The Mechanics of Abdication and of Succession to the Throne

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

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.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by wbenson

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.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

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.

[Curryong]

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/europe...family-147004/

[Tatiana Maria]

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.

[Curryong]

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

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Curryong

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

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

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.

[royal-blue]

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?

[Iluvbertie]

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.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by royal-blue

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.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Denville

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.

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

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.

Originally Posted by Roslyn

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.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

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?

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

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.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Durham

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?