemy aliens. Sophie was of course sister to Prince Philip. The couple married in April 1946 anyway. I think the decision was conveyed to the Duke of Brunswick by diplomatic sources.

 

[Durham]

My guess would be this came into play when Princess Margaret wanted to marry Peter Townsend. The Queen gave her permission with a consequence. If she married Peter, she'd lose her place in the line of succession.

"There was a catch, though: To marry Townsend under this plan, Margaret would have had to give up her right of ever succeeding to the throne and those of her children, too. It’s not clear if this is why Margaret eventually broke off her relationship with Townsend, but the scandalous near-marriage never occurred."

https://www.history.com/news/why-princess-margaret-sacrificed-love-for-the-crown

Thanks for the link. An interesting read. The 50's seem so far away from today's way of thinking don't they!

 

[Claire]

Slightly off topic but when was the last time it was refused I wonder?

There was no need to if the Queen found the relationship of any of her children not suitable she ended the relationship before they could ask.
point in case - Camilla and I think one of Edward's girlfriends where the Queen made it known that they were not welcome.

 

[Durham]

Permission was refused in 1946 for the marriage of Prince George Wilhelm of Hanover to Princess Sophie of Hesse (she had been married to Prince Cristoph of Hesse who was killed in action in WW2.)

The then Duke of Brunswick wrote to King George VI for permission on behalf of his son but it was never granted due to the bride and groom (and the Hanover family) being regarded as enemy aliens. Sophie was of course sister to Prince Philip. The couple married in April 1946 anyway. I think the decision was conveyed to the Duke of Brunswick by diplomatic sources.

What a curious tale. Thank you. So his descendants are not in the British line of succession as a result?

 

[Mbruno]

What a curious tale. Thank you. So his descendants are not in the British line of succession as a result?

I assume they are not.

The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 made the marriage retroactively legal in the UK (it was of course already legal in Germany), so their descendants are now considered legitimate under British law, but the exclusion from the line of succession is permanent nonetheless.


It was an odd piece of legislation really.

 

[Curryong]

The article below discusses the whole thorny question. Certainly at the time any children of the marriage, being considered illegitimate under British law, wouldn't be in the line of Succession. This article also states that the marriage was the only time that permission to marry was withheld by a British monarch after a formal request.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Sophie_of_Greece_and_Denmark

It's rather ironic that the descendants of the children of Princess Sophie's first marriage are presumably in the line of succession, considering that Prince Cristoph (a cousin) was an ardent Nazi and in the Luftwaffe, flying on many missions during the war, while the descendants of her second marriage, contracted after the end of the war, are not.

https://lineofsuccession.co.uk/p/f4dfe3-prince-christoph-of-hesse-kassel

 

[SLV]

Thank you, for your clear explanation.
The Crown Act 2013 makes much more sense than the old one.

The rule you mentioned (set out in the Royal Marriages Act 1772) was actually repealed by the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, but, as far as the line of sucession to the Crown is concerned, it is still valid for marriages that were contracted prior to that.

Marrying wthout consent didn't actually disqualify the person who got married, but the issue of that marriage (and consequently all the future descendants too) were considered illegitimate and, therefore, disqualified. Descendants of British princesses who married into foreign royal families were exempt, but you are right that, if needed, it would be quite hard to verify if someone way down the line had been disqualified or not under the Royal Marriages Act.

The new rule that is in force after the commencement of the Succession to the Crown Act is much more straightforward: only the first six persons in line require the monarch's consent to marry; the marriage is legally valid despite the lack of consent (i.e. any future child is legitimate), but the person who marries without consent and all the descendants from that marriage are disqualified from the succession.


EDIT: I am not quite sure, but I think there was a loophole in the Royal Marriages Act under which a person who was refused consent to marriage, provided he/she was 25 or over, could still have a legal marriage within one year after giving notice of his/her intention to marry to the Privy Council, unless both houses of Parliament opposed it.