The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1141  
Old 03-17-2018, 12:56 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,874
Thanks much for the clarification on this. Ahhh... its wonderful that one can think they know something about something and along comes somebody else that adds to the depths of knowledge on things.
__________________

__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #1142  
Old 03-17-2018, 08:31 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Leaside View Post
I believe, actually that it’s the top FOUR in succession that are eligible to serve as Counsellors of State (provided they are 21 (or 18 in the case of the heir apparent or heir presumptive)), plus the consort. Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother was additionally eligible from 1953 for the rest of her life.

As to why they picked the number 6? It’s in the notes to the Act on the UK parliament website. Basically the rationale was this: NO ONE LOWER THAN 5TH HAS EVER SUCCEEDED TO THE THRONE so they picked 6 just to be safe.
The future Queen Victoria was 5th in line for a few months after she was born.
Aha, so there was a logical reason. Much better than simply pulling a number from a hat!

Thank you!
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1143  
Old 03-17-2018, 08:49 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
How did Parliament come up with the number six? I realize the advantages of limiting the number of heirs who need the monarch's permission to marry – others further down the line of succession probably wouldn't be working royals or even HRHs ?
Princess Alexandra is currently 50th in the line of succession and still an HRH and a working royal.
Reply With Quote
  #1144  
Old 03-17-2018, 09:07 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,396
Yes, but that's not the direction the Royal Family is moving in. There will be fewer HRHs and fewer working royals. Andrew's children aren't working royals and Edward's aren't even styled HRH. Of the Queen's grandchildren only William and Harry are capable of producing additional HRHs and even if Harry's are granted that style they might not be working royals. So that leaves only William's children.

I doubt we'll see a 50th in line who is an HRH and a working royal again.
Reply With Quote
  #1145  
Old 03-17-2018, 09:11 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Leaside View Post
I believe, actually that it’s the top FOUR in succession that are eligible to serve as Counsellors of State (provided they are 21 (or 18 in the case of the heir apparent or heir presumptive)), plus the consort. Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother was additionally eligible from 1953 for the rest of her life.

As to why they picked the number 6? It’s in the notes to the Act on the UK parliament website. Basically the rationale was this: NO ONE LOWER THAN 5TH HAS EVER SUCCEEDED TO THE THRONE so they picked 6 just to be safe.
The future Queen Victoria was 5th in line for a few months after she was born.
Do you have a link for that? I've not been able to find it myself. The claim that no one lower than 5th in the line of succession has inherited the throne is, frankly, inaccurate; George I, Henry VII, and Richard III were all a lot further down the line of succession and yet became Kings. There were some 50 people in the succession before George I.

What I figured the magic 6 number was set to cover (at the time the Bill was first proposed) the monarch's eldest sons and all their descendants - Charles, William, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice, and Eugenie. The number was first proposed in 2011, well before George was born, and at a time when it was possible that Harry, Beatrice, and Eugenie might all get engaged before William and Catherine had children.
Reply With Quote
  #1146  
Old 03-17-2018, 09:37 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Do you have a link for that? I've not been able to find it myself. The claim that no one lower than 5th in the line of succession has inherited the throne is, frankly, inaccurate; George I, Henry VII, and Richard III were all a lot further down the line of succession and yet became Kings. There were some 50 people in the succession before George I.

What I figured the magic 6 number was set to cover (at the time the Bill was first proposed) the monarch's eldest sons and all their descendants - Charles, William, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice, and Eugenie. The number was first proposed in 2011, well before George was born, and at a time when it was possible that Harry, Beatrice, and Eugenie might all get engaged before William and Catherine had children.
In the past, monarchs who were deceased without issue, or princes who didn't make to adulthood, were far more common and, therefore, it was sometimes necessary to go further down in the line of succession. That was even more critical in countries like France that used Salic law . In fact, it was not that uncommon for a French king to be succeeded by a fifth cousin or similar.

Nowadays, I agree it is very unlikely that someone lower than sixth in line will ever ascend the throne. Still, the "first six" rule is somewhat arbitrary.
Reply With Quote
  #1147  
Old 03-17-2018, 09:43 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,396
And sometimes monarchs moved to the #1 spot by simply eliminating the competition (Richard III and Henry VII).

Perhaps Parliament assumed those days are over when they settled on the number six. I can only speak for myself but I hope they were right!
Reply With Quote
  #1148  
Old 03-18-2018, 03:24 AM
Duke of Leaside's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Do you have a link for that? I've not been able to find it myself. The claim that no one lower than 5th in the line of succession has inherited the throne is, frankly, inaccurate; George I, Henry VII, and Richard III were all a lot further down the line of succession and yet became Kings. There were some 50 people in the succession before George I.

What I figured the magic 6 number was set to cover (at the time the Bill was first proposed) the monarch's eldest sons and all their descendants - Charles, William, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice, and Eugenie. The number was first proposed in 2011, well before George was born, and at a time when it was possible that Harry, Beatrice, and Eugenie might all get engaged before William and Catherine had children.
Apologies - my original post was inaccurate in that I neglected to state no one since the enactment of the Royal Marriages Act 1772, had ever been lower than 5th in line and then later succeeded to the throne.

This stems from the following House of Lords library note from 2013 (see page 17).

http://researchbriefings.files.parli...N-2013-005.pdf

The report says no one lower than 6 had ever succeeded but in the HC Hansard (see below) that was corrected to 5 (Queen Victoria).

The Lords note includes a link to Hansard which shows that discussion in the House of Commons on January 22, 2013 which is interesting but not totally accurate either. (They quote those ahead of Queen Victoria at her birth incorrectly).
__________________
The Duke
Reply With Quote
  #1149  
Old 11-14-2020, 10:43 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,052
I think the limitation of the persons needing permission to marry to remain in the line of succession to the first six in line was very poorly written.

To illustrate why, imagine the following hypothetical situation.

William is the King. Prince George (1st in line to the throne) was given permission for his marriage and he and his wife have four children, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th in line. Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis are not yet married and are 6th and 7th in line.

Charlotte announces her engagement to a man who has a robbery conviction on his record. The Government is of the opinion that a convicted robber would be unsuitable as the consort of the UK's head of state (as Charlotte would become if something happened to George and his children). Acting on the Government's advice by constitutional convention, the King refuses his permission for the marriage, which will lead to Charlotte losing her place in the line of succession after the marriage.

However, ahead of Charlotte's wedding, Louis meets and marries a woman who has ten robbery convictions on her record. Because he is not one of the first six in line, Louis remains in the line of succession though he never received permission for his marriage. When Charlotte marries and loses her place, Louis moves up one place.

Subsequently, if George and his children were to die in a tragic accident, Louis would succeed as King and his wife would be Queen. The Government's decision that a convicted robber would be an unsuitable prince consort would have directly led to a convicted serial robber becoming the queen consort.


It would have been much better to make the new laws applicable to the entire line of succession. Invalidation of unapproved marriages is no longer part of the law. The only remaining consequence is disqualification from succession to the Crown. The hundreds of people further down the line whose chances of succeeding are nil for all practical purposes would not "have" to ask for consent, because the loss of their theoretical rights of succession would have absolutely no effect on their lives. In fact, I think it would not only acceptable but desirable to eliminate even the theoretical chance of e.g. the Norwegian royals succeeding to the British throne in this way.
Reply With Quote
  #1150  
Old 11-14-2020, 11:48 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: st. paul, United States
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
I think the limitation of the persons needing permission to marry to remain in the line of succession to the first six in line was very poorly written.

To illustrate why, imagine the following hypothetical situation.

William is the King. Prince George (1st in line to the throne) was given permission for his marriage and he and his wife have four children, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th in line. Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis are not yet married and are 6th and 7th in line.

Charlotte announces her engagement to a man who has a robbery conviction on his record. The Government is of the opinion that a convicted robber would be unsuitable as the consort of the UK's head of state (as Charlotte would become if something happened to George and his children). Acting on the Government's advice by constitutional convention, the King refuses his permission for the marriage, which will lead to Charlotte losing her place in the line of succession after the marriage.

However, ahead of Charlotte's wedding, Louis meets and marries a woman who has ten robbery convictions on her record. Because he is not one of the first six in line, Louis remains in the line of succession though he never received permission for his marriage. When Charlotte marries and loses her place, Louis moves up one place.

Subsequently, if George and his children were to die in a tragic accident, Louis would succeed as King and his wife would be Queen. The Government's decision that a convicted robber would be an unsuitable prince consort would have directly led to a convicted serial robber becoming the queen consort.


It would have been much better to make the new laws applicable to the entire line of succession. Invalidation of unapproved marriages is no longer part of the law. The only remaining consequence is disqualification from succession to the Crown. The hundreds of people further down the line whose chances of succeeding are nil for all practical purposes would not "have" to ask for consent, because the loss of their theoretical rights of succession would have absolutely no effect on their lives. In fact, I think it would not only acceptable but desirable to eliminate even the theoretical chance of e.g. the Norwegian royals succeeding to the British throne in this way.
Or they could have put an age stipulation on it, similar to Counsellor of State though it would need to be bit younger. Just say the first 6 adults in the line of succession over the age of 18 need to ask permission. Under that scenario, currently Charles, William, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice and Eugenie would need to ask. Which leaves Lady Louise free to marry a serial bank robber in a few years.
Reply With Quote
  #1151  
Old 11-15-2020, 05:20 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,903
But there are a lot of people much lower down the line of succession who value being on it, hence the old announcements that X German aristocrat had asked and received permission to be married from HM when it didn't affect their lives in any way what so ever and they had never even been to the UK. They didn't have to ask permission, they *wanted* to do so. And it was automatically given.

So I don't think basically saying "ok don't ask for permission, get disqualified, it keeps Louis's serial bank robber wife from becoming Queen Consort, sorted!" would work. The fact that Norwegians etc did ask means they cared on some level as well.

Britain would be a republic long before we had to look at anyone past Zara, and probably before that.

No one is seriously worried about what anyone who is lower down than Peter and Zara does or doesn't do with lives except for reading about it in the papers when there's a scandal. A simpler way would be to do as the Dutch have done and severely limit the line of succession but I don't see that happening either.

The main pressure from Louis to not marry a convicted bank robber wife or lose his place in the succession and retire would be social, family and public opinion based, not legal, even if there should be. And if it proved too much then they would "voluntarily" step down.

And any time that happens in the core BRF there's bound to be some sort of uproar either way and a public debate on whether Mrs Louis deserves a chance or not. The "controversial" married ins of Europe are for the most part not the issues that are causing problems. Even with Mette-Marit, it's her health and not her past that is the main problem now.

I can't really imagine a Parliamentary debate on the subject either.
Reply With Quote
  #1152  
Old 01-02-2021, 06:54 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by miss whirley View Post
Or they could have put an age stipulation on it, similar to Counsellor of State though it would need to be bit younger. Just say the first 6 adults in the line of succession over the age of 18 need to ask permission. Under that scenario, currently Charles, William, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice and Eugenie would need to ask. Which leaves Lady Louise free to marry a serial bank robber in a few years.
But no matter exactly where the line is drawn, the same double standard exists: Certain senior royals will be banned from becoming King or Queen if they marry a person deemed inappropriate by the Sovereign and Government, while other relatives will be able to marry exactly the same inappropriate person and be permitted to ascend the throne with him or her as their queen consort/prince consort.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
But there are a lot of people much lower down the line of succession who value being on it, hence the old announcements that X German aristocrat had asked and received permission to be married from HM when it didn't affect their lives in any way what so ever and they had never even been to the UK. They didn't have to ask permission, they *wanted* to do so. And it was automatically given.

So I don't think basically saying "ok don't ask for permission, get disqualified, it keeps Louis's serial bank robber wife from becoming Queen Consort, sorted!" would work. The fact that Norwegians etc did ask means they cared on some level as well.
Interesting, do you have any examples in mind? Under my suggested alternative, it would be still open to them to ask for permission to remain in the line of succession (which is more generous than the Netherlands or Norway). The difference would be that the Sovereign and Government would have the option of refusing.

But I would say the value someone places on the opportunity to become the British monarch should not outweigh the public policy interest in setting rules on eligibility to become Queen or King. And I assume there are Catholics, atheists, illegitimate sons and daughters, or individuals not descended from Sophia of Hanover who would like to be in the line of succession to the British throne. But that has not prevented the government from denying them a place in line.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
Britain would be a republic long before we had to look at anyone past Zara, and probably before that.

No one is seriously worried about what anyone who is lower down than Peter and Zara does or doesn't do with lives except for reading about it in the papers when there's a scandal. A simpler way would be to do as the Dutch have done and severely limit the line of succession but I don't see that happening either.
If in actuality no one past Zara would be permitted to become Queen or King, then I can't see the benefit of having a succession law which maintains the fiction that they could. The Dutch law of succession isn't flawless, but I think it is substantially more reasonable than the British law.
Reply With Quote
  #1153  
Old 01-10-2021, 09:03 AM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by miss whirley View Post
Or they could have put an age stipulation on it, similar to Counsellor of State though it would need to be bit younger. Just say the first 6 adults in the line of succession over the age of 18 need to ask permission. Under that scenario, currently Charles, William, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice and Eugenie would need to ask. Which leaves Lady Louise free to marry a serial bank robber in a few years.
I agree. Since the minors won't get married or be working royals yet anyway, it is wrong to count them in this situation.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change Binny Royal House of Sweden 520 12-20-2020 02:44 PM
Prince Frederik and Princess Mary's Official Visit to Australia: November 19-26, 2011 Princess Robijn Crown Prince Frederik, Crown Princess Mary and Family 303 02-18-2017 09:17 PM
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession Elise,LadyofLancaster British Royals 942 03-09-2015 10:32 PM
Prince Frederik and Princess Mary's Official Visit to Brazil: September 16-21, 2012 ricarda Crown Prince Frederik, Crown Princess Mary and Family 81 10-05-2012 04:15 PM
The Third Succession Act (Henry VIII, 1543) Daz_Voz British Royal History 4 07-25-2012 03:17 PM




Popular Tags
america american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian birth britain britannia british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles charles china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs doge of venice duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family tree fashion and style george vi gradenigo hello! highgrove history hypothetical monarchs japan japanese imperial family japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists mongolia names plantinum jubilee politics portugal prince harry prince of wales prince of wales in jordan royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family state visit st edward suthida thai royal family unfinished portrait united states united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:06 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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