The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #221  
Old 10-13-2021, 02:51 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 10-13-2021, 03:16 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 12,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
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.

Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 10-13-2021, 07:52 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 5,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 10-13-2021, 08:21 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,138
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/
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 10-13-2021, 08:47 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 5,586
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.
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 10-13-2021, 09:17 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,138
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
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 10-13-2021, 09:53 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 5,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 12-21-2021, 08:10 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 5,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 12-21-2021, 10:39 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 574
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?
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 12-22-2021, 12:08 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 14,035
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.
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 12-23-2021, 01:21 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 12-23-2021, 02:39 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 5,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 12-23-2021, 05:49 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 12-23-2021, 05:54 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post

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.
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 12-23-2021, 06:11 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 5,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
abdication, accession, british monarchs, british monarchy, civil list, crown estate, finances, line of succession, monarchy versus republic, protocol


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 Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement? sara1981 Queen Elizabeth II (1926-2022) and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (1921-2021) 1438 04-09-2022 01:52 PM
The Abdication: December 11, 1936 gaoshan1021 British Royal History 181 11-07-2019 08:24 PM
Are the Orleans-Braganza in the line of succession to the French throne? Lecen Royal Families of France 7 12-27-2014 09:49 PM
Abdication Issues & Rumours (2008-2013) Marengo Princess Beatrix 166 01-30-2013 06:46 AM
Succession issues in the Royal Family of Jordan SemiPatriot83 Royal House of Jordan 388 12-19-2011 08:57 PM




Popular Tags
albert prince consort all tags america arcadie arcadie claret austria british british royal family caribbean caroline charles iii claret congo current events danish royal family duarte pio duchess of kent edward vii elizabeth ii emperor naruhito empress masako garsenda genealogy general news grace kelly grimaldi hamdan bin ahmed harry history india introduction jewels jordan royal family king king charles king philippe king willem-alexander leopold ier louis mountbatten matrilineal monaco monarchy mountbatten need help official visit order of precedence portugal prince albert monaco prince christian princess of orange queen queen alexandra queen camilla queen ena of spain queen margrethe ii queen mathilde queen maxima republics restoration royal wedding silk spain spanish history spanish royal family state visit switzerland visit william wine glass woven


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:38 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2023
Jelsoft Enterprises