The Mechanics of Abdication and of Succession to the Throne


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
One practical argument is that a regent would not be necessary in Australia or Canada because the Governor General is already an acting Head of State for most intents and purposes. My point was, however, that there are certain residual constitutional duties that the GG still cannot perform alone and have to be done by the Queen herself. In those cases, not having a regent for the realms if the Queen is incapacitated might be problematic.

Usually though, when it comes to things that a GG might have to perform alongside with The Queen, don't members of the governments (UK and/or Commonwealth nation) seek to advise The Queen on these matters and then action is taken? If they would advise a regent (and most likely the regent would know how his mother in this case would decide), then the regent as acting for The Queen would have been advised at all angles and carry out "the Queen's pleasure" as she would have if she could.

Now I've come up with a question. If, by chance, Charles had to fill in as a Prince Regent for The Queen for a period of time, does he act according to how he would feel things should go or as regent be obliged to make decisions as he would feel his mother would want them to be? Of course all this would include HM's advisers on matters too I'd presume.
 
Do not get how this has anything to do with this thread.

The title "The Mechanics of Abdication and of Succession to the Throne" deals with both the ways and means of abdication and also succession to the throne. Sometimes various scenarios occur such as the example of a successor having an interim period as a regent.

Its all relevant. :D
 
https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/regency_act.htm#1831

III. And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That if at the Demise of His said Majesty there shall not be any Child of His said Majesty then living born of Her said Majesty and Her said Majesty shall survive His said Majesty and a Child of His said Majesty shall after the Death of His said Majesty be born of Her said Majesty, in such Case Her said Majesty shall be the Guardian, and have the Care, Tuition, and Education of the Person of such Child until such Child shall attain the Age of Eighteen Years, and shall, till such Age, have the Disposition, Ordering, and Management of all Matters and Things relating thereto; and Her said Majesty shall during such Minority and no longer, have full Power and Authority, in the Narne of such Child, and in his or her Stead, and under the Style and Title of Regent of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to exercise and administer, according to the Laws and Constitution thereof, the Regal Power and Government of' this Realm, and all the Dominions, Countries, and Territories to the Crown thereof belonging ; and shall use, execute, and perform all Prerogatives, Authorities, and Acts of Government and Administration of Government which belong to the King or Queen of this Realm to use, execute, and perform, according to the Laws thereof, but in such Manner, and subject to such Conditions, Restrictions, Limitations, and Regulations, as are hereinafter for that Purpose specified, mentioned, and contained.


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. :)

I am not knowledgeable about regencies which happened before. Did the precedents perhaps establish that a queen dowager took precedence over an heiress presumptive?

Victoria's gender may also have made her regency tricky. The way matters worked for European royal princesses of her generation, she would have married a foreign prince and left the country for her husband's court, in which case another regent would still need to be appointed.



One matter I find strange about the Regency Act 1831 is that it makes provisions for regency and guardianship on behalf of a child who might be born posthumously to King William, but not for a future child who might be born to him during his lifetime.
 
Queen Adelaide had five dead children, both stillbirths and dying at a few months old. The last were stillborn twin boys born in 1822. By 1830/31, nearly ten years later perhaps Parliament had given it up as a bad job! Adelaide was already 37/38 by the time the Act became law, having been born in 1792.

I am surprised actually that Parliament was so forward thinking as to appoint Victoria’s mother and Queen Adelaide to be Regents for their children’s minorities, considering that more modern Regency Acts seem to have designated the next blood Royal adult to be Regent.


If a future child had been born to the King and Queen Adelaide during his lifetime surely that child would automatically have been heir to the throne without specific legislation as to its position?
 
Last edited:
If a future child had been born to the King and Queen Adelaide during his lifetime surely that child would automatically have been heir to the throne without specific legislation as to its position?

Yes. And from the Regency Act 1831, it seems that even a child born to the King after his death would automatically have been monarch without specific legislation as to its position.

So, why did the Regency Act 1831 only make provision for the regency and guardianship of a posthumous child who succeeded to the throne at birth, but not for the regency and guardianship of a child born during the King's lifetime who succeeded to the throne as a minor?

If Parliament recognized the possibility that Queen Adelaide might be pregnant again at the moment of her husband's death, they should surely have recognized the possibility that she might give birth again before her moment of her husband's death.
 
Pages 181 to 184 of the book linked below deals with some of the deliberations of Parliamentarians leading up to the Act, who were faced in 1830 with an elderly new King and a child heir who was not of his body.

https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Lieber_Collection/pdf/Const-History-England_Vol-I.pdf

Thank you for sharing this!

It appears the attention of the parliamentarians was fixed on Victoria, not any possible child of William and Adelaide. That is supported by the long title of the Regency Act, which is "An Act to provide for the Administration of the Government in case the Crown should descend to Her Royal Highness the Princess Alexandrina Victoria [...]". Apparently, although the parliamentarians considered the question of a posthumous child of King William, it was because the hypothetical might call Victoria's succession into doubt. Nonetheless, I think it was a major oversight not to make provisions for the possibility that King William might leave a living child.

Regarding a posthumous child, it seems I was not entirely correct, since the book states that "The law upon this important question was not settled" and the parliamentarians were forced to rely on an analogy to the law of real property as well as "common sense" to reason that an unborn child could not take possession of the Crown.

As to the reasoning behind appointing a dowager rather than an heiress presumptive to administer the regency, the book states that if the regent were a person who could never succeed to the throne, "her interests were identified with those of the future sovereign, to whom she was united by the tenderest ties; and she could have no object but to uphold, in good faith, the authority of the infant queen."
 
I have an odd question about the religious tests for succession to the British throne.



From what I understand, the law requires that the British monarch be "in communion with the Church of England". Let us assume then that an heir to the British Crown marries a Swedish princess and their children are baptized and raised in the (Lutheran) Church of Sweden (thus being also in the line of succession to the Swedish throne under the Swedish Act of Succession). Considering that the Church of Sweden and the Church of England are now in communion under the Porvoo Communion , could the children of that marriage still succeed to the British throne?


It is just a hypothetical question. I know that, in practice, the children would probably be baptized in the Church of England which, I think, in Sweden, would mean being out of the line of succession, but that would be a different question.
 
I have an odd question about the religious tests for succession to the British throne.



From what I understand, the law requires that the British monarch be "in communion with the Church of England". Let us assume then that an heir to the British Crown marries a Swedish princess and their children are baptized and raised in the (Lutheran) Church of Sweden (thus being also in the line of succession to the Swedish throne under the Swedish Act of Succession). Considering that the Church of Sweden and the Church of England are now in communion under the Porvoo Communion , could the children of that marriage still succeed to the British throne?


It is just a hypothetical question. I know that, in practice, the children would probably be baptized in the Church of England which, I think, in Sweden, would mean being out of the line of succession, but that would be a different question.

Of course a Lutheran can succeed to the British throne - and in fact at least two have done so since the passing of the Act of Settlement - George I and George II were both Lutherans.

The monarchs of Norway, Sweden and Denmark and their descendants (all Lutherans) are in the line of succession to the British throne. Until Harry moved his family to the US the King of Norway was the highest ranked person not living in the UK in that line of succession.

There would be way more Lutherans in the line of succession than any other denomination, including CoE, due to the number of Germans.
 
From what I understand, the law requires that the British monarch be "in communion with the Church of England". Let us assume then that an heir to the British Crown marries a Swedish princess and their children are baptized and raised in the (Lutheran) Church of Sweden (thus being also in the line of succession to the Swedish throne under the Swedish Act of Succession). Considering that the Church of Sweden and the Church of England are now in communion under the Porvoo Communion , could the children of that marriage still succeed to the British throne?

The law requires that "whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown, shall join in communion with the Church of England" so I think any protestant is fine so long as they enter into communion with the CofE ASAP.
 
Last edited:
The law requires that "whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown, shall join in communion with the Church of England" so I think any protestant is fine so long as they enter into communion with the CofE ASAP.

And if membership of the (fast diminishing and more and more retreating) CofE is a condition: think of Henri IV: "Paris vaut bien une Messe" ("Paris is worth a Mass") and turned from Calvinist to Catholic.

:flowers:
 
The monarchs of Norway, Sweden and Denmark and their descendants (all Lutherans) are in the line of succession to the British throne.

As discussed in more detail in the thread on the British line of succession, King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden is the son of a male-line descendant of a British sovereign who did not comply with the Royal Marriages Act and he is thus most likely excluded from the line of succession to the British throne.
 
Last edited:
Not according to this, link below and notes. Carl Gustav and his children are in the 300s but are still there. And CG’s father married the daughter of the Duke of Saxe Coburg Gotha, who at the time of his daughter’s nuptials was both in the succession and in receipt of honours from George V, even though that monarch disapproved of the Nazification of the wedding.

https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/europ...ne-of-succession-swedens-royal-family-147004/
 
Last edited:
The article does not set out any information to back up its claim. Indeed, the article does not even mention the Royal Marriages Act, so the author may not even know of its existence.

The Royal Marriages Act was clear: Should any descendant of King George II (excepting the descendants of princesses who married into foreign families) marry without complying with the provisions of the RMA (by either obtaining the consent of the British sovereign or giving notice to the Privy Council and waiting for 12 months), the marriage would be null and void (under British law). That is the reason why the son of Prince Augustus Frederick Duke of Sussex, for example, was regarded as illegitimate and not permitted to inherit his father's peerages.

https://www.heraldica.org/faqs/rma1772.html

King Carl XVI Gustaf's mother Princess Sibylla was the daughter of Duke Carl Eduard of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, who was the son of Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany, who was the son of Queen Victoria of Great Britain and Ireland. As Princess Sibylla was a male-line descendant of a British monarch, she was not exempt from the Royal Marriages Act. When she married without the consent of the British king, her marriage was null and void and her children were illegitimate in the law of the United Kingdom.
 
Line of succession to the British throne. This list includes the descendants of Arthur Duke of Connaught and his descendants including King Carl Gustav.

Home Page
 
Line of succession to the British throne. This list includes the descendants of Arthur Duke of Connaught and his descendants including King Carl Gustav.

Home Page

I am familiar with the website you linked to, and its author has done an excellent job of compiling descendants of the Electress Sophia.

But by what legal route do you propose that Princess Sibylla and her descendants were exempted from the consequences of the Royal Marriages Act? A law enacted by Parliament cannot be overruled by a list on an unofficial website.

On a related note, the Royal Marriages Act has been repealed by the Succession to the Crown Act, but persons who were bastardized by the Act remain excluded from the line of succession to the Crown.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/20/enacted
 
The Duke of Windsor signed away his rights via legislation that at that time only needed to be passed in the UK. He wanted to abdicate and marry Wallis Simpson. As he also had no children he also signed away any rights for any yet to be born children.

Harry could ask for the legislation to be passed to remove him ... but not his children as they are already here. The legislation for them could only be passed after they turned 18 and were able to decide for themselves, although they could do so, then, for any yet to be born children.


It is of course a mere hypothetical scenario, but I see no reason in principle why Parliament could not pass legislation removing a person under 18 from the line of succession. It would not be in breach of any international commitments or of any part of the UK's unwritten constitution, as far as I know. The UK Parliament frequently passes legislation impacting persons under 18.
 
Not sure if this is the right thread for this question.

I was wondering what would happen if Charles and Camilla had produced a child together, while both married to their first spouses, and before William was born.

Would this theoretical child now be a legitimate heir to the throne because his biological parents (Charles and Camilla) would now both be married?

Also, if this theoretical child had passed away before C&C got married (thereby legitimising the child), would any of Charles grandchildren via this child be in the order of succession ahead of William?

Can a person (or their surviving children) be legitimised if they pass away before their parents actually get married?
 
Last edited:
The answer is 'no'.

The current Earl of Harewood - the Queen's 2nd cousin (same relationship to The Queen as the Earl of Ulster and the Earl of St Andrew's) - has a son born out of wedlock. Even though his parents later married he is not in the line of succession either to the throne or to his father's title, despite being the elder son. The younger son is 65th in the line of succession to the throne and heir apparent to the Earldom of Harewood.
 
Not sure if this is the right thread for this question.

I was wondering what would happen if Charles and Camilla had produced a child together, while both married to their first spouses, and before William was born.

Would this theoretical child now be a legitimate heir to the throne because his biological parents (Charles and Camilla) would now both be married?

Also, if this theoretical child had passed away before C&C got married (thereby legitimising the child), would any of Charles grandchildren via this child be in the order of succession ahead of William?

Can a person (or their surviving children) be legitimised if they pass away before their parents actually get married?

No, children cannot at present be in line for titles even if legitimated by a subsequent marriage of thier parents.
 
No, children cannot at present be in line for titles even if legitimated by a subsequent marriage of thier parents.

That is true in relation to English titles, but Scottish titles are inheritable by children legitimated by a subsequent marriage. I am not sure what, if any, impact that has on succession to the crown of Scotland.


As there are 16 realms involved the rights of minors in all separate realms has to be considered and only if it is possible to deprive minors of their birthrights in all the realms would it be possible to do so in any of them.

I don't think it is possible without just cause - and simply because 'daddy says he doesn't want to do it' or 'daddy wasn't up to it' would be 'just cause' in many, if not all of those realms.

Interesting questions. I cannot think of an analogous situation right now, or a precedent, but my gut reaction is that neither the UK Parliament, nor the parliaments of the realms, would pass legislation depriving minor children of their rights in this way. I they did, I consider that George and Charlotte would have a good claim in due course. I do not imagine that such legislation would be held to be in the interests of the children.


I do not know the precedents, but I cannot imagine that the courts of the UK, or any other parliamentary democracy, would make it possible for an individual to sue Parliament on the sole basis that Parliament passed a law which was not in their (the individual's) best interest or unjust to them. About any law enacted by Parliament could be considered unjust to or not in the best interests of certain people. The courts would be replete with legal claims against Parliament.
 
Last edited:
That is true in relation to English titles, but Scottish titles are inheritable by children legitimated by a subsequent marriage. I am not sure what, if any, impact that has on succession to the crown of Scotland.

Is there a Scottish or indeed an English crown anymore? I suppose they're both in some sort of hiatus(?) until the union is ever dissolved.

Does anyone have a definitive answer?
 
I do not know the precedents, but I cannot imagine that the courts of the UK, or any other parliamentary democracy, would make it possible for an individual to sue Parliament on the sole basis that Parliament passed a law which was not in their (the individual's) best interest or unjust to them. About any law enacted by Parliament could be considered unjust to or not in the best interests of certain people. The courts would be replete with legal claims against Parliament.

Yes I agree. Succession to the crown is entirely Parliament's prerogative. As a result relatives of the monarch (as I understand it) do not have inalienable rights to be in the line of succession.
 
Last edited:
Yes I agree. Succession to the crown is entirely Parliament's prerogative. As a result relatives of the monarch (as I understand it) do not have inalienable rights to be in the line of succession.

And if Parliament could be sued for best interests/just cause in regards to succession to the Crown, wouldn't republicans already have organized a few private citizens to bring legal action against Parliament for unfairly excluding all other families apart from the Windsors from succeeding to the Crown?
 
Back
Top Bottom