Succession to the Crown Act 2013, Part 1: 2011 - Sep 2022

[Iluvbertie]

To add to what Roslyn said:

any child born now will take their position in line to the throne in birth order

but...

only AFTER all the realms have passed the legislation so...

a son born to Peter now would go ahead of his sisters and then drop behind them when all the necessary legislation is passed in all the realms.

This is clear with the son of one of the Duke of Gloucester's daughters - currently he is ahead of his older sister but as he was born after the cut-off date when the legislation is passed in all the realms he will drop behind her meanwhile James will always stay ahead of Louise and Andrew and Edward and their lines ahead of Anne and her line.

 

[royalistbert]

Realms where the new law has passed:

Canada
United Kingdom
Antigua and Barbuda (no domestic legislation needed)
Papua New Guinea (no domestic legislation needed)
Belize (no domestic legislation needed)
Jamaica (no domestic legislation needed)
Solomon Islands (no domestic legislation needed)
Tuvalu (no domestic legislation needed)

Realms pending:

Australia
New Zealand
The Bahamas
Barbados
Grenada
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

So I done a little research.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Realms where the new law takes effect:

Canada
United Kingdom
Antigua and Barbuda (no domestic legislation needed)
Papua New Guinea (no domestic legislation needed)
Belize (no domestic legislation needed)
Jamaica (no domestic legislation needed)
Solomon Islands (no domestic legislation needed)
Tuvalu (no domestic legislation needed)

Realms pending:

Australia
The Bahamas
Barbados
Grenada
New Zealand
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

So I done a little research.

That's wrong though? As Iluvbertie has said nothing takes effect until it is passed in ALL realms.

 

[royalistbert]

I have changed it.

 

[Ish]

It's more like realms where it's been passed vs realms where it still needs to be passed.

 

[Iluvbertie]

So really only Canada has passed it besides the UK as the others didn't have to pass it.

They did say in 2011 that it could take up to 4 years to get all the realms to pass it and of course if the baby is a boy it won't even be that urgent for it to pass anyway.


One of the other points in this legislation is that Eugenie will be soon able to marry without the consent of the monarch as she will drop to 7th in line after the baby is born and after a second child Beatrice won't need that permission either.

 

[padams2359]

I will be surprised if they do not ask HM anyway. They respect her and respect what her traditions mean to her.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Asking 'granny' to approve your chosen love it one thing - and I am sure that like many other people they will want the approval of their family but the requirement for the formality of the announcement in the gazette through the Privy Council will go and that is what won't be happening.

 

[Slugger]

Future of title Prince of Wales

According to the new succession rules, the first-born child of the monarch, male or female, will be the heir. If the eldest child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge is a girl, she will be heir after William. I don't think a subsequently born son could become Prince of Wales (after William becomes King) because that son would not be the heir. Does this mean that the title of Prince of Wales will only apply in those cases where the eldest child happens to be a male? Or will a female who is the eldest child and heir be called Princess of Wales in her own right (as opposed to having this title as spouse of a Prince of Wales, as has been the case)?

 

[Ish]

According to the new succession rules, the first-born child of the monarch, male or female, will be the heir. If the eldest child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge is a girl, she will be heir after William. I don't think a subsequently born son could become Prince of Wales (after William becomes King) because that son would not be the heir. Does this mean that the title of Prince of Wales will only apply in those cases where the eldest child happens to be a male? Or will a female who is the eldest child and heir be called Princess of Wales in her own right (as opposed to having this title as spouse of a Prince of Wales, as has been the case)?

The title Prince of Wales is reserved for the heir apparent - there is no specification as to gender made, however until now it has always been very unlikely that an heir apparent would be female, and has never actually happened.

Previously there were two forms of heirs in the British system; apparent and presumptive. The heir apparent was someone whose status as heir could not be displaced by the birth of another, the heir presumptive was someone whose status could be displaced by the birth of another. Typically heir apparents would have been the eldest son of the monarch, but it could have also been a grandson or even a granddaughter, in the event of the eldest son of the monarch dying after having children, but before his parent. Heir presumptives were daughters, nieces, nephews, younger siblings, and even cousins or aunts and uncles.

Theoretically, a female heir apparent can be Prince of Wales - much like how a female monarch is Duke of Lancaster. If they wish instead to go with gender appropriate terms, then a female heir apparent could be titled Princess of Wales - we won't know until such a time as there is a female heir apparent, which at the earliest would be when William is king if the Cambridge baby is a girl.

 

[NGalitzine]

I don't think there is anything to stop William from naming a first born female child Princess of Wales in her own right. The Duchy of Cornwall could be a different problem since that would require Parliament to amend the Letters Patent.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Heirs apparent and heirs presumptive will still exist under the new legislation when it takes effect whenever that will be.

An heir apparent can't be replaced e.g. Charles is the heir apparent.

William is Charles 'heir apparent'.

Harry is William's heir presumptive and will soon drop to being William's child's heir presumptive.

The difference that this legislation makes is that no longer will a child be replaced by a younger sibling but others in the line will still be presumptive heirs as they will still be able to be replaced in the line of succession.

The monarch could name their heir Princess of Wales although when that possibility was raised by George VI the answer back was that the title 'Princess of Wales' is for the wife of the Prince of Wales - not cast in law of course but an interpretation none the less.

 

[Ish]

You're right, Bertie. I stand corrected.

 

[Roslyn]

So many interesting issues are arising as a result of this change regarding the succession.

A possibility is for a future male heir to become "The Crown Prince of Wales" allowing for his wife to be made a princess in her own right and known as Princess (blank) of Wales, with a female heir being known as "The Crown Princess of Wales", with her husband being made a prince in his own right and known as Prince (blank) of Wales. Princess (blank) could, all going well, eventually become Princess (blank), The Princess Consort, and Prince (blank) could become Prince (blank), The Prince Consort.

 

[NGalitzine]

So many interesting issues are arising as a result of this change regarding the succession.

A possibility is for a future male heir to become "The Crown Prince of Wales" allowing for his wife to be made a princess in her own right and known as Princess (blank) of Wales, with a female heir being known as "The Crown Princess of Wales", with her husband being made a prince in his own right and known as Prince (blank) of Wales. Princess (blank) could, all going well, eventually become Princess (blank), The Princess Consort, and Prince (blank) could become Prince (blank), The Prince Consort.

There cannot be a Crown Prince of Wales because there is no King/Queen of Wales just like there is no Crown Prince of Scotland because there is no King/Queen of Scotland.

 

[scooter]

The title Prince of Wales is reserved for the heir apparent - there is no specification as to gender made, however until now it has always been very unlikely that an heir apparent would be female, and has never actually happened.

Previously there were two forms of heirs in the British system; apparent and presumptive. The heir apparent was someone whose status as heir could not be displaced by the birth of another, the heir presumptive was someone whose status could be displaced by the birth of another. Typically heir apparents would have been the eldest son of the monarch, but it could have also been a grandson or even a granddaughter, in the event of the eldest son of the monarch dying after having children, but before his parent. Heir presumptives were daughters, nieces, nephews, younger siblings, and even cousins or aunts and uncles.

Theoretically, a female heir apparent can be Prince of Wales - much like how a female monarch is Duke of Lancaster. If they wish instead to go with gender appropriate terms, then a female heir apparent could be titled Princess of Wales - we won't know until such a time as there is a female heir apparent, which at the earliest would be when William is king if the Cambridge baby is a girl.

Ummm, I believe QEII was a female heir apparent quite recently, and was not Princess of Wales

 

[NGalitzine]

Ummm, I believe QEII was a female heir apparent quite recently, and was not Princess of Wales

QEII as Princess Elizabeth was never heir apparent only heiress presumptive. As long as George VI lived there was always the remote possibility that he could have had a son by Queen Elizabeth or by a second wife. She was never made Princess of Wales because her father believed that title was only for the wife of a Prince of Wales.

 

[Ish]

Ummm, I believe QEII was a female heir apparent quite recently, and was not Princess of Wales

QEII was the heir presumptive - it was always possible (however unlikely) that her father could have had a legitimately born son, who would have been the heir apparent. It was pretty clear, at least by the time KGVI came to the throne that QEII would inherit, and her being made Princess of Wales was discussed but ultimately determined that Princess of Wales is a lesser title, used by the wife of the Prince of Wales.

Until now, in order for there to be a female heir apparent the male heir apparent would have to have a daughter (and only daughters) then die before the monarch, making his daughter the heir apparent of the monarch. So, theoretically King X has a son, Y, Prince of Wales, who has one child, a daughter, Princess Z of Wales. If Y dies before X, then Princess Z becomes the heir apparent. In British history, this has never happened - British Queens have always only ever been heir presumptives.

 

[royal-blue]

This Act restores Prince Michael to the list of succession.

Does this mean Prince and Princess Michael will become official working royals? Will they still be required to pay rent? Will the Queen fund them?

 

[Iluvbertie]

This is a longish post answering a number of the questions posed above.

At over 70 I doubt that Prince and Princess Michael of Kent would become working royals. His older siblings are cutting back and both have had/do have illnesses this year.

They will continue to pay rent.

George V was known as Duke of Cornwall and York throughout 1901, until 9th November, nearly 9 months after his father's accession. In those days people were more educated about titles etc and so used the full title all the time. My great-grandparents were friends of the Cornwall/Yorks at the time and kept lots of papers etc about them, including their tour of Australia to open the first Australian parliament and all the press cuttings refer to them as The Duke/Duchess of Cornwall and York - not just in editorials or CCs but even in the local rags reporting about them.

William will become HRH The Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge the instant The Queen dies. Charles will then decide if, and when, to create him Prince of Wales and there is a chance that William will never get that title as the Welsh assembly will be consulted and that body may very well ask that it not be given.

Charles became Duke of Cornwall on 6th February, 1952 but wasn't created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester until 1958. He was then invested in 1969 and that was only the 2nd such investiture.

To be an heir apparent a person has to be in a position of not being replaced in the line of succession so Charles is heir apparent to The Queen and William is heir apparent to Charles but Harry is only heir presumptive to William as he can (and will) be replaced by the birth of a child to William at which point he will become the heir presumptive to that child. Elizabeth, like Victoria, Anne, Mary, Elizabeth and Mary, before her, were all heirs presumptive as they could all have been replaced by an appropriate child (even James I and VI was at best the heir presumptive to Elizabeth).

As for Camilla's title - it is a matter of 'wait and see' at this point in time but the stated line from 2005 and always stated on the PoW website is that 'it is intednded that she will be known as Princess Consort'.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Bertie while the longish post is quite explanatory, it was hardly needed.

This Act restores Prince Michael to the list of succession.

Does this mean Prince and Princess Michael will become official working royals? Will they still be required to pay rent? Will the Queen fund them?

They are official working royals, they do pay rent and I imagine being re-added to the succession list in what 20 something place? Won't affect the money they receive from The Queen if any. Re-adding Catholics is going to make very little difference

 

[Iluvbertie]

Bertie while the longish post is quite explanatory, it was hardly needed.

I thought personal attacks weren't allowed on this site.

They are official working royals, they do pay rent and I imagine being re-added to the succession list in what 20 something place? Won't affect the money they receive from The Queen if any. Re-adding Catholics is going to make very little difference

The Michael's of Kent are not official working royals. They don't get money from the Queen for doing official duties, or from the government.

Take a look at the visits Michael has been making recently overseas - none listed in the CC.

Like the York girls they only attend the big events and don't undertake regular duties on behalf of the Queen - last year they did about 40 between them - the same number as Beatrice and Eugenie and that was a busy year in the CC for them.

The CC on the British monarchy website doesn't even list them as members of the royal family - although it still has The Queen Mother, Margaret and Alice. As that list is approved by The Queen it is clear that she doesn't regard them as working members of the family. (Beatrice and Eugenie aren't on that list either but William, Kate and Harry are). I find it intersting that Catherine is listed below Andrew which I assume is because those listed above her all are Counsellors of State and can therefore sign the legislation if The Queen is away.

 

[Ish]

Bertie, question - at this time, is the third in line to the throne Harry or the Cambridge Fetus?

Say, in the unlikely hypothetical situation that HM, Charles, and William all died before the birth. Does Harry become king, or does he become regent for the unborn child?

 

[padams2359]

I believe the DoCm, as the QM would be first in line as Regent.

 

[wyevale]

The DoCm would not be the QM. I believe Prince Henry would be Regent for the unborn child, and for the duration of that childs minority.

 

[Ish]

I believe the DoCm, as the QM would be first in line as Regent.

The DoCm would be the Dowager Duchess of Cambridge, nothing more. In order to be QM one must have first been a Queen Consort.

According to the Regency Act of 1937, the regent is the next person in the line of succession who is over the age of 21, a British subject who lives in the UK, and capable of succeeding to the crown under the terms of the Act of Settlement 1701. As Catherine is not in the line of succession, as it stands now she would not be regent. In the future, a regency act specific to the Cambridge children might be passed, as happened during the reign of HM when Charles was under age, but such an act had not happened yet and likely won't happen until William is king (if his heir is underage then).

 

[Iluvbertie]

Harry would become King if the position becomes vacant before the baby is born as there is no possibility in Britian for there to be no monarch. When Queen Victoria first became Queen there were two theories put forward as to the rights of the unborn child if Queen Adelaide was actually pregnant and they were a) Victoria would have to abdicate in favour of the child and then act as regent until the child turned 18 and the other was that the child and its line would take precedence ahead of Victoria's own children.

With regard to a regency they would also have to consider the 1953 Regency Act that made the surviving parent the regent - in this case it did specify Philip with certain other conditions such as no other child or grandchild able to be regent but the precedent for the parent is there. Margaret was allegedly very upset that she was replaced as the potential regent by her brother-in-law.

 

[Ish]

Thanks Bertie!

My understanding of the 1953 act was that it was specific to the instance of the Queen dying while her children were under age, resulting in Philip becoming the regent over Margaret. While the provisions of the act could set a precedent for another such act to be created establishing Catherine as regent over Harry, the 1953 act in itself doesn't automatically make the spouse of the deceased or incapacitated monarch the regent, just specifically Philip (and even now, the provisions of the act no longer apply owing to the age of both the Queen's children and grandchildren).

 

[NGalitzine]

I think it highly unlikely in this day and age that the unborn heir would be bypassed and Harry placed on the throne. The public would not accept it. More likely some sort of Regency would be declared.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The point is that until the child is born there still has to be a monarch and that monarch is Harry. The child isn't in the line of succession until born - that is the British way.

The situation in Britain is 'the King/Queen is dead - long live the King/Queen' not the King/Queen is dead - let's wait and see whether we will have a new King/Queen' - it is instantaneous and so Harry would become King.

Whether he would then be forced to abdicate when the child is born or would continue to reign with that child as his heir would be determined by parliament.