The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #5981  
Old 09-25-2021, 10:35 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,447
Here is a copy of the original Act of 1831.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/bri...y_act.htm#1831


However in my previous post (post 5978) I went to Wiki which provided a copy, in 21st century language, of the relevant sections. And the summary provided the answer, viz that Victoria would retain the title of Majesty and Queen but would no longer be regarded as the reigning sovereign. That would pass to William’s posthumous child, who would be the new monarch (under his/her mother’s regency until the age of 18 years.)
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5982  
Old 09-26-2021, 08:49 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,052
Thank you for both the link and the summary, Curryong.

However, having read both, I do not see any regulations in the Act addressing the titles that Victoria would hold after she ceased to be the reigning Sovereign. If I have overlooked them, please point them out to me.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5983  
Old 09-26-2021, 09:31 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,447
  • Sections 3, 4 and 5 were to apply if, after King William's death and Victoria's accession, Queen Adelaide gave birth to his posthumous child. In that event the child would become monarch, Queen Adelaide was to become regent, the Privy Council was to proclaim the accession of the new sovereign "without delay", both Houses of Parliament were to assemble, and the laws concerning the demise of the Crown were to apply as though Queen Victoria had died and the new monarch was her heir.
In 1831, when this Act became law, obviously Alexandrina Victoria, although heir to her uncle, was still a minor and just a Princess. However, after she had been proclaimed Queen following his demise, and news came that Queen Adelaide was expecting a child, Victoria would still be monarch until that child was born alive. Obviously she would not have been crowned during that time, but she would still reign.

I may be completely wrong in my reading of this and as you say, the Act certainly does not spell her titles out but if Victoria was on the throne for say six months of 1837 following William IV’s death I cannot see Parliament demoting her to being Princess Alexandrina Victoria again afterwards.

It would have been a very strange situation and it’s just as well that it didn’t happen that way!
Reply With Quote
  #5984  
Old 09-26-2021, 09:49 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
I may be completely wrong in my reading of this and as you say, the Act certainly does not spell her titles out but if Victoria was on the throne for say six months of 1837 following William IV’s death I cannot see Parliament demoting her to being Princess Alexandrina Victoria again afterwards.
But Parliament did not interfere when King George VI demoted King Edward VIII to Prince Edward after Edward had reigned for nearly a year.

Having read the complete Regency Act at the Heraldica link, the only section which I think might be interpreted to address Victoria's situation after the cessation of her reign in favor of William IV's hypothetical posthumous child is Section 5:
"V. And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That upon the Birth of such Child the Two Houses of Parliament shall forthwith assemble, and all the Laws and Regulations now in force in regard to the Meeting, the Sitting, the Continuance, the Prorogation, and the Dissolution of Parliament, and to the Continuance of the Privy Council, and of Persons in their Offices, Places, and Employments, upon the Demise of the Crown and the Accession of the Successor, shall be deemed and taken to apply to the Succession of such Child, in the same Manner as if such Child had succeeded to the Crown upon the Demise of Her Royal Highness the Princess Alexandrina Victoria, and as Her Heir."
This section might be interpreted as declaring Victoria to be legally dead as regards the constitutional succession, but it's not clear to me what the consequences of that would be on her title.
Reply With Quote
  #5985  
Old 09-26-2021, 10:01 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,447
Yes, but the abdication of King Edward VIII was a completely different situation, wasn’t it?

It is a pity that Parliament was not clear about Victoria’s titles if the Queen Consort was to bear the King’s posthumous child.

However, perhaps in view of Queen Adelaide’s history, five stillbirths and one daughter who died at a few months old, they regarded it as very unlikely that any such child would survive. Adelaide was in her mid forties by 1837.
Reply With Quote
  #5986  
Old 09-26-2021, 12:16 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,647
It's certainly an intriguing what if.

To continue with the hypothetical, Victoria could have acceded to the throne twice. If a posthumous child of William iv had lived for x number of years & then died before having a child of their own then Victoria would have become monarch for a second time. And this time for the rest of her life.

She could have been Victoria I & II.
Reply With Quote
  #5987  
Old 09-26-2021, 12:41 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Here is a copy of the original Act of 1831.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/bri...y_act.htm#1831
Thanks for the link.
Reply With Quote
  #5988  
Old 09-26-2021, 01:48 PM
Prinsara's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 1,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
But Parliament did not interfere when King George VI demoted King Edward VIII to Prince Edward after Edward had reigned for nearly a year.
George did not demote Edward; Edward voluntarily demoted himself and legally renounced the position, title (and style) of "King". Obviously he had to be called something else. The BBC wanted to introduce him for his speech as "Mr Edward Windsor" and I'm fairly certain it was the new King who pointed out he was still the son of a monarch and thus "HRH The Prince Edward" introduction.

Quote:
This section might be interpreted as declaring Victoria to be legally dead as regards the constitutional succession, but it's not clear to me what the consequences of that would be on her title.
I'm not sure how this would have worked out, either, but who was going to be Regent for this hypothetical baby and why wouldn't Victoria have been acceptable? Seems more sensible then taking a functioning adult off the throne — and leaving it open to the continued gaze of the King of Hanover, which pretty much nobody in Britain wanted. In which case she might have been "The Princess Regent" or even "Queen Regent", no?
Reply With Quote
  #5989  
Old 09-26-2021, 04:12 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,447
It states in the 1831 Act, posted upthread in both its original and 21st century forms, that as soon as a surviving posthumous heir was born, its mother Queen Adelaide would be appointed Regent.

Of course, she may not have survived the childbirth, that certainly wasn’t a given in those days, in which case Victoria may well have been chosen, or perhaps a younger son of King George III. Ernest, Duke of Cumberland would probably have been delighted!

However, if Victoria had been appointed as Regent by Parliament following Adelaide’s death then she would have remained in power for another 18 years (under the aegis of Parliament of course) and perhaps with the support and assistance of a husband.

The odd situation would have continued but at least if Victoria’s title had been say Princess Regent that would have removed any future ambiguities. If Adelaide had been Regent I doubt that she would have had the power, on her own, to demote Victoria back to being a Princess.
Reply With Quote
  #5990  
Old 09-26-2021, 04:46 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
George did not demote Edward; Edward voluntarily demoted himself and legally renounced the position, title (and style) of "King".
Was His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 intended to renounce the title along with the position? While it mentions that "His Majesty shall cease to be King and there shall be a demise of the Crown", one might read "cease to be King" as ceasing to hold the position of the King.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
It states in the 1831 Act, posted upthread in both its original and 21st century forms,
I do not think the Regency Act 1831 has ever been updated into a 21st century form. The Wikipedia article that you posted above is not quoting a different form of the Act, the writer or writers are merely paraphrasing the original contents of the 1831 Act using their own words.

Further Regency Acts were subsequently passed (most recently in 1953), as seen on the Heraldica page, but I believe these were fresh Acts rather than updates of the Regency Act 1831.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
The odd situation would have continued but at least if Victoria’s title had been Regent that would have removed any future ambiguities. If Adelaide had been Regent I doubt that she would have had the power, on her own, to demote Victoria back to being a Princess.
Sections 1 and 3 of the Regency Act 1831 (and thank you for posting it ) state that the Regent, whether that be the Duchess of Kent or Queen Adelaide, will have "full Power and Authority [...] under the Style and Title of Regent of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". I believe that means that when their power and authority ceased with the termination of their regency, then their right to the title of "Regent of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" would correspondingly cease.
Reply With Quote
  #5991  
Old 09-26-2021, 04:57 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,447
That was a mistake by me. Thanks for pointing it out. I meant to have typed ‘in 21st century wording’ not ‘forms’. Careless of me, especially as I do know about the subsequent Regency Acts.

In ‘future ambiguities’ I meant Victoria possessing the title of Princess Regent rather than Queen while the heir was still growing up, not after he/she came to the throne. However Queen Adelaide was likely to have lived and been Regent.

That still doesn’t resolve the problem of what Victoria’s titles would have been following her brief ‘reign’ in 1837 before the birth of Adelaide’s baby, for me, anyway! And of course, as has been pointed out, that child may well have not survived. In that case it would have been Queen Victoria on the throne for the rest of her life!
Reply With Quote
  #5992  
Old 09-26-2021, 05:20 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,234
The issue with Victoria succeeding a hypothetical posthumous child however is the wording of the act:

Sections 3, 4 and 5 were to apply if, after King William's death and Victoria's accession, Queen Adelaide gave birth to his posthumous child. In that event the child would become monarch, Queen Adelaide was to become regent, the Privy Council was to proclaim the accession of the new sovereign "without delay", both Houses of Parliament were to assemble, and the laws concerning the demise of the Crown were to apply as though Queen Victoria had died and the new monarch was her heir.

This wording would mean that somehow they would have to bring Victoria 'back to life'. Now the issue would be - if the child died suddenly with this wording Victoria was already regarded as 'dead' and so Ernest would have inherited ... with the consequent issues that would have given rise to.

Fortunately all hypothetical.
Reply With Quote
  #5993  
Old 09-26-2021, 05:39 PM
Prinsara's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 1,642
Wouldn't it have been very difficult to get Victoria back on to the throne when her cousin's ascension would have hinged on her already being treated as "dead" and disposed (not deposed)? If she couldn't be treated as heir to the child, it seems quite hard to just recall her if need be.

And I realize that both Adelaide and the Duchess of Kent were meant to be regents for minor children, but the Act was drafted when Victoria was 11 or 12. It doesn't seem that anybody bothered to take into account Victoria herself succeeding with the sworn loyalty of the Privy Council. I'm not sure that non-British Adelaide who was never in line for the throne, even with a child, would have thought it wise or even wanted to be Regent in place of her already-acceded adult niece. Even if she did, I'm fairly sure enough Parliamentary support could and would have been found to clarify a position for Victoria, and it might be that given the unique option, the former Sovereign should be Regent, not the foreign mother. Or perhaps the King of Hanover would have won over enough of them. :)
Reply With Quote
  #5994  
Old 09-26-2021, 05:44 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The issue with Victoria succeeding a hypothetical posthumous child however is the wording of the act:

Sections 3, 4 and 5 were to apply if, after King William's death and Victoria's accession, Queen Adelaide gave birth to his posthumous child. In that event the child would become monarch, Queen Adelaide was to become regent, the Privy Council was to proclaim the accession of the new sovereign "without delay", both Houses of Parliament were to assemble, and the laws concerning the demise of the Crown were to apply as though Queen Victoria had died and the new monarch was her heir.

This wording would mean that somehow they would have to bring Victoria 'back to life'. Now the issue would be - if the child died suddenly with this wording Victoria was already regarded as 'dead' and so Ernest would have inherited ... with the consequent issues that would have given rise to.

Fortunately all hypothetical.
That is the wording of the Wikipedia article. Though it is an adequate summary, the real wording of the Act (post 5982) was

"V. And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That upon the Birth of such Child the Two Houses of Parliament shall forthwith assemble, and all the Laws and Regulations now in force in regard to the Meeting, the Sitting, the Continuance, the Prorogation, and the Dissolution of Parliament, and to the Continuance of the Privy Council, and of Persons in their Offices, Places, and Employments, upon the Demise of the Crown and the Accession of the Successor, shall be deemed and taken to apply to the Succession of such Child, in the same Manner as if such Child had succeeded to the Crown upon the Demise of Her Royal Highness the Princess Alexandrina Victoria, and as Her Heir."

So, upon the succession of the posthumous child, Victoria would be regarded as "dead" in regards to the meetings of Parliament, the continuance of the Privy Council, etc. But that does not necessarily imply she would be regarded as "dead" in regards to all laws.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
That was a mistake by me. Thanks for pointing it out. I meant to have typed ‘in 21st century wording’ not ‘forms’.

In ‘future ambiguities’ I meant Victoria possessing the title of Princess Regent rather than Queen while the heir was still growing up, not after he/she came to the throne. However Queen Adelaide was likely to have lived and been Regent.
Understood. Thank you for clarifying.
Reply With Quote
  #5995  
Old 09-26-2021, 05:47 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,447
Not with Ernest’s lack of popularity within Parliament, and his reputation generally among the ruling classes, Pinsara! I think there was a sigh of relief all round when he eventually went off to Hanover.
Reply With Quote
  #5996  
Old 09-26-2021, 06:28 PM
Prinsara's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 1,642
Well, Carryon, given that the baby's only and immediate heir was pretty much loathed throughout the land, I suspect Parliament would have been jumping trying to do something to shore up their "late" Sovereign Lady Victoria. And that there would have been far bigger problems in Britain than "what do we call her now".
Reply With Quote
  #5997  
Old 09-26-2021, 06:38 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,052
I suspect you unintentionally used autocorrect on Curryong's name.

See here for my reply on the regency issue.

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ml#post2427942
Reply With Quote
  #5998  
Old 09-26-2021, 06:39 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,052
............
Reply With Quote
  #5999  
Old 09-26-2021, 06:52 PM
Prinsara's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 1,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria
Was His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 intended to renounce the title along with the position? While it mentions that "His Majesty shall cease to be King and there shall be a demise of the Crown", one might read "cease to be King" as ceasing to hold the position of the King.
If you freely give up the position of Sovereign in 1936, and all the rights for yourself and any descendants, and cause multiple crises while doing so, and do it in a context where there is absolutely no precedent for abdication whatsoever, by what right can you still expect to be called King without "former" or "ex" attached to it? It's a privilege, not a right, as the saying goes.

And this wasn't the one the status-conscious David seemed surprised or upset about. I think he knew he was signing away the address with the rest of it.

He complained about quite a lot, but never "how dare they stop calling me 'your majesty'", so to him, even, it apparently made sense.
Reply With Quote
  #6000  
Old 10-05-2021, 12:58 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,052
Concerning the Privy Council declarations of 1960 and 1917, on most occasions when I have inquired or commented on the potential legal restrictions which they may or may not impose on female-line descendants of the Windsor and Mountbatten-Windsor families, members of this forum have answered that the vast majority of UK children are given their father's name and the female Windsors and Mountbatten-Windsors are guaranteed to follow tradition. I am well aware of all of this, and have said as much many times. I simply do not see how it is relevant to the legal questions involving the Privy Council declarations.

However, it is obvious that many do consider it to be relevant, so perhaps there is a point I am overlooking. Could anyone explain how the law, or the interpretation of the law, is affected by the tradition?
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, duke of york, kate, princess beatrice, queenmother, spouse, styles and titles, titles uk styles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (1 members and 1 guests)
Princess Bobbi
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
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 792 08-22-2021 12:16 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 78 08-21-2021 07:14 AM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 894 11-26-2019 11:04 PM
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 1897 11-29-2017 03:13 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 50 06-02-2017 02:28 PM




Popular Tags
america archie mountbatten-windsor asia birth britain britannia british british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii fashion and style gemstones genetics george vi harry and meghan hello! henry viii highgrove history house of windsor hypothetical monarchs japan japanese imperial family japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchy mongolia names nara period plantinum jubilee politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family state visit st edward sussex thai royal family tradition united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:36 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×