The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession 1: Ending 2022

[Iluvbertie]

Jump back to Henry VIII.

His first daughter was by his first wife. His second daughter by his second wife and then his son by his third wife and he (Edward VI) immediately jumped ahead of his older half-sisters in the line of succession simply because he was a boy.

The only thing a child needs it to be the legitimate son of the current monarch regardless of how many spouses there are e.g. if Andrew remarried and had a son that boy would be ahead of Beatrice and Eugenie in the line of succession (and heir to the York title as well.)

William and Mary's situation is somewhat different because at the time of their accession the line of succesion (excluding the Old Pretender) was Mary, Anne and then William in his own right so any child that he had from a wife other than Mary would have a claim through him but that claim would be after the claim of any child of Anne's or any child that he had with Mary.

 

[padams2359]

Had Edward VIII married Wallis with a Morganic marriage, children or not, would QE2 succeeded him in the 1970s? Of course provided that her father's death preceded Edward's, or would the succession moved down?

 

[NGalitzine]

Had Edward VIII married Wallis with a Morganic marriage, children or not, would QE2 succeeded him in the 1970s? Of course provided that her father's death preceded Edward's, or would the succession moved down?

Had Edward VIII reigned and died without heirs the succession would have moved to the line of his next brother Albert, Duke of York who would have been heir presumptive during his life time. Had Albert died while his elder brother still reigned then Alberts elder daughter HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh would have become heiress presumptive on her fathers death and then succeeded to the throne on the death of her uncle Edward VIII in 1972.

 

[Artemisia]

Had Edward VIII married Wallis with a Morganic marriage, children or not, would QE2 succeeded him in the 1970s? Of course provided that her father's death preceded Edward's, or would the succession moved down?

The concept of morganatic marriage simply doesn't exist in Britain; if Edward VIII had married Wallis Simpson, she would have legally been his Queen.

If they had children, then the eldest boy among those children would have succeeded his father. As it is, Edward and Wallis never did have children during their marriage so even if Edward VIII had not abdicated, changes to succession would have been minimal: there would have been no George VI (because he pre-deceased his elder brother) and Elizabeth II would have become Monarch 20 years later, in 1972 (upon the death of her uncle, Edward VIII).

 

[csw]

I often wonder if Edward and Wallis deliberately avoided having children. I wonder if they may have had children if he had kept the throne.

 

[padams2359]

It was rumored that Wallis was unable to have children due to troubles in her first marriage.

 

[Iluvbertie]

It was also rumoured that Edward was unable to conceive a child due to measles/mumps as a child although there are a number of rumoured children around the world.

 

[AnnEliza]

I often wonder if Edward and Wallis deliberately avoided having children. I wonder if they may have had children if he had kept the throne.

Wallis didn't have children with any of her husbands. I wonder if it's because she prized thinness so much or she couldn't have them.

 

[DCVO]

Wallis didn't have children with any of her husbands. I wonder if it's because she prized thinness so much or she couldn't have them.

I have absolutely no idea about the veracity of this, but in the movie "W. E." it shows Wallis miscarrying when her first husband beat her and kicked her in the stomach. A trauma like that could well have made her infertile. Again, IF it happened. Movies aren't known for sticking with the facts.

 

[BWB2]

Dukedom and Royal Line of Succession

I am new here and you must forgive me if this has been asked and answered at some point. If all know members of the British Royal Family were to die off, and all that was left were the peerages, would the highest ranking Duke left then take over as the Sovereign?

 

[Meraude]

As the Line of Succession to the British throne today consists of about 1 000 people, including members of most of the other European royal houses, it's most unlikely that there wouldn't be someone left to inherit the throne. For more information, see this thread: http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ent-1701-and-the-line-of-succession-7472.html

 

[VictoriaB]

I am new here and you must forgive me if this has been asked and answered at some point. If all know members of the British Royal Family were to die off, and all that was left were the peerages, would the highest ranking Duke left then take over as the Sovereign?

It depends on what you mean by known members of the British Royal Family.

This website has taken the trouble to extensively list the persons in line to the British throne although it doesn't look to have been updated in the last few years as it doesn't include Peter Phillips' and Davina Lewis' most recent children.

Home Page

The most senior Duke in the UK is the Duke of Norfolk but he is Catholic and therefore could not inherit the crown but also, simply because he is the senior Duke would not make him a shoe-in for monarch even if he were not Catholic. If everyone in the list were bumped off for some reason, then I imagine Parliament would decide who to offer the crown to (as they did in the past) and that would not necessarily be a member of the peerage.

 

[BWB2]

That is exactly the answer I was looking for, thank you!

 

[Ana Von Cleves]

Queen Anne

I'm new to the forums, so forgive me if this subject has been recently discussed.

I have read in various sources that there were anything up to 500 possible successors to Queen Anne besides the Hanovers. If you disallow her step siblings and other Catholics, who were the top contenders and why didn't they make a fuss? This also goes to another point about so called "right" which I will talk about in my next post.

Anyway, I have looked for this information and not been able to find any satisfactory answers.

Thanks,

 

[BritishRoyalist]

Queen Anne

Make a Fuss? Have you heard of The Jacobite Risings/Rebellion? The Stuarts (James II, His Son and then his Grandson) tried a few times between 1689 and 1745 to regain their Throne. Each Time failed.

 

[Ana Von Cleves]

But I specifically discounted the step siblings who were of course the jabobite heirs.
. . . . . . . . . . .

I have been giving the question of "right" some thought since I watched the program about Richard III and one Ricardian positively wailed about his "right" to rule and Henry VII had no "right."
This is kind of the way I see it: There was a period of time where "might" made "right" and there is now, where Parliament gives "right."

The whole medieval period is filled with men proving their "right" with the sword. They felt god was deciding of course, or at least that was the propaganda they used.

I put the demarcation line at Elizabeth I / James I & VI since parliament at least agreed to his succession, but he was also the senior heir as far as I can tell. So you could also put the demarcation line at Charles I /Cromwell / Charles II, where parliament unquestionably deposed Charles I and then allowed Charles II to come back after they couldn't figure out how to control the government after Cromwell then kicked out James II and his children by Mary of Modena in favor of William III & Mary II.

There are various examples of parliament granting the "right" to rule even up to George VI, when it was common knowledge that the government was giving serious thought to appoint Prince George Duke of Kent King because of George VI's stammer and Kent had a son. At least, I have read this in more than one source. There is also the point that it is the government that forced Edward VIII to choose. In the era of "might" Edward IV got to force the wife of his choice on everyone, with somewhat questionable results, of course. Which brings us back to Richard III, who was able to force his will on a defenseless widow and young boy, but not on a grown man with an army and a duplicitous step father.

Does this make sense?

Ana

 

[cepe]

Put simply, we were (and still are) a constitutional monarchy and it was for Government to determine the person most suitable. Related by blood and protestant. It didnt matter if people thought they were more suitable, the Government decided and were prepared to fight to maintain their choice on the throne.

 

[Ana Von Cleves]

In plainer language, who besides the Jacobite heirs, other catholic heirs & the protestant Hanovers could have been considered to succeed Anne?

 

[Ish]

A couple corrections.

First of all, it wasn't Anne's step-siblings that were passed over, it was her half-brother, his descendants, an her half sister and her descendants. All were Catholic.

Then, it was the descendants of Anne's aunt, Henrietta, who were also Catholic.

Then it went to the descendants of Anne's great-aunt, Elizabeth. Most of Elizabeth's children died without legitimate issue, the exceptions being Charles I Louis, Edward, and Sophia. Edward was a Catholic, and Charles had entered into a marriage that wasn't acceptable by British standards.

Charles' descendants were the only ones of the 50 or so people who were passed over that could have made a claim to being acceptable in regards to religion. However, if they accepted that the British Parliaments had the right to chose their own monarch then they had to accept the fact that they were not the ones chosen. If they wanted to claim primogeniture, then they held no legitimate claim as the descendants of Charles I (most importantly the still living descendants of James II) were far higher up than them.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Any descendants of earlier kings. There were about 56 I believe with a better blood claim than Sophia of Hannover, through descent from James I and VI's but they were excluded due to either being RC or married to RC.

These people accepted the right of the British parliament to make the laws to decide who would become the monarch of the island nation.

The descendants of James II's son - both the Old and Young pretenders didn't accept that right of parliament and led rebellions - which were defeated.

Since then it has been plain sailing with the succession following the legitimate and logical lines of father to first born son, or brother etc so

George I - son - George II - grandson (son having died) - George III - son - George IV - brother (brother in between had already died) William IV - neice (brother having died) - Victoria - son - Edward VII - son - George V - son Edward VIII - brother (following legislation allowing for the abdication) - George VI - daughter - Elizabeth.

There has been no contested succession since parliament took control in 1649 and determined via legislation who would be the rightful successors.

 

[Ish]

I think your dates are off a bit here.

There have been attempts to contest the succession, they just haven't been successful attempts. Even the Glorious Revolution itself can be seen as an attempt to contest the succession, made successful by the support of Parliament.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The words 'since parliament took control' were deliberate. What I meant to say, and appear to have said badly is that since parliament started to make the decisions no one has been able to successfully challenge the succession without parliament agreeing. The Glorious Revolution was led by parliament and thus not a challenge to parliament's right to make the decision but a decision by parliament. Thus since parliament took the right to decide the succession no one has successfully challenged parliament's right to make the decision.

 

[Skippyboo]

I don't know about Parliament picking Prince George to replace Edward VIII. It would be skipping several people - Bertie, Elizabeth, Margaret, Henry Duke of Gloucester and his future children. It doesn't seem that would be something that would be put up with by the establishment. Beside the need for a son had diminished by that time since it was a constitutional monarchy at that point and there had been several queen regents already unlike in medieval times where the lines of women were ignored.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The idea to bypass the Duke of York, by doing so completely ignoring his rights as well those of Princess Elizabeth, Princess Margaret, their future offspring, as well that of the Duke of Gloucester and his future offspring, is so violating the Act of Settlement of 1701 that I doubt any Government or any Parliament was willing to enforce this and risking Pandora's Box being opened. Complete fiction, if you ask me.

The Reign of William III and Mary II can be compared with the result of an abdication. Of course, in this case the King (James II / James VII) has not abdicated but was deemed to have fled the country. The outcome however is the same: his natural successors (his daughter Princess Mary and his nephew/son-in-law William of Nassau, Prince of Orange) moved to the top position, later on their turn succeeded by King James' younger daughter, Princess Anne. So the "right to rule" in order of birth ultimately remained intact in this case.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The idea of Prince George being chosen to replace Edward VIII isn't complete fiction - it was discussed at cabinet level - not in a formal cabinet meeting as far as I know but by cabinet ministers (one of whom was my great-uncle) and they rejected the idea but it most certainly was discussed.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The idea of Prince George being chosen to replace Edward VIII isn't complete fiction - it was discussed at cabinet level - not in a formal cabinet meeting as far as I know but by cabinet ministers (one of whom was my great-uncle) and they rejected the idea but it most certainly was discussed.

Of course anything can be discussed by ministers, varying from the temperature of the tea at the cabinet meetings to the pimple on the nose of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

 

[MARG]

And there you have it, in a nutshell!

 

[Corbyguy]

You are welcome.
Genealogy is one of hobbies and I'm always ready to provide long, detailed and horribly boring charts.

Recently, there was a discussion in George I thread about all the people who would have been ahead of George of Hanover (George I) at the time of Queen Anne's death, had the Act of Settlement not been passed. We counted 58 people, all of whom were disqualified for various reasons (mainly because they were Catholics themselves, or were married to ones). Here is that list:

1. James, Prince of Wales (The Old Pretender)

Can you provide a list of people that would have been in the line of succession on the evening before The Act of Settlement passed in 1701/2 and became legal binding before they all became disqualified due to the reasons stated in The Act of Settlement?

 

[Ish]

Can you provide a list of people that would have been in the line of succession on the evening before The Act of Settlement passed in 1701/2 and became legal binding before they all became disqualified due to the reasons stated in The Act of Settlement?

I have a list that would meet this on my computer at home. I can share it later if you like.

 

[BritishRoyalist]

Can you provide a list of people that would have been in the line of succession on the evening before The Act of Settlement passed in 1701/2 and became legal binding before they all became disqualified due to the reasons stated in The Act of Settlement?

The 1714 Line of Succession to the British Throne if the Acts of Settlement had not taken place Including Catholics and Jacobite:

James I and VI, King of England and scotland (d. 1625)
Charles I, King of England and Scotland (d. 1649)
James II and VII, King of England & Scotland (d. 1701)

Anne's half-brother and first in line to the throne, James Francis Edward Stuart
1: James Francis Edward Stuart (1688–1766): Claimant from 1701 in opposition to heir designate George I Louis, Elector of Hanover.
Henrietta of England (d. 1670)

Anne Marie d'Orléans, Queen of Sardinia, paternal first cousin of Anne and James Stuart
2: Anne Marie, Queen of Sardinia (1669–1728)
3: Victor Amadeus, Prince of Piedmont (1699–1715)
4: Prince Charles Emmanuel of Savoy, future King Charles Emmanuel III of Sardinia (1701–1773)
Marie Adélaïde of Savoy (d. 1712)

Louis XV of France, the only son of Anne Marie's eldest daughter Marie Adélaïde
5: Louis, Duke of Anjou, future King Louis XV of France (1710–1774)
Maria Luisa of Savoy (d. 1714)
6: Louis, Prince of Asturias, future King Louis of Spain (1707–1724)
7: Infante Philip of Spain (1712–1719)
8: Infante Ferdinand of Spain, future King Ferdinand VI of Spain (1713–1759)
Elizabeth of Bohemia (d. 1662)
Charles I Louis, Elector Palatine (d. 1680)

Elizabeth Charlotte, Duchess of Orleans
9: Elisabeth Charlotte, Dowager Duchess of Orléans (1652–1722)
10: Philippe d'Orléans, Duke of Orléans (1674–1723)
11: Louis d'Orléans, Duke of Chartres, future Duke of Orléans (1703–1752)
12: Marie Louise Élisabeth d'Orléans (1695–1719)
13: Louise Adélaïde d'Orléans (1698–1743)
14: Charlotte Aglaé d'Orléans (1700–1761)
15: Louise Élisabeth d'Orléans (1709–1742)
16: Élisabeth Charlotte, Duchess of Lorraine (1676–1744)
17: Prince Leopold Clement of Lorraine (1707–1723)
18: Prince Francis Stephen of Lorraine, future Holy Roman Emperor (1708–1765)
19: Prince Charles Alexander of Lorraine (1712–1780)
20: Princess Elisabeth Therese of Lorraine (1711–1741)
21: Princess Anne Charlotte of Lorraine (1714–1773)
Edward, Count Palatine of Simmern (d. 1663)
Louise Marie von Simmern (d. 1679)
22: Louis Otto, Prince of Salm (1674–1738)
23: Princess Dorothea of Salm (1702–1751)
24: Princess Elisabeth of Salm (1704–1739)
25: Princess Christine of Salm (1707–1775)
Princess Luise of Salm (d. 1707)
26: Eleonore Christine, Duchess of Ursel (1678–1757)
27: Anne Henriette, Dowager Princess of Condé (1648–1723)
Louis, Prince of Condé (d. 1710)
28: Louis Henri, Prince of Condé (1692–1740)
29: Charles, Count of Charolais (1700–1760)
30: Louis, Count of Clermont (1709–1771)
31: Marie Anne Éléonore, Mademoiselle de Bourbon (1690–1760)
32: Louise Elisabeth, Princess of Conti (1693–1775)
33: Louise Anne de Bourbon, mlle de Sens (1695–1758)
34: Marie Anne de Bourbon, mlle de Clermont (1697–1741)
35: Henriette Louise de Bourbon, mlle de Vermandois (1703–1772)
36: Élisabeth Alexandrine de Bourbon, mlle de Gex (1705–1765)
37: Marie Thérèse, Second Dowager Princess of Conti (1666–1732)
38: Louis Armand, Prince of Conti (1695–1727)
39: Marie Anne, Princess of Condé (1689–1720)
40: Louise Adelaide de Bourbon, mlle de la Roche-sur-Yon (1696–1750)
41: Louise Bénédicte, Duchess of Maine (1676–1753)
42: Louis Auguste, Prince of Dombes (1700–1755)
43: Louis Charles, Count of Eu (1701–1775)
44: Louise Françoise de Bourbon, mlle du Maine (1707–1743)
45: Marie Anne, Dowager Duchess of Vendôme (1678–1718)
46: Benedicta Henrietta, Dowager Duchess of Brunswick-Lüneburg (1652–1730)
Charlotte Felicity, Duchess of Modena (d. 1710)
47: Francesco d'Este, future Duke Francis III of Modena (1698–1780)
48: Giovanni Federigo d'Este (1700–1727)
49: Benedicta Ernestina d'Este (1697–1777)
50: Anna Amalia Josepha d'Este (1699–1778)
51: Enrichetta d'Este (1702–1777)
52: Henriette Maria, Duchess of Brunswick-Lüneburg (1672–1737)
53: Wilhelmina Amalia, Holy Roman Empress (1673–1742)
54: Archduchess Maria Josefa of Austria (1699–1757)
55: Archduchess Maria Amalia of Austria (1701–1756)


Sophia, Electress of Hanover (d. 1714) designated heir according to the Act of Settlement (1701)
George Ludwig, the first Protestant in succession to the British throne at the death of Queen Anne

56: George I Louis, Elector of Hanover (1660–1727)
57: George Augustus of Hanover, duke of Cambridge, future king George II (1683–1760)
58: Frederick Louis of Hanover, future prince of Wales (1707–1751)
59: Anne of Hanover (1709–1759)
60: Amelia of Hanover (1711–1786)
61: Caroline of Hanover (1713–1757)
62: Sophia Dorothea of Hanover (1687–1757)
63: Frederick of Prussia, future king of Prussia (1712–1786)
64: Wilhelmine of Prussia (1709–1758)
65: Maximilian William of Hanover (1666–1726)
66: Ernest Augustus of Hanover, future duke of York & Albany, future prince-bishop of Osnabrück (1674–1728)
Sophia Charlotte of Hanover (d. 1705)
68: Frederick William I, king of Prussia (1688–1740)


Descendants of Mary, Queen of France Daughter of Henry VII (d. 1533)
69. Charles Seymour, 6th Duke of Somerset