The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   British Royals (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/)
-   -   Line of Succession to the British Throne (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/line-of-succession-to-the-british-throne-44513.html)

danishjaveed 03-22-2018 11:46 AM

Line of Succession to the British Throne
 
I am currently researching the line of succession to the British Throne in it's current form and it's previous forms. What I want to know is what did the line look like just before the Perth Agreement and who were affected by it. I know that Senna Lewis, Tāne Lewis, Lyla Gilman, Rufus Gilman, George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews, Prince Michael of Kent and Michael I of Romania were among the members who were affected by it. Who else was not in the line of succession before but was included after the Perth Agreement?

Mbruno 03-22-2018 11:56 AM

King Willem Alexander of the Netherlands is back in the line of succession. He had been excluded before for marrying a Catholic (Máxima Zorreguieta).

Lumutqueen 03-22-2018 03:38 PM

This is the wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succes..._of_succession

It uses the notation MC for those previously excluded, who were re-included when the Perth agreement came into effect. The notation XC is for those still excluded, and not re-included by the agreement.

Here is a good article about it - What do the new royal succession changes mean? – Royal Central

Mbruno 03-22-2018 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 2084906)
This is the wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succes..._of_succession

It uses the notation MC for those previously excluded, who were re-included when the Perth agreement came into effect. The notation XC is for those still excluded, and not re-included by the agreement.

Here is a good article about it - What do the new royal succession changes mean? – Royal Central

Yes, but the Wikipedia article only lists the descendants of King George V. I believe the OP was asking about people further down in the line of succession who were affected. Presumably, there could be many as the line of succession has thousands (?) of people.

I mentioned the King of the Netherlands because it is a well-known example of an affected person who is not even among the first 1000 in line.

Lumutqueen 03-22-2018 04:30 PM

The last time anyone tried to do a full count was 2011 and it was at 5000 people. Here’s a link: https://web.archive.org/web/20110517...sion/2011.html

It is hard to talk about people further down the line as they aren’t well documented, plus it doesn’t really matter when you get past the descendants of George V.

LauraS3514 03-22-2018 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 2084931)
The last time anyone tried to do a full count was 2011 and it was at 5000 people. Here’s a link: https://web.archive.org/web/20110517...sion/2011.html

It is hard to talk about people further down the line as they aren’t well documented, plus it doesn’t really matter when you get past the descendants of George V.

At this point, it really doesn't matter past the descendants of Elizabeth II as by the end of the summer there will nineteen of them with more to come. Charles, William, George, Charlotte, Baby Cambridge, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward, James, Louise, Anne, Peter, Savannah, Isla, Zara, Mia, and Baby Tindall. With Harry and Eugenie getting married this year, that number could increase by two more in the very near future. Add in Margaret's kids and grandkids there are 25 in descent from George VI alone. I'm surprised that the new legislation didn't restrict the line to just the George crew as there are plenty available.

O-H Anglophile 03-22-2018 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danishjaveed (Post 2084789)
I am currently researching the line of succession to the British Throne in it's current form and it's previous forms. What I want to know is what did the line look like just before the Perth Agreement and who were affected by it. I know that Senna Lewis, Tāne Lewis, Lyla Gilman, Rufus Gilman, George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews, Prince Michael of Kent and Michael I of Romania were among the members who were affected by it. Who else was not in the line of succession before but was included after the Perth Agreement?

I do not think the Lewis children or the Gilman children were excluded from the succession previously. They are not married to Catholics.

LauraS3514 03-22-2018 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile (Post 2084996)
I do not think the Lewis children or the Gilman children were excluded from the succession previously. They are not married to Catholics.

They were not excluded, but some of them changed places as older sisters moved in front of younger brothers, i.e. Senna moved in front of Tane whereas earlier she had been after him and Rufus was the first younger brother not to bump his sister down a notch.

Mbruno 03-22-2018 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile (Post 2084996)
I do not think the Lewis children or the Gilman children were excluded from the succession previously. They are not married to Catholics.

They were not excluded, but their order in the line of succession changed with equal primogeniture as they were born, I think, after 2011.

I

O-H Anglophile 03-22-2018 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LauraS3514 (Post 2084997)
They were not excluded, but some of them changed places as older sisters moved in front of younger brothers, i.e. Senna moved in front of Tane whereas earlier she had been after him and Rufus was the first younger brother not to bump his sister down a notch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno (Post 2084998)
They were not excluded, but their order in the line of succession changed with equal primogeniture as they were born, I think, after 2011.

I

Ah, okay . Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't think about male primogeniture.

Mbruno 03-22-2018 08:48 PM

Now that you raised the issue, it hás occurred to me that the Swedish royal kids have been affected too as Estelle and Leonore were not displaced by their younger brothers in the British line of sucession..

PS: The Norwegian, Swedish, Danish and Dutch RFs, in that order, are in the line of succession to the British throne. The Spanish RF is excluded because they are Catholics.

danishjaveed 03-22-2018 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno (Post 2084928)
Yes, but the Wikipedia article only lists the descendants of King George V. I believe the OP was asking about people further down in the line of succession who were affected. Presumably, there could be many as the line of succession has thousands (?) of people.

I mentioned the King of the Netherlands because it is a well-known example of an affected person who is not even among the first 1000 in line.

Just to clarify, the OP was indeed asking about people further down in the line of succession who were affected.

Gawin 03-23-2018 12:00 AM

As Mbruno pointed out anyone who lost their place by marrying a Roman Catholic was reinstated in the line of succession. So that would include several descendants of Queen Victoria: the late King Michael of Romania who lost his place when he married Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parma; Georg Friedrich of Prussia who married Princess Sophie of Isenburg; Haakon Lorentzen (son of Princess Ragnhild of Norway) who married Martha Carvalho de Freitas; Ingeborg Lorentzen (Ragnhild's oldest daughter) who married Paulo Ribeiro; Ragnhild Lorentzen (Ragnhild's youngest daughter) who married Aaron Long; Maximilian of Baden who married Archduchess Valerie of Austria-Tuscany; his brother Ludwig who married Princess Marianne of Auersperg-Breunner; Crown Prince Alexander of Serbia who married (and later divorced) Princess Maria da Gloria of Orleans-Braganza; and Princess Madeleine of Sweden who married Christopher O'Neill.

There are probably other names I missed. I'm also excluding some descendants who married Roman Catholics because I don't know if they remained Protestant or became Roman Catholics themselves.

Mbruno 03-23-2018 06:03 AM

Thanks Gawin for your excellent account of descendants of Queen Victoria who are or were married to Catholics. In particular I had forgotten about Princess Madeleine, who is also one of the most notorious foreign royals affected by the change in the law.

I agree with some of the previous posters that it is somewhat ridiculous to have a line of succession with over two thousand people, but, on the other hand, I suppose that is also innocuous in practice and not worth the trouble to change the law just for that particular reason. Keep in mind that it took nearly four years for the resolutions of the Perth agreement to be legally in force in all Commonwealth realms.

Somebody 03-23-2018 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LauraS3514 (Post 2084994)
At this point, it really doesn't matter past the descendants of Elizabeth II as by the end of the summer there will nineteen of them with more to come. Charles, William, George, Charlotte, Baby Cambridge, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward, James, Louise, Anne, Peter, Savannah, Isla, Zara, Mia, and Baby Tindall. With Harry and Eugenie getting married this year, that number could increase by two more in the very near future. Add in Margaret's kids and grandkids there are 25 in descent from George VI alone. I'm surprised that the new legislation didn't restrict the line to just the George crew as there are plenty available.

Me too. It would have been pretty easy (i.e., the perfect moment) to include it in the Perth agreement and would have made total sense to restrict the line of succession either to George V's descendants (to include all current senior royals) or to a certain degree of relationship. 4th degree would have included all current senior royals and seems a rather safe number going forward.

Gawin 03-23-2018 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno (Post 2085085)
I agree with some of the previous posters that it is somewhat ridiculous to have a line of succession with over two thousand people, but, on the other hand, I suppose that is also innocuous in practice and not worth the trouble to change the law just for that particular reason. Keep in mind that it took nearly four years for the resolutions of the Perth agreement to be legally in force in all Commonwealth realms.

Yes, and there really isn't an official "line of succession" as extensive as the one Lumutqueen linked to in post #5. The Royal Family website only lists the first 16:

https://www.royal.uk/succession

Because of this it seems that distant relatives (including Roman Catholics) aren't "officially" excluded unless they moved far enough up that their qualifications would become an issue. Presumably at that point they would be "examined" and disqualified if they failed to meet the "religious test." This has never happened so its unclear how it would be done, if it ever became necessary.

Mbruno 03-23-2018 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gawin (Post 2085110)
Yes, and there really isn't an official "line of succession" as extensive as the one Lumutqueen linked to in post #5. The Royal Family website only lists the first 16:

https://www.royal.uk/succession

Because of this it seems that distant relatives (including Roman Catholics) aren't "officially" excluded unless they moved far enough up that their qualifications would become an issue. Presumably at that point they would be "examined" and disqualified if they failed to meet the "religious test." This has never happened so its unclear how it would be done, if it ever became necessary.

I suppose that, as you said, their qualification will be examined if and when they become next in line, which is nearly impossible.

Incidentally, I understand that the Act of Parliament that extended British citizenship to all descendants of Sophia of Hanover was repealed several decades ago. A practical move then would be to limit the line of succession to citizens of the UK only.

The most efficient way, of course, to slim down the line would be, as Somebody suggested, to limit the number of eligible persons by proximity of blood to the last monarch. In the Netherlands, they use a cutoff in the third degree of consanguinity, which would include children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, siblings, nephews/nieces, and uncles/aunts of the monarch, but no cousins. The UK could go one degree further, i.e. up to the fourth degree, to include first cousins as well.

Again, the reason why, I think, that is not done is that it is considered innocuous anyway to have an unbounded line of succession as long as the Royal House properly is limited.

Duc_et_Pair 03-23-2018 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno (Post 2085128)
I suppose that, as you said, their qualification will be examined if and when they become next in line, which is nearly impossible.

Incidentally, I understand that the Act of Parliament that extended British citizenship to all descendants of Sophia of Hanover was repealed several decades ago. A practical move then would be to limit the line of succession to citizens of the UK only.

The most efficient way, of course, to slim down the line would be, as Somebody suggested, to limit the number of eligible persons by proximity of blood to the last monarch. In the Netherlands, they use a cutoff in the third degree of consanguinity, which would include children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, siblings, nephews/nieces, and uncles/aunts of the monarch, but no cousins. The UK could go one degree further, i.e. up to the fourth degree, to include first cousins as well.

Again, the reason why, I think, that is not done is that it is considered innocuous anyway to have an unbounded line of succession as long as the Royal House properly is limited.

The Dutch system with 3 grades of consanguinity looks more than sufficient for the British succession. See the example under a King Charles. But in daily life the succession with 2000 successors seems just a fun fait-divers than a reality. I can understand it when they leave it unchanged.

0 - The King

1 - The Prince William (child)
1 - The Prince Henry (child)

2 - Prince George (grandchild)
2 - Princess Charlotte (grandchild)
2 - the third child of Prince William (grandchild)
2 - the future children of Prince Henry (grandchildren)
2 - The Princess Anne (sister)
2 - The Prince Andrew (brother)
2 - The Prince Edward (brother)

3 - Mr Peter Phillips (nephew)
3 - Ms Zara Tindall (niece)
3 - Princess Beatrice (niece)
3 - Princess Eugenie (niece)
3 - Lady Louise (niece)
3 - Lord James (nephew)

Mbruno 03-23-2018 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair (Post 2085139)
The Dutch system with 3 grades of consanguinity looks more than sufficient for the British succession. See the example under a King Charles:

0 - The King

1 - The Prince William (child)
1 - The Prince Henry (child)

2 - Prince George (grandchild)
2 - Princess Charlotte (grandchild)
2 - the third child of Prince William (grandchild)
2 - the future children of Prince Henry (grandchildren)
2 - The Princess Anne (sister)
2 - The Prince Andrew (brother)
2 - The Prince Edward (brother)

3 - Mr Peter Phillips
3 - Ms Zara Tindall
3 - Princess Beatrice
3 - Princess Eugenie
3 - Lady Louise
3 - Lord James

Yes, but it would exclude Princess Margaret's children, who happen to be the only maternal first cousins of Charles since the Queen had only one sister. If applied to the present Queen, the 3rd degree rule would exclude the Duke of Gloucester, the Duke of Kent, Prince Michael, and Princess Alexandra. That is why I think it would not be a big deal to go down to 4th degree and include all potential HRHs. Note that, under the current 1917 LP rule, first cousins of the monarch, if born in paternal line, are normally HRHs. It would be odd if they were HRHs and were not in the line of succession.

Gawin 03-23-2018 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno (Post 2085128)
I suppose that, as you said, their qualification will be examined if and when they become next in line, which is nearly impossible.

I suppose other issues would also be examined before an eligible candidate could even be identified, let alone disqualified on religious grounds.

For example, say King George V's line died out (I realize this will *never* happen barring an apocalypse which would render this discussion moot anyway). It would be necessary to identify whose line would be next, in this case the descendants of his oldest sister Louise Princess Royal & Duchess of Fife. Presumably each generation would be looked at, the legality of each marriage established, legitimate birth confirmed, religion confirmed, etc. Eventually the current Duke of Fife would be identified as next in line.

In this example establishing the legality of each marriage would be simple since Louise and her descendants requested permission under the Royal Marriages Act. But for other descendants, who, weren't required to seek permission, it would require more legwork (one example that comes to mind is King Carol II of Romania's first marriage to Zizi Lambrino).

BTW - I forgot to include Ernest Augustus of Hanover in my list of Queen Victoria descendants who were reinstated. He initially lost his place when he married Caroline of Monaco.

Mbruno 03-23-2018 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gawin (Post 2085165)
I suppose other issues would also be examined before an eligible candidate could even be identified, let alone disqualified on religious grounds.

For example, say King George V's line died out (I realize this will *never* happen barring an apocalypse which would render this discussion moot anyway). It would be necessary to identify whose line would be next, in this case the descendants of his oldest sister Louise Princess Royal & Duchess of Fife. Presumably each generation would be looked at, the legality of each marriage established, legitimate birth confirmed, religion confirmed, etc. Eventually the current Duke of Fife would be identified as next in line.

In this example establishing the legality of each marriage would be simple since Louise and her descendants requested permission under the Royal Marriages Act. But for other descendants, who, weren't required to seek permission, it would require more legwork (one example that comes to mind is King Carol II of Romania's first marriage to Zizi Lambrino).

BTW - I forgot to include Ernest Augustus of Hanover in my list of Queen Victoria descendants who were reinstated. He initially lost his place when he married Caroline of Monaco.

My understanding is that the descendants of British princesses who married into foreign families didn't have to ask permission to marry under the Royal Marriages Act, which would then exempt many foreign royals.

Curiously, when the Royal Marriages Act was repealed, previously "invalid" marriages were legitimized for all purposes except the line of succession to the British throne, precisely to minimize changes to the preexisting line. That seems to suggest that even people way down the line are not entirely neglible after all.

Gawin 03-23-2018 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno (Post 2085170)
My understandding is that the descendants of British princesses who married into foreign families didn't have to ask permission to marry under the Royal Marriages Act, which would then exempt many foreign royals.

Curiously, when the Royal Marriages Act was repealed, previously "invalid" marriages were legitimized for all purposes except the line of succession to the British throne, precisely to minimize changes to the preexisting line. That seems to suggest that even people way down the line are not entirely neglible after all.

I’m glad you brought this up since I’m curious about it.
.
As you point out, the Succession to the Crown Act states that previously “invalid” marriages are legitimized but descendants of those marriages have no succession rights to the Crown (Section 3(5)).

Whose marriage would this affect?

Under the Royal Marriages Act a marriage contracted without the sovereign’s permission was invalid and any children were illegitimate but the person who made the marriage could still inherit the throne. But under the Succession to the Crown Act the situation is reversed. The unapproved marriage would be valid and the children legitimate but the person contracting the marriage and the children would not have any succession rights (Section 3(3)).

So it seems Section 3(5) might be intended to place prior unapproved marriages on the same level as future unapproved marriages. The prior marriage is now recognized as valid, the children are legitimate, but have no succession rights.

However, one of the requirements of Section 3(5) states: “in all the circumstances it was reasonable for the person concerned not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to it.” (3(5)(c)).

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...0130020_en.pdf

This requirement narrows the number of eligible marriages. I suspect it was made with specific marriages in mind, for example George IV’s secret marriage to Mrs. Fitzherbert. He knew he was required to ask permission, but didn’t, so under the Succession to the Crown Act the marriage is still invalid. Ditto for Augustus Duke of Sussex’s two marriages and George Duke of Cambridge’s marriage to Sarah Fairbrother. Neither asked permission so their marriages are still invalid and their children are still considered illegitimate.

But who didn’t ask permission because they didn’t know they were required to? As you stated, the descendants of princesses who married into foreign families were exempt from the RMA, so the number of people who fell within it was actually small. So whose marriage would now be legal under the provisions of Section 3(5)?

This has been discussed on another forum as it relates to the descendants of Queen Victoria’s grandson Charles Edward Duke of Albany and of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. His children didn’t seek approval for their marriages making them invalid under British law. So their descendants had no succession rights to the British crown or to the Albany title (the Titles Deprivation Act aside). But the Succession to the Crown Act means they might be able to claim the latter, if it could be proven they weren’t aware that the Royal Marriages Act applied to them. For example, by then they were “foreign” royals and may have believed they were exempt. But how would that be proven given that the parties are dead?

Does anyone have any additional insights on this? Thank you. I learn a lot from these discussions and debates and find them very interesting.

Gawin 03-23-2018 02:06 PM

Well, oops, I just remembered Section 3(5)(a) states "neither party to the marriage was one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown at the time of the marriage."

So this is the part that renders George IV and Augustus Duke of Sussex's marriages invalid under the Succession to the Crown Act, not subsection (c).

But subsection (c) still applies to George Duke of Cambridge's marriage since he wasn't one of the 6.

Mbruno 03-27-2018 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno (Post 2085004)
Now that you raised the issue, it hás occurred to me that the Swedish royal kids have been affected too as Estelle and Leonore were not displaced by their younger brothers in the British line of sucession..

PS: The Norwegian, Swedish, Danish and Dutch RFs, in that order, are in the line of succession to the British throne. The Spanish RF is excluded because they are Catholics.


It just occurred to me that, if they were not Catholics, the Belgian Royal Family would be also (very remotely) in the line of succession to the British throne as Prince Carl of Sweden, grandfather of King Albert II, also descended from King George II via his mother, Sophia of Nassau. For the same reason, the Grand Ducal family of Luxembourg would also be in the line of succession.

And, of course, among the deposed royal families, the Greeks and the Romanians are in line (and much higher) as descendants of Queen Victoria.

Gawin 03-27-2018 12:41 PM

The majority of current and former European royal families descend from King George II (including, of course, Queen Elizabeth II):

CURRENT REIGNING MONARCHS

BELGIUM: King Philippe - yes

DENMARK: Queen Margrethe II – yes

LIECHTENSTEIN: Prince Hans-Adam II – no. However, his son and heir Hereditary Prince Alois is married to Duchess Sophie of Bavaria, who is a King George II descendant. Sophie will eventually become the Jacobite claimant to the British throne, following her uncle Duke Franz of Bavaria (the current claimant) and her father Duke Max in Bavaria.

LUXEMBOURG – Grand Duke Henri – yes

MONACO – Prince Albert II - no

NETHERLANDS – King Willem-Alexander - yes

NORWAY: King Harald V – yes

SPAIN: King Felipe VI - yes

SWEDEN: King Carl XVI Gustaf – yes

FORMER REIGNING MONARCHS

BULGARIA: Former King Simeon II – yes

GREECE: Former King Constantine II – yes

CURRENT CLAIMANTS TO OTHER FORMER THRONES

ALBANIA: Prince Leka - no

AUSTRIA: Archduke Karl – yes

BAVARIA: Duke Franz – yes. Duke Franz is also the current Jacobite claimant to the British throne through his descent from Charles II and James II's sister, Henrietta Anne Duchess of Orleans.

FRANCE (Bonaparte): Charles, Prince Napoleon, and his son & rival claimant, Jean-Christophe, Prince Napolen - yes

FRANCE (Legitimist): Louis-Alphonse, Duke of Anjou – yes

FRANCE (Orleans): Henri, Count of Paris – yes

HANOVER: Prince Ernest Augustus - yes

ITALY (SENIOR LINE): Prince Vittorio Emanuele of Savoy, Prince of Naples – no

ITALY (JUNIOR LINE): Prince Amadeo of Savoy, Duke of Aosta (rival claimant) – yes

MONTENEGRO: Prince Nicholas – no

PARMA: Prince Carlos, Duke of Parma (also the current Carlist claimant to the Spanish throne) - yes

PORTUGAL: Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza - no

PRUSSIA: Prince Georg Friedrich - yes

ROMANIA: Crown Princess Margareta, Custodian of the Crown – yes

RUSSIA: Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna – yes

SAXONY: Prince Alexandre of Saxe-Gessaphe and his cousin & rival claimant Prince Rudiger of Saxony - yes

SERBIA: Crown Prince Alexander – yes

TUSCANY: Archduke Sigismund, Grand Duke of Tuscany – yes

TWO SICILIES: Prince Pedro, Duke of Calabria and his cousin & rival claimant Prince Carlo Duke of Castro - yes

WURTTEMBERG: Duke Carl - yes

Mbruno 03-27-2018 03:56 PM

Which descendants of The Princess Mary, Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood, have been disqualified on the grounds of illegitimacy (including illegitimacy by unauthorized marriages) ?

Gawin 03-27-2018 05:40 PM

All of the Princess Royals descendants received permission to marry under the Royal Marriages Act with the possible exception of her great-granddaughter Sophie Lascelles.

Some of the descendants are disqualified from the succession because they were born out of wedlock and only legitimated when their parents married:

Hon. Mark Lascelles (b. 1964) - his parents George Lascelles 7th Earl of Harewood and Elizabeth Tuckwell married in 1967.

Martin Lascelles (b. 1962) - his parents Hon. Gerald Lascelles and Elizabeth Collingwood married in 1978.

Lady Emily (b. 1975) and Hon. Benjamin Lascelles (b. 1978), oldest children of David Lascelles 8th of Harewood and his first wife Margaret Messenger, who married in 1979. Because Benjamin is also disqualified from inheriting the Harewood title his younger brother Alexander will become Earl when their father dies.

Tanit Lascelles (b. 1981), daughter of Hon. James Lascelles and his second wife Shadow Lee, who married in 1985.

Lilianda Pearce (b. 2010), daughter of Sophie Lascelles and Timothy Pearce, who married in 2011. According to Marlene Koenig (an expert on the BRF) Sophie may not have requested permission to marry.

Two descendants are excluded because their parents never married:

Leo (born 2008), son of Alexander Lascelles, Viscount Lascelles and his then-girlfriend.

Georgina (born 1988), daughter of Martin Lascelles and his then-girlfriend.

Gawin 03-27-2018 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gawin (Post 2086263)

ROMANIA: Crown Princess Margareta, Custodian of the Crown – yes

I should also point out that Prince Karl Friedrich of Hohenzollern, who some believe has a better claim to the Romanian throne, is also a King George II descendant. In fact, he and Margareta are both descended from Alfred Duke of Edinburgh & of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Queen Victoria's second son.

Mbruno 03-28-2018 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gawin (Post 2086374)
All of the Princess Royals descendants received permission to marry under the Royal Marriages Act with the possible exception of her great-granddaughter Sophie Lascelles.

Some of the descendants are disqualified from the succession because they were born out of wedlock and only legitimated when their parents married:

Hon. Mark Lascelles (b. 1964) - his parents George Lascelles 7th Earl of Harewood and Elizabeth Tuckwell married in 1967.

Martin Lascelles (b. 1962) - his parents Hon. Gerald Lascelles and Elizabeth Collingwood married in 1978.

Lady Emily (b. 1975) and Hon. Benjamin Lascelles (b. 1978), oldest children of David Lascelles 8th of Harewood and his first wife Margaret Messenger, who married in 1979. Because Benjamin is also disqualified from inheriting the Harewood title his younger brother Alexander will become Earl when their father dies.

Tanit Lascelles (b. 1981), daughter of Hon. James Lascelles and his second wife Shadow Lee, who married in 1985.

Lilianda Pearce (b. 2010), daughter of Sophie Lascelles and Timothy Pearce, who married in 2011. According to Marlene Koenig (an expert on the BRF) Sophie may not have requested permission to marry.

Two descendants are excluded because their parents never married:

Leo (born 2008), son of Alexander Lascelles, Viscount Lascelles and his then-girlfriend.

Georgina (born 1988), daughter of Martin Lascelles and his then-girlfriend.

Thanks! What about the children of Ellen Mary Lascelles, daughter of The Hon. R. Jeremy Lascelles ? Were they born out of wedlock too ?

Gawin 03-28-2018 01:52 PM

Yes, you're right, I forgot about her. Ellen Mary Lascelles has a son Jack (born 2016) and daughter Penny (born 2018) with her boyfriend Mike Hermans.

Gawin 04-16-2018 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria (Post 2094099)
As per Marlene Eilers Koenig, none of the descendants of Carl Eduard, second Duke of Albany, sought the approval required by the Royal Marriages Act. Is there evidence suggesting they did?

Royal Musings: Royal Marriages Act - and who was actually eligible?

Assuming they did not, the grandchildren of Carl Eduard and their descendants are legally illegitimate from the British point of view.

This has also been pointed out in the Peerage News Google group. Apparently the Albany title might be available. But the matter would have to be investigated & the facts established before the title could be used. I suspect the Queen will just avoid it.

Humbugged 04-16-2018 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gawin (Post 2094163)
This has also been pointed out in the Peerage News Google group. Apparently the Albany title might be available. But the matter would have to be investigated & the facts established before the title could be used. I suspect the Queen will just avoid it.

There is no need to investigate really .The last official one Charles Edward fought for the Germans in WW1 and was stripped of the Garter in 1915 and of his title in 1919 - after that he became a Nazi (he was a SA General ),had working knowledge of the Death Camps as head of the German Red Cross and had to be de-Nazified at the end of the war .All his sons fought in the Wermacht in WW2 .

Him and few others were stripped under an Act of Parliament
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles...ation_Act_1917

None of the heirs (and CE's sons all had morganatic marriages anyway) ever re applied to regain the title (it's been 100 years at this point ) and I imagine they would have been told to take a running jump if they had .

So Albany is available but is still far too dodgy to be used .It took 200 years after James II took the throne (it was also his fathers title )for it to be used again (it was combined with the Ducal title of York under the Hanovers and 3 times it died with it's childless holder)

Dead King ,deposed King and a Nazi as 3 of the last 4 holders

Gawin 04-16-2018 06:47 PM

Yes, you are correct, Charles Edward was stripped of his peerage (and royal title) by the Titles Deprivation Act. But the Act also gave his successors the right to petition the Crown for revival of the title - "It shall be lawful for the successor of any peer whose name has been so removed, to present a petition to His Majesty praying to have the peerage restored and his name placed on the Peerage Roll."

Titles Deprivation Act (1917/1919)

Charles Edward's oldest son Johann Leopold did marry morganatically but because the concept of morganatic marriage isn't recognized in Britain that's irrelevant. Although it prevented Johann Leopold and his sons from inheriting Charles Edward's German titles (Coburg) they would still be able to succeed to his British titles (Albany).

What is important is that neither Johann Leopold nor his brother appear to have requested permission to marry as required by the Royal Marriages Act. If this is true, his descendants cannot petition the Crown for a revival. This is what would need to be investigated before the Queen could grant Albany to someone else.

This is also why the Cumberland title isn't available. The last Duke was also deprived under the Titles Deprivation Act but his current successor Ernst August of Hanover could petition the Crown for a revival of the title.

Gawin 04-17-2018 01:50 PM

Something I've wondered about...the children of Charles Edward Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha apparently didn't seek permission to marry as required under the terms of the Royal Marriages Act. This apparently included his daughter Sibylla, wife of Prince Gustaf Adolf of Sweden and mother of King Carl XVI Gustaf.

Royal Musings: Royal Marriages Act - and who was actually eligible?

If Sibylla's marriage was invalid under British law then under British law her children were illegitimate. But wouldn't this mean Carl Gustaf and his sisters have NO British succession rights even through their father, who was also a descendant of Queen Victoria. Is this interpretation correct?

For example, because Augustus Duke of Sussex didn't receive permission to marry Lady Augusta Murray their two children were considered to be illegitimate. The son Augustus d'Este was not only barred from the succession but he also could not inherit the Sussex title when his father died.

From The Royal Marriages Act:
"every marriage, or matrimonial contract, of any such descendant, without such consent first had and obtained, shall be null and void, to all intents and purposes whatsoever."

The Royal Marriage Act, 1772

Stefan 04-17-2018 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gawin (Post 2094479)
Something I've wondered about...the children of Charles Edward Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha apparently didn't seek permission to marry as required under the terms of the Royal Marriages Act. This apparently included his daughter Sibylla, wife of Prince Gustaf Adolf of Sweden and mother of King Carl XVI Gustaf.

Royal Musings: Royal Marriages Act - and who was actually eligible?

If Sibylla's marriage was invalid under British law then under British law her children were illegitimate. But wouldn't this mean Carl Gustaf and his sisters have NO British succession rights even through their father, who was also a descendant of Queen Victoria. Is this interpretation correct?

For example, because Augustus Duke of Sussex didn't receive permission to marry Lady Augusta Murray their two children were considered to be illegitimate. The son Augustus d'Este was not only barred from the succession but he also could not inherit the Sussex title when his father died.

From The Royal Marriages Act:
"every marriage, or matrimonial contract, of any such descendant, without such consent first had and obtained, shall be null and void, to all intents and purposes whatsoever."

The Royal Marriage Act, 1772

But the descendants of Princesses who married in a foreign Royal House di not need to ask for Permission. And the swedish Royals are the descendants of Princess Margaret of Connaught. So perhaps this was the reason Gustadf Adolf and Sibylla did not ask for Permission.

Gawin 04-17-2018 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan (Post 2094483)
But the descendants of Princesses who married in a foreign Royal House di not need to ask for Permission. And the swedish Royals are the descendants of Princess Margaret of Connaught. So perhaps this was the reason Gustadf Adolf and Sibylla did not ask for Permission.

Yes, Gustaf Adolf didn't need permission. But Sibylla did, just as her aunt Alice of Albany needed permission to marry Alexander of Teck even though he was a descendant of a Princess who married into a foreign Royal House.

So did Gustaf Adolf's mother Margaret of Connaught whose husband Gustaf VI Adolf was also a descendant of a Princess who married into a foreign Royal House.

Other princesses who married a descendant of a Princess who married into a foreign royal house but still needed permission:

Helena, daughter of Queen Victoria, married Christian of Augustenberg.
Maud, daughter of Edward VII, married Carl of Denmark.
Queen Elizabeth II, married Philip of Greece.

In addition, several princes married princesses who were exempt for the same reason, including Edward VII (married Alexandra of Denmark, a descendant of George II's daughters Louisa and Mary) and George V (married Mary of Teck, the daughter of Princess Mary Adelaide).

So marriage to a descendant who was exempt made no difference.

Given the fact that Charles Edward had been deprived of his British title (Title Deprivation Act) and his children were no longer British HRHs (1917 Letters Patent) I suppose he didn't want to be bothered with requesting permission from the British monarch.

Spheno 04-17-2018 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gawin (Post 2094488)
Yes, Gustaf Adolf didn't need permission. But Sibylla did, just as her aunt Alice of Albany needed permission to marry Alexander of Teck even though he was a descendant of a Princess who married into a foreign Royal House.

So did Gustaf Adolf's mother Margaret of Connaught whose husband Gustaf VI Adolf was also a descendant of a Princess who married into a foreign Royal House.

Other princesses who married a descendant of a Princess who married into a foreign royal house but still needed permission:

Helena, daughter of Queen Victoria, married Christian of Augustenberg.
Maud, daughter of Edward VII, married Carl of Denmark.
Queen Elizabeth II, married Philip of Greece.

In addition, several princes married princesses who were exempt for the same reason, including Edward VII (married Alexandra of Denmark, a descendant of George II's daughters Louisa and Mary) and George V (married Mary of Teck, the daughter of Princess Mary Adelaide).

So marriage to a descendant who was exempt made no difference.

Given the fact that Charles Edward had been deprived of his British title (Title Deprivation Act) and his children were no longer British HRHs (1917 Letters Patent) I suppose he didn't want to be bothered with requesting permission from the British monarch.

Don't worry, their marriage was legal (see Succession to the Crown Act 2013)

Gawin 04-17-2018 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spheno (Post 2094491)
Don't worry, their marriage was legal (see Succession to the Crown Act 2013)

Section 3(5) of the Succession to the Crown Act states:

A void marriage under that Act is to be treated as never having been void if—

(a) neither party to the marriage was one of the 6 persons next in the line
of succession to the Crown at the time of the marriage,

(b) no consent was sought under section 1 of that Act, or notice given
under section 2 of that Act, in respect of the marriage,

(c) in all the circumstances it was reasonable for the person concerned not
to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to
it, and

(d) no person acted, before the coming into force of this section, on the
basis that the marriage was void.

It seems that (c) is the sticking point. In order for the marriages of Charles Edward's children to be recognized as valid it would need to be established "that it was reasonable for [them] not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to [them]."

I'm not sure how this would be done now that the children are deceased.

Succession to the Crown Act 2013:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...0130020_en.pdf

Spheno 04-17-2018 03:38 PM

There is no any "sticking point" here. Their marriage was grand, very public event with a lot of officials on the hand.

cepe 04-17-2018 03:47 PM

:previous:

I may be misunderstanding but is it the difference between legal (ie true marriage in the eyes of the law and the world) and valid (in terms of the succession)?

principessa 04-17-2018 03:52 PM

As far as I remember several reigning and non-reigning monarchs in Europe are also in the line of succession. On which place is which monarch?

Thank you!

Gawin 04-17-2018 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spheno (Post 2094513)
There is no any "sticking point" here. Their marriage was grand, very public event with a lot of officials on the hand.

Yes, but that doesn't make any difference. The Royal Marriages Act doesn't state permission isn't required if the marriage is a grand, very public event with officials on hand.

I suspect Charles Edward may have believed his children weren't subject to the Royal Marriages Act, or he simply didn't want to bother requesting permission. Because his children were so far down the line of succession King George and his advisers probably didn't care either. Whether or not the marriage was legal in Britain was a tiny detail that didn't matter in the grand scheme of things. It was still legal in Sweden and Germany.

It's just one of those details of interest to BRF nerds like me. :smile:

Somebody 04-17-2018 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gawin (Post 2094499)
Section 3(5) of the Succession to the Crown Act states:

A void marriage under that Act is to be treated as never having been void if—

(a) neither party to the marriage was one of the 6 persons next in the line
of succession to the Crown at the time of the marriage,

(b) no consent was sought under section 1 of that Act, or notice given
under section 2 of that Act, in respect of the marriage,

(c) in all the circumstances it was reasonable for the person concerned not
to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to
it, and

(d) no person acted, before the coming into force of this section, on the
basis that the marriage was void.

It seems that (c) is the sticking point. In order for the marriages of Charles Edward's children to be recognized as valid it would need to be established "that it was reasonable for [them] not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to [them]."

I'm not sure how this would be done now that the children are deceased.

Succession to the Crown Act 2013:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...0130020_en.pdf

I would argue the other way around. Given that they (supposedly?) didn't ask permission, we may assume that they didn't think it applied to them (given that they had been deprived of their British titles - a reasonable ground for thinking that you no longer 'matter'). It only needs to be proven that it was 'reasonable' that they might have thought it didn't apply. Unless you can proof that they were very well aware and still decided NOT to seek permission for whatever reason, I would say it is reasonable to assume that they weren't aware that the Act applied to them.

Gawin 04-17-2018 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cepe (Post 2094519)
:previous:

I may be misunderstanding but is it the difference between legal (ie true marriage in the eyes of the law and the world) and valid (in terms of the succession)?

No, there was no difference. If permission was required, but not requested or granted, the couple were not legally married according to British law, and any children were illegitimate and incapable of inheriting anything from the royal parent, not just succession rights.

From The Royal Marriage Act:
"every marriage, or matrimonial contract, of any such descendant, without such consent first had and obtained, shall be null and void, to all intents and purposes whatsoever." [i.e, not limited to the succession rights]

This is why Augustus Duke of Sussex's son didn't inherit his title and George Duke of Cambridge's sons didn't inherit his. If the RMA only affected their children's succession rights, the sons still would have been able to inherit their peerages as "heirs male of the body." But because they were illegitimate in the eyes of the British law, they weren't the "heirs male."

The Royal Marriage Act, 1772

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somebody (Post 2094526)
I would argue the other way around. Given that they (supposedly?) didn't ask permission, we may assume that they didn't think it applied to them (given that they had been deprived of their British titles - a reasonable ground for thinking that you no longer 'matter'). It only needs to be proven that it was 'reasonable' that they might have thought it didn't apply. Unless you can proof that they were very well aware and still decided NOT to seek permission for whatever reason, I would say it is reasonable to assume that they were aware that the Act applied to them.

Thank you, I think yours is the most reasonable interpretation. Otherwise that entire section is meaningless, since the individuals it applied to are all deceased.

I'm glad I asked!

Spheno 04-17-2018 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cepe (Post 2094519)
:previous:

I may be misunderstanding but is it the difference between legal (ie true marriage in the eyes of the law and the world) and valid (in terms of the succession)?

Yes, now some marriages are legal but children from these marriages don't have succession rights (Succession to the Crown Act 2013).

Gawin 04-17-2018 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spheno (Post 2094566)
Yes, now some marriages are legal but children from these marriages don't have succession rights (Succession to the Crown Act 2013).

Yes, the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 changed the penalties for contracting an unapproved marriage.

Royal Marriage Act: The marriage wasn't legal, the children were illegitimate, but the royal who contracted the marriage still had succession rights.

Succession to the Crown Act: The marriage is legal, the children are legitimate, but both the royal contracting the marriage and any children/descendants have no succession rights.

sarahedwards2 04-17-2018 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gawin (Post 2086374)
All of the Princess Royals descendants received permission to marry under the Royal Marriages Act with the possible exception of her great-granddaughter Sophie Lascelles.



Some of the descendants are disqualified from the succession because they were born out of wedlock and only legitimated when their parents married:



Hon. Mark Lascelles (b. 1964) - his parents George Lascelles 7th Earl of Harewood and Elizabeth Tuckwell married in 1967.



Martin Lascelles (b. 1962) - his parents Hon. Gerald Lascelles and Elizabeth Collingwood married in 1978.



Lady Emily (b. 1975) and Hon. Benjamin Lascelles (b. 1978), oldest children of David Lascelles 8th of Harewood and his first wife Margaret Messenger, who married in 1979. Because Benjamin is also disqualified from inheriting the Harewood title his younger brother Alexander will become Earl when their father dies.



Tanit Lascelles (b. 1981), daughter of Hon. James Lascelles and his second wife Shadow Lee, who married in 1985.



Lilianda Pearce (b. 2010), daughter of Sophie Lascelles and Timothy Pearce, who married in 2011. According to Marlene Koenig (an expert on the BRF) Sophie may not have requested permission to marry.



Two descendants are excluded because their parents never married:



Leo (born 2008), son of Alexander Lascelles, Viscount Lascelles and his then-girlfriend.



Georgina (born 1988), daughter of Martin Lascelles and his then-girlfriend.



Is Benjamin excluded because his parents married after he was born and then divorced?

Gawin 04-17-2018 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarahedwards2 (Post 2094584)
Is Benjamin excluded because his parents married after he was born and then divorced?

Yes, you are correct, he is excluded because he was born before his parents married.

Ish 04-18-2018 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarahedwards2 (Post 2094584)
Is Benjamin excluded because his parents married after he was born and then divorced?

His parents' divorce doesn't play into it - Benjamin is excluded simply because his parents weren't married when he was born.

Kotroman 04-30-2018 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR76 (Post 2094382)
For instance Carl XVI Gustav of Sweden isn't in the British line of succession through his mother Sibylla of Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha but because of his grandmother Margaret of Connaught.

If he cannot derive his succession rights from his mother, he cannot derive them from his father either. Only children from a valid marriage can have succession rights, and it takes two for a marriage. Since Sibylla did not ask for permission, her marriage to Gustaf Adolf was not valid under British law. Thus, their children were not legitimate according to British law. Gustaf Adolf's own succession rights are irrelevant.

Mbruno 04-30-2018 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kotroman (Post 2100306)
If he cannot derive his succession rights from his mother, he cannot derive them from his father either. Only children from a valid marriage can have succession rights, and it takes two for a marriage. Since Sibylla did not ask for permission, her marriage to Gustaf Adolf was not valid under British law. Thus, their children were not legitimate according to British law. Gustaf Adolf's own succession rights are irrelevant.

Descendants of British princesses who married into foreign royal families did not have to ask permission to marry under the Royal Marriages Act. As a descendant of Margaret of Connaught, whose marriage was valid under British law, Prince Gustaf Adolf was exempted.

So, yes, his marriage to Sibylla was valid and Carl Gustaf is in the line of succession to the British throne.

Gawin 04-30-2018 11:43 AM

Yes, but Sibylla presumably still needed permission, just as her mother-in-law Margaret needed permission when she also married a descendant of a British princess who married into a foreign royal family.

There were also other British royals who needed permission despite marrying a foreign descendant of a British princess, including the Queen's marriage to Prince Philip, George V's to Mary of Teck, and Edward VII's to Alexandra of Denmark. Whether or not their spouses needed permission was irrelevant. The Royal Marriages Act exempted foreign descendants of princesses, not British royals who married them.

It could possibly be argued, under the new marriage rules, that Sibylla didn't know she didn't permission and therefore the marriage is now considered valid.

Kotroman 04-30-2018 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno (Post 2100311)
Descendants of British princesses who married into foreign royal families did not have to ask permission to marry under the Royal Marriages Act. As a descendant of Margaret of Connaught, whose marriage was valid under British law, Prince Gustaf Adolf was exempted.

So, yes, his marriage to Sibylla was valid and Carl Gustaf is in the line of succession to the British throne.

As I said, it takes two people to have a valid marriage. If one of the two does not meet the legal requirements, the marriage is not legally valid. Sibylla did not meet the requirements. Gustaf Adolf could have married a Swedish commoner and the marriage would have been legal in the UK; but for Sibylla and him to contract a valid marriage, she needed a permission.

Humbugged 04-30-2018 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno (Post 2100311)
Descendants of British princesses who married into foreign royal families did not have to ask permission to marry under the Royal Marriages Act. As a descendant of Margaret of Connaught, whose marriage was valid under British law, Prince Gustaf Adolf was exempted.

So, yes, his marriage to Sibylla was valid and Carl Gustaf is in the line of succession to the British throne.


Sybylla's father (who was the way she qualified anyway) was as mentioned elsewhere on this page stripped of his British titles(as were his children) .his Garter and his place in succession due to WWI that was even before he became a Nazi along with her brothers)

So as of 1919 she was no longer a Princess of Britain and had lost her place as well so she had no standing to pass on to Carl Gustaf whether she asked for permission to marry or not

Mbruno 04-30-2018 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kotroman (Post 2100420)
As I said, it takes two people to have a valid marriage. If one of the two does not meet the legal requirements, the marriage is not legally valid. Sibylla did not meet the requirements. Gustaf Adolf could have married a Swedish commoner and the marriage would have been legal in the UK; but for Sibylla and him to contract a valid marriage, she needed a permission.


I have a question though: as a descendant in maternal line from Princess Augusta of Great Britain, wouldn't Princess Sibylla be exempted too ? Or does the exemption have to hold in both maternal and paternal lines , which would be a narrower interpretation of the statute ?

Humbugged 04-30-2018 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno (Post 2100448)
I have a question though: as a descendant in maternal line from Princess Augusta of Great Britain, wouldn't Princess Sibylla be exempted too ?

No .

As per my last post the Act of Parliament that stripped her father's rights and position also stripped that of her and her brothers

Gawin 04-30-2018 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Humbugged (Post 2100441)
Sybylla's father (who was the way she qualified anyway) was as mentioned elsewhere on this page stripped of his British titles(as were his children) .his Garter and his place in succession due to WWI that was even before he became a Nazi along with her brothers)

So as of 1919 she was no longer a Princess of Britain and had lost her place as well so she had no standing to pass on to Carl Gustaf whether she asked for permission to marry or not

You're right, Sibylla's father lost his the Albany title but neither of them lost their place in the succession. Neither did Kaiser Wilhelm for that matter.

Yes, Sibylla was no longer a Princess of Great Britain but Alastair of Connaught lost his princely title as well, so that wouldn't necessarily exempt her from the Royal Marriages Act.

It could however, be argued that the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas believed they were no longer subject to the RMA because they regarded themselves as a German royal family.

Mbruno 04-30-2018 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gawin (Post 2100456)
You're right, Sibylla's father lost his the Albany title but neither of them lost their place in the succession. Neither did Kaiser Wilhelm for that matter.

Yes, Sibylla was no longer a Princess of Great Britain but Alastair of Connaught lost his princely title as well, so that wouldn't necessarily exempt her from the Royal Marriages Act.

It could however, be argued that the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas believed they were no longer subject to the RMA because they regarded themselves as a German royal family.

My question was not about Sibylla being no longer a Princess of Great Britain, but rather about the fact that, through her mother, she was a descendant of a British princess (Princess Augusta, granddaughter of George II) who had married into a foreign family. Did that exempt Sibylla from the provisions of the RMA ?

Gawin 04-30-2018 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno (Post 2100448)
I have a question though: as a descendant in maternal line from Princess Augusta of Great Britain, wouldn't Princess Sibylla be exempted too ? Or does the exemption have to hold in both maternal and paternal lines , which would be a narrower interpretation of the statute ?

No, if that were the case then all of the descendants of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra would have been exempt, since Alexandra was the descendant of two daughters of George II who married into foreign royal houses.

This of course, would include Queen Elizabeth II, her children, and her grandchildren.

The RMA applied to:

(1) Male-line descendants of the sovereign (beginning with George II). This included male-line descendants who also descended from females who were exempt.

(2) Descendants of daughters who did NOT marry a foreigner. That is why the descendants of Princess Louise, who married the Duke of Fife, a British subject, needed permission to marry, but the descendants of her sister Maud, who married the King of Norway, did not.

Whether or not the spouse was also a descendant of George II, and exempt from the RMA, made no difference.

Mbruno 04-30-2018 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gawin (Post 2100468)
No, if that were the case then all of the descendants of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra would have been exempt, since Alexandra was the descendant of two daughters of George II who married into foreign royal houses.

There was actually a theory by someone, whose name I don't recall, that claimed that all descendants of Queen Alexandra were actually exempt precisely for that reason. Have the courts ever ruled on the matter ?

Certainly, on a strict reading of the text of the RMA, there are grounds to argue that.

Gawin 04-30-2018 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno (Post 2100470)
There was actually a theory by someone, whose name I don't recall, that claimed that all descendants of Queen Alexandra were actually exempt precisely for that reason. Have the courts ever ruled on the matter ?

Certainly, on a strict reading of the text of the RMA, there are grounds to argue that.

Yes, this strict reading was known as the Farran exemption, after Charles Farran, who in the 1950s wrote that the BRF was no longer bound by the RMA because of Queen Alexandra. That interpretation was ignored.

Gawin 04-30-2018 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Humbugged (Post 2100441)
Sybylla's father (who was the way she qualified anyway) was as mentioned elsewhere on this page stripped of his British titles(as were his children) .his Garter and his place in succession due to WWI that was even before he became a Nazi along with her brothers)

So as of 1919 she was no longer a Princess of Britain and had lost her place as well so she had no standing to pass on to Carl Gustaf whether she asked for permission to marry or not

The person who stated that Charles Duke of Coburg and his children lost their place in the succession was wrong. The Titles Deprivation Act stripped Charles of his British peerage (Albany) and royal title (HRH Prince of the UK). It said nothing about succession to the British throne.

Titles Deprivation Act (1917/1919)

Sibylla and his other children had already lost their own British HRHs due to the 1917 Letters Patent which limited the HRH to the Sovereign's grandchildren (the children were Queen Victoria's great-grandchildren).

Somebody 05-11-2018 08:42 PM

Prince Louis has been added to the line of succession on the BRF website. However, one of the queen's other greatgrandchildren, miss Mia Tindall, is still missing. It would be nice if they'd solve that after the birth of her sibling (or when they update Harry's title but that seems less likely).

O-H Anglophile 05-11-2018 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somebody (Post 2104897)
Prince Louis has been added to the line of succession on the BRF website. However, one of the queen's other greatgrandchildren, miss Mia Tindall, is still missing. It would be nice if they'd solve that after the birth of her sibling (or when they update Harry's title but that seems less likely).

Mia's not really missing, her mother is just the last person listed for some reason. It would be worse if they skipped over her.;)

Somebody 05-11-2018 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile (Post 2104900)
Mia's not really missing, her mother is just the last person listed for some reason. It would be worse if they skipped over her.;)

That's what I call missing. It is not that they limited it to a certain number of people; in that case Zara would have been removed when Louis was added. The most logical reasoning is that only the queen's descendents are listed (if you have a better theory I'd love to know as this is the one I can comd up with) - but one (only 1!) descendent is missing while her cousins who have a comparable status (great grandchildren of the monarch through the queen's daughter) are listed.

Gawin 05-11-2018 09:25 PM

For some reason it seems the list always ended with Zara (Mrs. Michael Tindall).

For example, here's an archived copy from May 2016 (via the Wayback Machine):
https://web.archive.org/web/20160513....uk/succession

And another from August 2017:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170801....uk/succession

Tatiana Maria 02-06-2019 09:38 AM

I have a question in regard to this quote below from the late Princess of Wales.

BASHIR: It wasn't long after the wedding before you became pregnant. What was your reaction when you learnt that the child was a boy?

DIANA: Enormous relief. I felt the whole country was in labour with me. Enormous relief.

But I had actually known William was going to be a boy, because the scan had shown it, so it caused no surprise.

BASHIR: Had you always wanted to have a family?

DIANA: Yes, I came from a family where there were four of us, so we had enormous fun there.

And then William and Harry arrived – fortunately two boys, it would have been a little tricky if it had been two girls- but that in itself brings the responsibilities of bringing them up, William's future being as it is, and Harry like a form of a back-up in that aspect.

BASHIR: How did the rest of the Royal Family react when they learnt that the child that you were to have was going to be a boy?

DIANA: Well, everybody was thrilled to bits. It had been quite a difficult pregnancy - I hadn't been very well throughout it - so by the time William arrived it was a great relief because it was all peaceful again, and I was well for a time.
(Source)


Under the British succession laws used in 1982, girls were allowed to inherit the throne in the absence of brothers. Seeing as there would be no impediment to the succession if the child or both children were girls, why was it an "enormous relief" and "fortunate" that the child was a boy, and why would it "have been a little tricky if it had been two girls"?

Mbruno 02-06-2019 10:03 AM

:previous:

I suppose that, being the daughter of a peer whose title descends by agnatic primogeniture only, Diana must have grown up with the idea that it is important to have male offspring.

Of course, you are right though that the succession law was male preference primogeniture at the time William and Harry were born, so there would not have been any change to the order of succession if they were girls instead of boys.

Lilyflo 02-06-2019 12:58 PM

Interesting point Tatiana.

As Mbruno says, Diana's family depended on male offspring & she said herself, as the 3rd girl she was a disappointment to her parents who needed a son. In Sarah Bradford's book 'Diana', she describes how her mother Frances was sent to gynaecologists after her failure to produce a male heir. The British aristocracy was (is) obsessed with male heirs and in our monarchy, women only reigned in the absence of a male. The preference has always been for males so I can understand how a young Princess of Wales would feel pressurised to produce a male heir.

Denville 02-06-2019 01:17 PM

It would not have been I the least "tricky" if they had both been girls...Not tomenton the fact that Diana used to put it out that Charles had wanted Harry to be a girl...

jacqui24 02-06-2019 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2194910)
It would not have been I the least "tricky" if they had both been girls...Not tomenton the fact that Diana used to put it out that Charles had wanted Harry to be a girl...

Not so. We can't use today's lens to see issues in the 1980s. Sexism was far more rampant and blatant during that time. Especially given how Diana grew up and the humiliating experiences her mother was put through due to not producing a living male heir until Charles Spencer. Notice how Charles wished Harry was a girl AFTER William was already born. Not with William.

Lilyflo 02-06-2019 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2194910)
It would not have been I the least "tricky" if they had both been girls...Not tomenton the fact that Diana used to put it out that Charles had wanted Harry to be a girl...

Diana obviously felt 2 girls would have been a 'little tricky' - it's possible she meant that the expectation would be to keep having children until they had a boy and that would have meant a continued sexual relationship, which she claimed ended after Harry was born.

Denville 02-06-2019 01:42 PM

the queen's father had 2 daughters, and I dont believe anyone said that they had to keep producng children till they had a son...

Lilyflo 02-06-2019 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2194916)
the queen's father had 2 daughters, and I dont believe anyone said that they had to keep producng children till they had a son...

Firstly, the Queen's father wasn't the heir to the throne. Secondly, we have no idea what pressure to produce a son her parents felt or didn't feel because they didn't talk about it, unlike Diana who did.

EllieCat 02-06-2019 01:46 PM

Quote:

the queen's father had 2 daughters, and I dont believe anyone said that they had to keep producng children till they had a son...
Ah yes, but there was still the expectation that the Prince of Wales (later Duke of Windsor) would marry and produce children. At the time the Duke and Duchess of York had their two little girls, they weren't expected to be major Royals, unlike the Prince & Princess of Wales in the 1980s who definitely were. These days things are different, and rightly so.

Denville 02-06-2019 01:51 PM

tey were still next in line, until David did have children.. ANd Im sure that before the abdication, the RF were getting increasingly sure that he would not marry and have a family.....As I recall George V said that he hoped his son woudlnt marry and have children, so that Lillibet would be the heir...

Lilyflo 02-06-2019 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2194919)
tey were still next in line, until David did have children.. ANd Im sure that before the abdication, the RF were getting increasingly sure that he would not marry and have a family.....As I recall George V said that he hoped his son woudlnt marry and have children, so that Lillibet would be the heir...

That still doesn't mean that if the Queen's father had been 1st in line, they wouldn't have kept trying to have a son after Elizabeth & Margaret. Perhaps they did & failed, we just don't know because they didn't talk about it.

Diana did talk about it & given her background, what she said doesn't surprise me. Of course some people might accuse her of lying but I can't see what she'd have to gain from it considering she did produce a male heir.

sndral 02-06-2019 03:22 PM

Well it could have been tricky in a second sense, if Charles and Diana had had daughters, then divorced and Charles had remarried - say Tiggy (whom Diana slandered when she claimed Tiggy was pregnant by Charles, btw) and Charles and his second wife had produced a male heir that child would have been the next King rather than C&D's daughters and thus Diana's future role as mother of King William would have disappeared, so perhaps that is what her 'tricky' reference was to. Wasn't that the interview where she basically suggested Charles should be bypassed for the throne (ala David I suppose.)

Fijiro 02-06-2019 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sndral (Post 2194940)
Well it could have been tricky in a second sense, if Charles and Diana had had daughters, then divorced and Charles had remarried - say Tiggy (whom Diana slandered when she claimed Tiggy was pregnant by Charles, btw) and Charles and his second wife had produced a male heir that child would have been the next King rather than C&D's daughters and thus Diana's future role as mother of King William would have disappeared, so perhaps that is what her 'tricky' reference was to. Wasn't that the interview where she basically suggested Charles should be bypassed for the throne (ala David I suppose.)

David was not bypassed. He became His Majesty The King Edward VIII between 20 January – 11 December 1936 - then he abdicated, and later was created Duke of Windsor.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilyflo (Post 2194928)
That still doesn't mean that if the Queen's father had been 1st in line, they wouldn't have kept trying to have a son after Elizabeth & Margaret. Perhaps they did & failed, we just don't know because they didn't talk about it.

Diana did talk about it & given her background, what she said doesn't surprise me. Of course some people might accuse her of lying but I can't see what she'd have to gain from it considering she did produce a male heir.

It was also rumoured that Queen Elizabeth II's coronation was delayed by a whole year because the powers that be wanted to be sure that the Queen Mother was not pregnant with a boy.

Rudolph 02-06-2019 05:36 PM

Victoria Arbiter got herself into a bit of ‘trouble’ when Prince George was born. She made a comment that Catherine got it ‘right’ the first time. Meaning William had a boy heir.

Osipi 02-06-2019 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fijiro (Post 2194955)
It was also rumoured that Queen Elizabeth II's coronation was delayed by a whole year because the powers that be wanted to be sure that the Queen Mother was not pregnant with a boy.

I highly doubt that this was anything other than a rumor considering that when King George VI died in 1952, his wife was 52 years old and the chances of pregnancy are very, very slim. :biggrin:

Mbruno 02-06-2019 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sndral (Post 2194940)
Well it could have been tricky in a second sense, if Charles and Diana had had daughters, then divorced and Charles had remarried - say Tiggy (whom Diana slandered when she claimed Tiggy was pregnant by Charles, btw) and Charles and his second wife had produced a male heir that child would have been the next King rather than C&D's daughters and thus Diana's future role as mother of King William would have disappeared, so perhaps that is what her 'tricky' reference was to. Wasn't that the interview where she basically suggested Charles should be bypassed for the throne (ala David I suppose.)


That is actually an excellent point. Having two boys meant that Diana’s position as the mother of the future King was pretty much secure no matter what happened to her marriage. That would be a relief for her of course.

Furthermore, I agree with other posters on their point on sexism. Male-preference, but not male-only primogeniture had long been the norm for succession to the English and later the British Crown. Nevertheless, that did not prevent Henry VIII from being obsessed with having a male heir, nor did it prevent people from frowning upon the young Queen Victoria for taking the throne ahead of her uncles. Even as recently as 5 years ago, I heard a female British “ royal expert” on CNN literally congratulating Catherine for having had a boy as her firstborn.

In the end, I suppose many people still think it is preferable to have a King than a reigning Queen and, among the aristocracy , who is used to the concept of agnatic succession in the peerage, that opinion may be more widespread than in the general population actually.

Countessmeout 02-06-2019 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fijiro (Post 2194955)

It was also rumoured that Queen Elizabeth II's coronation was delayed by a whole year because the powers that be wanted to be sure that the Queen Mother was not pregnant with a boy.

Highly unlikely considering the queen mother was 52 years old when she was widowed. Even in modern times, she would be considered past that stage by most. There is no way anyone realistically thought she may be pregnant with a boy. And that would require nine months not a year.

Coronations are always delayed in the UK, to allow for an appropriate time of mourning for the monarch. And for plans to be made for the ceremony.

Ish 02-06-2019 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fijiro (Post 2194955)
It was also rumoured that Queen Elizabeth II's coronation was delayed by a whole year because the powers that be wanted to be sure that the Queen Mother was not pregnant with a boy.


Any such rumours would have been completely ignorant of fact. Regardless of the Queen Mother’s age when she was widowed or that a pregnancy doesn’t take a year to detect (and there were reliable pregnancy tests in 1952), is the plain and simple fact that the coronation of every British monarch since George III (with two exceptions) has occurred at least a year after the ascension. The exceptions: Edward VIII who never had a coronation and George VI who simply used his brother’s planned coronation date instead of rescheduling.

There were concerns that William IV’s newly widowed wife might have been pregnant when he died; this did not prevent Victoria from taking the throne, or affect her coronation schedule, but in the proclamation of Victoria as Queen an addendum was made noting that if a child was born to Adelaide that was William’s issue, they would become monarch. No similar statement was made when Elizabeth II was proclaimed Queen.

Tatiana Maria 02-07-2019 06:09 PM

Thank you to everybody who provided the many informative answers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilyflo (Post 2194907)
As Mbruno says, Diana's family depended on male offspring & she said herself, as the 3rd girl she was a disappointment to her parents who needed a son. In Sarah Bradford's book 'Diana', she describes how her mother Frances was sent to gynaecologists after her failure to produce a male heir. The British aristocracy was (is) obsessed with male heirs and in our monarchy, women only reigned in the absence of a male. The preference has always been for males so I can understand how a young Princess of Wales would feel pressurised to produce a male heir.

It's rather astonishing that having daughters instead of sons was apparently perceived by the British aristocracy and medical establishment as a gynaecological disorder as late as the 1960s.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Somebody (Post 2104897)
Prince Louis has been added to the line of succession on the BRF website. However, one of the queen's other greatgrandchildren, miss Mia Tindall, is still missing. It would be nice if they'd solve that after the birth of her sibling (or when they update Harry's title but that seems less likely).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gawin (Post 2104913)
For some reason it seems the list always ended with Zara (Mrs. Michael Tindall).

For example, here's an archived copy from May 2016 (via the Wayback Machine):
https://web.archive.org/web/20160513....uk/succession

And another from August 2017:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170801....uk/succession

While the most probable scenario is that they simply were overlooked, is there a possibility that even though at least their older daughter was baptized, Mrs. and Mr. Tindall are non-religious and thus are not raising their children as practicing Protestants?

O-H Anglophile 02-07-2019 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria (Post 2195236)

While the most probable scenario is that they simply were overlooked, is there a possibility that even though at least their older daughter was baptized, Mrs. and Mr. Tindall are non-religious and thus are not raising their children as practicing Protestants?

As Zara is godmother to Prince George that seems unlikely.

Iluvbertie 02-07-2019 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria (Post 2195236)

While the most probable scenario is that they simply were overlooked, is there a possibility that even though at least their older daughter was baptized, Mrs. and Mr. Tindall are non-religious and thus are not raising their children as practicing Protestants?

That wouldn't remove them from the line of succession however. Only being confirmed as Roman Catholic would do that.

Only once they were actually in the position to be the monarch and asked to take the oath to defend the Anglican church would there be a problem if they couldn't take that oath. Being an atheist isn't a bar so long as no one actually knows that fact.

Tatiana Maria 02-07-2019 07:43 PM

It was stipulated in the Act of Settlement that only Protestants are in line.
[...] the Crown and Regall Government of the said Kingdoms of England France and Ireland and of the Dominions thereunto belonging with the Royall State and Dignity of the said Realms and all Honours Stiles Titles Regalities Prerogatives Powers Jurisdictions and Authorities to the same belonging and appertaining shall be remain and continue to the said most Excellent Princess Sophia and the Heirs of Her Body being Protestants [...]
Of course, as you pointed out, somebody who pretends to be a Protestant and takes the oath can become monarch if no one actually knows their true beliefs, but that would be true with respect to a Catholic pretending to be a Protestant as much as an atheist pretending to be a Protestant.

Iluvbertie 02-07-2019 07:58 PM

A Roman Catholic is confirmed as such and at that moment is removed from the line of succession. The Earl of St Andrews children were all baptised RC but remained in the line of succession until they were each confirmed. Amelia has never been confirmed RC and so she remains in the line of succession. She may prefer the Roman Catholic rites but she has not committed herself to that denomination and so remains in the line.

The Tindalls' have had Mia baptised as CoE and presumably either has or will baptise Lena accordingly. Only when they reach an age where they publicly declare they are Roman Catholic will they be removed from the line of succession. Not being confirmed won't be a barrier - until such time as they actually are to be crowned as they do need to be able to take communion in the CoE during the Coronation ceremony.

The Succession to the Crown Act specifies that the monarch must be 'in communion with the CoE' and will uphold the 'established Church of England' and the 'established Church of Scotland' and uphold 'the protestant succession'. Most Roman Catholics would be unable to do any of those things. the Succession to the Crown Act actually is more specific than the Act of Settlement - which it amended in many ways.

Tatiana Maria 02-07-2019 08:06 PM

Has any official decision or judgment validated that interpretation of the Act of Settlement? In my opinion, it seems evident that anyone who is known not to be a Protestant would be barred by the clause "the Heirs of Her Body being Protestants" (though non-Protestant heirs of her body who have never been Roman Catholics would gain a place in the line of succession on conversion to Protestantism).

In 1714, there were children too young to have been confirmed as Roman Catholics who were nonetheless skipped, including the crown prince of France (age 4) and the crown prince of Spain and his brothers (ages 2 to 6).

jacqui24 02-07-2019 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno (Post 2194961)

In the end, I suppose many people still think it is preferable to have a King than a reigning Queen and, among the aristocracy , who is used to the concept of agnatic succession in the peerage, that opinion may be more widespread than in the general population actually.

I would argue that allowing a Queen Consort, but only Prince Consort, is evidence of such biases. The idea is that a king is higher than a queen. Rather than equal. If it is indeed equal, then all would be Prince/Princess Consort or King/Queen Consort.

Iluvbertie 02-07-2019 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria (Post 2195260)
Has any official decision or judgment validated that interpretation of the Act of Settlement? In my opinion, it seems evident that anyone who is known not to be a Protestant would be barred by the clause "the Heirs of Her Body being Protestants" (though non-Protestant heirs of her body who have never been Roman Catholics would gain a place in the line of succession on conversion to Protestantism). In 1714, if I remember correctly, there were children too young to have been confirmed as Roman Catholics who were nonetheless skipped.


The children, in 1714, who were skipped were done so because the legislation had been passed 13 years earlier and so they were largely not even born at that time.

Had one of them tried to claim the throne the country wouldn't have accepted them anyway having been conditioned to accept Sophia from 1701 onwards and not wanting to have a minor on the throne - who may still decide to convert to Roman Catholicism giving their family background. They could have had a series of minor monarchs who never reached their majority as they would have been confirmed as they reached 10 - 11 as Roman Catholics and then ended up with George anyway.

Parliament determines the succession - that was agreed in both 1660 and again in 1688 so they could have left out Sophia and gone to any family they wanted to at that point and there wasn't anything anyone could do. They chose Sophia as she was the most obvious that fitted their criteria - not RC and not married to an RC with an adult protestant son to inherit after her.

Tatiana Maria 02-07-2019 08:28 PM

I see your point in regard to the children being born after the Act of Settlement had named Princess Sophia specifically as the heiress. Given the long line of succession, though, it was relatively apparent at the time the Act was enacted that whenever Queen Anne passed there were likely to be baptized but unconfirmed children in some of the Catholic families. It seems to have been Parliament's preference to skip these (future) children, and there is no suggestion in the Act of Settlement that unconfirmed Catholic descendants of Princess Sophia would be treated differently.

Gawin 02-08-2019 12:56 PM

I suspect the Act of Settlement, like any law, is open to interpretation, especially as the religious requirement has never been tested. For example, are Roman Catholics permanently barred from the throne, even if they renounce that faith?

Apparently that interpretation didn't apply to the prohibition against marrying a Roman Catholic. When Prince Michael and the Earl of St. Andrews married Roman Catholics they lost their place in the succession (only to regain it when the marriage prohibition was repealed) but Peter Phillips, who married a former Roman Catholic who joined the Church of England prior to the marriage, did not.

It appears that children are not automatically barred despite being raised in the Roman Catholic faith, at least today. For example, in the past Lord Nicholas Windsor's children were included in the line of succession:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal...-of-succession

I suspect it's because (as the article points out) children cannot be held to be Roman Catholic (despite their upbringing, which they have no control over) until they have reached the age of reason.

But as you point out, at the time the Act was passed Roman Catholic children were passed over. I suppose at that time it was felt these children were likely to remain Roman Catholic (conversion from the Protestant to the Roman Catholic faith was far more common among James I's descendants than the opposite) and it was safer to settle the succession on an adult who not only was a staunch Protestant but whose son and heir was a staunch Protestant as well, with Protestant children of his own in the bargain.

Quite frankly, I don't think any potential heir is automatically disbarred from the line of succession based on his/her religion, even an heir like King Felipe of Spain, known to be a practicing Catholic. If and when necessary, an heir would be questioned (presumably by Parliament and the Church of England) to learn if s/he meets the religious requirement and disqualified at that time. But that's just my opinion.

`````````````````````

EDIT: I just discovered that the Roman Catholic prohibitions (succession & marriage) originally date to the 1689 Bill of Rights which states:

"And whereas it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince, or by any king or queen marrying a papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do further pray that it may be enacted, that all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown and government of this realm and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same..."

See Avalon Project - English Bill of Rights 1689

The 1701 Act of Settlement restated both prohibitions and took the further step of limiting the succession to the Electress Sophia and her descendants.

According to an article I just ran across, this was done after the death in 1700 of the Duke of Gloucester (son and heir of the soon-to-be Queen Anne) to prevent "any of the popish branches of the royal Family or even the Pretender himself, as the descent of the Crown is said to purge all Attainders, might by a pretended conversion to the Protestant Religion, have clame'd the Crown, without any impediment from the foremention'd Act [meaning the Bill of Rights]."

Source: "Appendix 3: Essay on the Act of Settlement c1758," Parliamentary History, October 2013 supplement, pp. 330-37 at 330-31.

Tatiana Maria 02-08-2019 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gawin (Post 2195505)
I suspect the Act of Settlement, like any law, is open to interpretation, especially as the religious requirement has never been tested. [...]

It appears that children are not automatically barred despite being raised in the Roman Catholic faith, at least today. For example, in the past Lord Nicholas Windsor's children were included in the line of succession:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal...-of-succession

I suspect it's because (as the article points out) children cannot be held to be Roman Catholic (despite their upbringing, which they have no control over) until they have reached the age of reason.

But as you point out, at the time the Act was passed Roman Catholic children were passed over. I suppose at that time it was felt these children were likely to remain Roman Catholic (conversion from the Protestant to the Roman Catholic faith was far more common among James I's descendants than the opposite) and it was safer to settle the succession on an adult who not only was a staunch Protestant but whose son and heir was a staunch Protestant as well, with Protestant children of his own in the bargain.

Quite frankly, I don't think any potential heir is automatically disbarred from the line of succession based on his/her religion, even an heir like King Felipe of Spain, known to be a practicing Catholic. If and when necessary, an heir would be questioned (presumably by Parliament and the Church of England) to learn if s/he meets the religious requirement and disqualified at that time. But that's just my opinion.

`````````````````````

EDIT: I just discovered that the Roman Catholic prohibitions (succession & marriage) originally date to the 1689 Bill of Rights which states:

"And whereas it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince, or by any king or queen marrying a papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do further pray that it may be enacted, that all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown and government of this realm and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same..."

See Avalon Project - English Bill of Rights 1689

The 1701 Act of Settlement restated both prohibitions and took the further step of limiting the succession to the Electress Sophia and her descendants.

Your points are very well considered. You are entirely right about the Bill of Rights, which I should have remembered as it remains in force today. Still, I believe your point that the breadth of the prohibition is open to interpretation because the statutes do not set out explicit requirements regarding the descriptions "Protestant" and "papist" still stands with respect to the Bill of Rights. It is not surprising, perhaps, that Buckingham Palace officials in the 21st century interpret the word "papist" differently (in fact, I suspect they would not use the word "papist" themselves!) than Members of Parliament interpreted those words in 1689 and 1701 (assuming the inclusion of Albert and Leopold Windsor on the official list was not a mistake like the style of "The Honorable" given to them in the list, as I have seen some persons speculate).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gawin (Post 2195505)
According to an article I just ran across, this was done after the death in 1700 of the Duke of Gloucester (son and heir of the soon-to-be Queen Anne) to prevent "any of the popish branches of the royal Family or even the Pretender himself, as the descent of the Crown is said to purge all Attainders, might by a pretended conversion to the Protestant Religion, have clame'd the Crown, without any impediment from the foremention'd Act [meaning the Bill of Rights]."

Source: "Appendix 3: Essay on the Act of Settlement c1758," Parliamentary History, October 2013 supplement, pp. 330-37 at 330-31.

That is an interesting motivation. I am not sure why the Parliament of 1700 assumed that people from the nearest branches of the royal family would be willing and able to be disingenuous about their religion while the future descendants of Princess Sophia would always be reliably heartfelt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gawin (Post 2195505)
For example, are Roman Catholics permanently barred from the throne, even if they renounce that faith?

Apparently that interpretation didn't apply to the prohibition against marrying a Roman Catholic. When Prince Michael and the Earl of St. Andrews married Roman Catholics they lost their place in the succession (only to regain it when the marriage prohibition was repealed) but Peter Phillips, who married a former Roman Catholic who joined the Church of England prior to the marriage, did not.

I think the Bill of Rights makes clear that even former Roman Catholics (as opposed to those who merely married former Roman Catholics) are barred, as it states (after the modification of 2015) that "all and every person and persons that is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall professe the Popish Religion ... shall be excluded and be for ever uncapeable to inherit".

The point that a converted Anglican who is a former Roman Catholic is barred from the throne, while a converted Anglican who is a former member of any other religion is qualified for the throne, was made by a member of the House of Lords when the Succession to the Crown Act was proposed, and the Government minister did not take issue with that point.

Gawin 02-08-2019 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria (Post 2195550)
That is an interesting motivation. I am not sure why the Parliament of 1700 assumed that people from the nearest branches of the royal family would be willing and able to be disingenuous about their religion while the future descendants of Princess Sophia would always be reliably heartfelt.

Religious prejudice would be my guess. The nearest branches were Roman Catholic and therefore capable of duplicity, unlike Sophia's Protestant and therefore morally superior descendants.

Quote:

I think the Bill of Rights makes clear that even former Roman Catholics (as opposed to those who merely married former Roman Catholics) are barred, as it states (after the modification of 2015) that "all and every person and persons that is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall professe the Popish Religion ... shall be excluded and be for ever uncapeable to inherit".

The point that a converted Anglican who is a former Roman Catholic is barred from the throne, while a converted Anglican who is a former member of any other religion is qualified for the throne, was made by a member of the House of Lords when the Succession to the Crown Act was proposed, and the Government minister did not take issue with that point.
Thank you for pointing this out.

Mbruno 02-08-2019 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 2195259)
.

The Succession to the Crown Act specifies that the monarch must be 'in communion with the CoE' and will uphold the 'established Church of England' and the 'established Church of Scotland' and uphold 'the protestant succession'. Most Roman Catholics would be unable to do any of those things. the Succession to the Crown Act actually is more specific than the Act of Settlement - which it amended in many ways.


I couldn't find any of the above in the final text of the Succession to the Crown Act.



I believe the requirement to uphold the established Protestant Church in England may be in the Coronation Act 1688 whereas the promise to preserve the Presbyterian system of government of the Church of Scotland may be included in the Treaty of Union of 1707.

Denville 02-08-2019 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gawin (Post 2195551)
Religious prejudice would be my guess. The nearest branches were Roman Catholic and therefore capable of duplicity, unlike Sophia's Protestant and therefore morally superior descendants.

Thank you for pointing this out.

if a former RC can't be King, why did Charles Edward Stuart consider converting to Anglicanism

Mbruno 02-08-2019 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria (Post 2195263)
I see your point in regard to the children being born after the Act of Settlement had named Princess Sophia specifically as the heiress. Given the long line of succession, though, it was relatively apparent at the time the Act was enacted that whenever Queen Anne passed there were likely to be baptized but unconfirmed children in some of the Catholic families. It seems to have been Parliament's preference to skip these (future) children, and there is no suggestion in the Act of Settlement that unconfirmed Catholic descendants of Princess Sophia would be treated differently.


At that time, it was very unlikely that a child who was baptized in the Catholic Church would not be later confirmed. Similarly, it was unlikely that a child who was baptized as a Catholic would "convert" to Protestantism before reaching confirmation age. I suppose that, by explicitly mentioning Sophia, Parliament intended to make sure the succession would pass to a reliable Protestant line.


When George I ascended the throne, he was below 50th in line to the Crown by strict male preference primogeniture. It is very likely that there were unconfirmed Catholic children ahead of him, who were nonetheless excluded by the Act of Settlement for not being descendants of Sophia of Hanover.

Gawin 02-08-2019 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2195561)
if a former RC can't be King, why did Charles Edward Stuart consider converting to Anglicanism

I suppose because he didn't fully understand the law and was willing to try anything in order to become King. (1) He didn't realize that all Roman Catholics were barred from the throne, including former Catholics, and (2) his religion technically wasn't even relevant because the succession had already been limited to the descendants of the Electress Sophia before he was born. The Act of Settlement eliminated him twice. Or actually thrice, once he married a Roman Catholic.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises