Line of Succession to the British Throne

[Mbruno]

The article below discusses the whole thorny question. Certainly at the time any children of the marriage, being considered illegitimate under British law, wouldn't be in the line of Succession. This article also states that the marriage was the only time that permission to marry was withheld by a British monarch after a formal request.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Sophie_of_Greece_and_Denmark

The most frequent disqualification actually came not from a refusal to consent (which, as you said, only formally happened once), but rather from people not actually asking for consent (possibly because they knew it would have been withheld, or because they didn't care, or because they didn't even know they had to).



The interesting thing, as I said above, is that the 2013 Act retroactively legitimized all the descendants from those unconsented marriages, but, for the purposes of the succession to the Crown specifically, they are treated as if they were still considered illegitimate.

 

[Gawin]

Permission was refused in 1946 for the marriage of Prince George Wilhelm of Hanover to Princess Sophie of Hesse (she had been married to Prince Cristoph of Hesse who was killed in action in WW2.)

The then Duke of Brunswick wrote to King George VI for permission on behalf of his son but it was never granted due to the bride and groom (and the Hanover family) being regarded as enemy aliens. Sophie was of course sister to Prince Philip. The couple married in April 1946 anyway. I think the decision was conveyed to the Duke of Brunswick by diplomatic sources.

George VI technically didn't refuse permission, he was advised to ignore the request. Of course, as the article you linked to points out this had the same effect in that permission wasn't granted.

 

[Queen Claude]

The article below discusses the whole thorny question. Certainly at the time any children of the marriage, being considered illegitimate under British law, wouldn't be in the line of Succession. This article also states that the marriage was the only time that permission to marry was withheld by a British monarch after a formal request.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Sophie_of_Greece_and_Denmark

It's rather ironic that the descendants of the children of Princess Sophie's first marriage are presumably in the line of succession, considering that Prince Cristoph (a cousin) was an ardent Nazi and in the Luftwaffe, flying on many missions during the war, while the descendants of her second marriage, contracted after the end of the war, are not.

https://lineofsuccession.co.uk/p/f4dfe3-prince-christoph-of-hesse-kassel

My understanding from the Wikipedia article is that the couple became engaged and the permission sought in 1945 before the war ended.

The couple did not marry until 1947 and aanother ironic twist was that the engagement of Sophie's brother Philip to heiress presumptive Princess Elizabeth was announced a few months later.

 

[Stefan]

Permission was refused in 1946 for the marriage of Prince George Wilhelm of Hanover to Princess Sophie of Hesse (she had been married to Prince Cristoph of Hesse who was killed in action in WW2.)

The then Duke of Brunswick wrote to King George VI for permission on behalf of his son but it was never granted due to the bride and groom (and the Hanover family) being regarded as enemy aliens. Sophie was of course sister to Prince Philip. The couple married in April 1946 anyway. I think the decision was conveyed to the Duke of Brunswick by diplomatic sources.

but Georg Wilhelm was a descendant of a Princess who married into a foreign Royal House so they would not have needed to seek permission.

 

[Iluvbertie]

but Georg Wilhelm was a descendant of a Princess who married into a foreign Royal House so they would not have needed to seek permission.

Both of them met that criteria but the Hanoverians have still been seeking permission even though they haven't needed it for generations.

 

[Mbruno]

but Georg Wilhelm was a descendant of a Princess who married into a foreign Royal House so they would not have needed to seek permission.

I am not sure how the Royal Marriages Act is to be interpreted in that case, but, while he descended in maternal line from a British princess who married into a foreign royal family (Victoria, Princess Royal), he descended in paternal line from Ernest Augustus, King of Hanover (fifth son of George III) and, in that latter line, he would be required to seek consent.


This type of conflict was discussed in the context of the so-called Farran exemption debate and the alleged exemption was dismissed. Quoting Wikipedia: "Consent to marriages in the royal family (including the distantly related House of Hanover) continued to be sought and granted as if none of the agnatic descendants of George II were also his cognatic descendants."

 

[Iluvbertie]

The law says that those who descend from a British born Princess who married into a foreign royal house are exempt. It doesn't say that that exemption doesn't apply is a descendant marries or descends from George II.

You can't have an exemption for only some of the descendants of Princess Victoria (Empress Frederick) and not others. Either all her descendants became exempt of none of them did.

 

[Gawin]

but Georg Wilhelm was a descendant of a Princess who married into a foreign Royal House so they would not have needed to seek permission.

But so were all the descendants of Edward VII and Alexandra of Denmark (who was a descendant of two daughters of George II who married into foreign Royal Houses).

 

[Gawin]

The law says that those who descend from a British born Princess who married into a foreign royal house are exempt. It doesn't say that that exemption doesn't apply is a descendant marries or descends from George II.

You can't have an exemption for only some of the descendants of Princess Victoria (Empress Frederick) and not others. Either all her descendants became exempt of none of them did.

It's tricky because Alexandra of Denmark, wife of Edward VII, was a descendant of Mary and Louisa, two daughters of George II who married into foreign royal houses.

But Alexandra's descendants aren't exempt while other descendants of Mary and Louisa are.

 

[Gawin]

Descendants of British princesses who married into foreign royal families were exempt, but you are right that, if needed, it would be quite hard to verify if someone way down the line had been disqualified or not under the Royal Marriages Act.

I'm not sure it would be hard to verify. The Royal Marriages Act only applied to a small number of George II's descendants and a record of those who received the necessary consent was entered into the Books of the Privy Council. So I believe it would be fairly easy to check.

Marlene Eilers Koenig listed the affected marriages that did or did not receive the Sovereign's consent in her blog. As you point out, in almost all cases permission wasn't sought, with the exception of George Wilhelm of Hanover, whose request was ignored.

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

 

[Mbruno]

But so were all the descendants of Edward VII and Alexandra of Denmark (who was a descendant of two daughters of George II who married into foreign Royal Houses).

That is precisely the point I alluded to in the so-called "Farran exemption" debate. This Lecturer from Liverpool University, Charles Farran, argued that the Royal Marriages Act did not apply to any living member of the immediate British Royal Family, including those princes or princesses who later became monarchs of the United Kingdom, because they all descended from British princesses who married into foreign royal families, but his argument was ignored, as it was for the members of the House of Hanover.

I guess the bottom line is that the Royal Marriages Act was a rather complex and confusing piece of legislation, so replacing it with a much simpler and straightforward marriage clause in the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 was definitely the right thing to do.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Farran Exemption was never tested in a Court of Law so everybody simply followed tradition. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened had the Queen refused permission for someone who then went to court and challenged her right to do so using the Farran Exemption or whether someone who was removed from the line of succession due to their parents not getting consent due to believing they were exempt challenged that removal.

 

[Alison H]

It was one of those things which seemed like a great idea at time, because two of George II's sons had married "unsuitable" women. I don't suppose anyone in 1772 stopped to consider what would happen 200 years down the line!

 

[SLV]

Has that exemption for marrying into other Royal Families been replaced by the 2013 Act?
So, if princess Charlotte were to fall in love with prince Oscar of Sweden, would she be exempt or not, since she is within the first 6 people in line of succession?

 

[Mbruno]

Has that exemption for marrying into other Royal Families been replaced by the 2013 Act?
So, if princess Charlotte were to fall in love with prince Oscar of Sweden, would she be exempt or not, since she is within the first 6 people in line of succession?

The Royal Marriages Actt 1772 has been repealed. The new law says that only the first six persons in line to the throne need to ask for consent to marry. If the person marries without consent, he/she and all descendants of the marriage are permanently removed from the line of succession.


So, if Charlotte is still among the first six persons in line to the throne and marries Prince Oscar without consent, not only Charlotte, but also all of her children with Oscar, and then their children's children, and so on in perpetuity will be out of the line of succession.

 

[Gawin]

The Farran Exemption was never tested in a Court of Law so everybody simply followed tradition. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened had the Queen refused permission for someone who then went to court and challenged her right to do so using the Farran Exemption or whether someone who was removed from the line of succession due to their parents not getting consent due to believing they were exempt challenged that removal.

Well, a decision in the plaintiff's favor would have rendered the Royal Marriages Act utterly useless. Once the last surviving child of Queen Victoria died in 1944, every single person subject to the Royal Marriages Act was also a descendant of a British princess who had married a foreign prince, including the King himself.

 

[SLV]

Thank you.

The Royal Marriages Actt 1772 has been repealed. The new law says that only the first six persons in line to the throne need to ask for consent to marry. If the person marries without consent, he/she and all descendants of the marriage are permanently removed from the line of succession.


So, if Charlotte is still among the first six persons in line to the throne and marries Prince Oscar without consent, not only Charlotte, but also all of her children with Oscar, and then their children's children, and so on in perpetuity will be out of the line of succession.

 

[Denville]

Thank you.

sorry if this sounds silly but if that were to happen that Charlotte were to marry a prince and be cut out of the succesion.. would the next person in line move up and then be one of hte "first six"...

 

[SLV]

Yes, prince Louis would go up a place.

sorry if this sounds silly but if that were to happen that Charlotte were to marry a prince and be cut out of the succesion.. would the next person in line move up and then be one of hte "first six"...

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Has that exemption for marrying into other Royal Families been replaced by the 2013 Act?
So, if princess Charlotte were to fall in love with prince Oscar of Sweden, would she be exempt or not, since she is within the first 6 people in line of succession?

The exemption in the Royal Marriages Act was only for the descendants of princesses who "married into foreign families" (not necessarily royal ones), and did not apply to the princesses themselves, whose marriages into foreign families were still subject to the consent requirement.

Had the Royal Marriages Act not been repealed, Princess Charlotte would have needed to obtain royal consent for her marriage to Prince Oscar of Sweden. Without it, their children would have been considered illegitimate under British law. However, their children would have been exempt from the Royal Marriages Act, as they would be the descendants of a princess who married into a foreign family (unless Prince Oscar had acquired British nationality by the time he married Princess Charlotte).

This exemption was not incorporated into the Succession to the Crown Act. If Princess Charlotte were to marry Prince Oscar of Sweden with royal consent, any of her children who were amongst the first six persons in line to the British throne would still be subject to the requirement to ask the British sovereign's consent for their marriages. Without that consent, however, their marriages would still be recognized under British law; they would merely lose their place in line to the British throne.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 made the marriage retroactively legal in the UK (it was of course already legal in Germany), so their descendants are now considered legitimate under British law, but the exclusion from the line of succession is permanent nonetheless.

Not all of the unapproved marriages were legalized (and their descendants legitimized) under British law by the 2013 Succession to the Crown Act. It states

(5) 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.​

Georg Wilhelm sought the British king's consent to his marriage under the Royal Marriages Act. For that reason, his marriage fails tests 5(b) and 5(c), and it continues to be unrecognized in the UK. His descendants therefore are even now illegitimate in UK law.

You could ask the other way around: why not? Most of those 5000 people have no official role in the UK, no British title, no state funding, and it is highly unlikely that anyone outside the first 10 people in the line of succession will ever ascend the throne. So keeping them in the line of succession is in the worst case innocuous and, pragmatically, there is no gain in removing them.

The law frames the question as "why?", not "why not?" Most nationals of the states over which the Crown is sovereign are ineligible to inherit the Crown, which is a privilege reserved for a small, select section of the population.

In answer to "why not": Because in that highly unlikely event of a tragedy, it is highly likely that the majority of those 5000 people would be unsuitable to the official role of UK monarch.

 

[Prinsara]

The royal.uk page is updated to include Lucas, but no Lili yet.

Does anyone have a guess as to why Lady Louise is listed as "The Lady Louise"?

 

[Gawin]

The royal.uk page is updated to include Lucas, but no Lili yet.

Does anyone have a guess as to why Lady Louise is listed as "The Lady Louise"?

As the daughter of an earl, Louise is styled "Lady Louise."

"The" means she is also the daughter of the current title holder.

For example, during her father's lifetime Sarah Chatto was styled "The Lady Sarah Chatto." Once her father died and her brother inherited the earldom, she became "Lady Sarah Chatto" (no "The").

Likewise, Charles and Diana's wedding invitations referred to Diana as "The Lady Diana Spencer" because her father Earl Spencer was still living.

 

[Sunnystar]

The royal.uk page is updated to include Lucas, but no Lili yet.

Does anyone have a guess as to why Lady Louise is listed as "The Lady Louise"?

Well, she was just born on Friday - give them until at least tomorrow to update it. Maybe they'll add the missing ) after Savannah's year of birth at the same time, lol.

 

[W.Y.CII]

Fun Fact:

After the birth of little Lilibet, Princess Astrid've dropped outside the top 100 of British line of succession, behind her brother and great/grand/children of her siblings. (I wonder does she even notice that)
https://www.britroyals.com/succession.asp

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Well, she was just born on Friday - give them until at least tomorrow to update it. Maybe they'll add the missing ) after Savannah's year of birth at the same time, lol.

If the births in the family over the past few years are any guide, the update will take months.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I am not sure if this is a legal or a theological matter, but considering the Act of Settlement restricts the line of succession to the Crown to "the said most Excellent Princess Sophia and the Heirs of Her Body being Protestants", what are the royal household's grounds for including newborn royal children (e.g. Sienna Mapelli Mozzi, who was added some time ago) in the Line of Succession article prior to their christenings? Is an infant born of Protestant parents regarded as Protestant even if the child themself has not been baptized in a Protestant church? Or is the royal household mistaken?

 

[Sunnystar]

I am not sure if this is a legal or a theological matter, but considering the Act of Settlement restricts the line of succession to the Crown to "the said most Excellent Princess Sophia and the Heirs of Her Body being Protestants", what are the royal household's grounds for including newborn royal children (e.g. Sienna Mapelli Mozzi, who was added some time ago) in the Line of Succession article prior to their christenings? Is an infant born of Protestant parents regarded as Protestant even if the child themself has not been baptized in a Protestant church? Or is the royal household mistaken?

Well, seeing that formerly Roman Catholics were only removed from the Line of Succession once they were confirmed in the RC Church, I don't see any rationale for excluding a child born in wedlock to someone who is in the Line of Succession just because they haven't been baptized in a Protestant Church yet.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Well, seeing that formerly Roman Catholics were only removed from the Line of Succession once they were confirmed in the RC Church, I don't see any rationale for excluding a child born in wedlock to someone who is in the Line of Succession just because they haven't been baptized in a Protestant Church yet.

If you are referring to the former inclusion of Lord Nicholas Windsor's sons on the list, I believe the Royal Household was in error. Parliament itself established the precedent for excluding all baptized Catholics, whether confirmed or not, when it appointed Princess Sophia of Hanover as heir to the throne in 1701, bypassing numerous infants and young children from Catholic families.

And as mentioned previously the Catholic church itself treats children baptized Catholic as church members. In my opinion it would be strange if an explicitly anti-Catholic statute was interpreted as more generous towards potential Catholics than the Catholic church itself.

But even if Lord Nicholas's sons are considered Protestants in law, my question is why?

 

[Heavs]

If you are referring to the former inclusion of Lord Nicholas Windsor's sons on the list, I believe the Royal Household was in error. Parliament itself established the precedent for excluding all baptized Catholics, whether confirmed or not, when it appointed Princess Sophia of Hanover as heir to the throne in 1701, bypassing numerous infants and young children from Catholic families.

And as mentioned previously the Catholic church itself treats children baptized Catholic as church members. In my opinion it would be strange if an explicitly anti-Catholic statute was interpreted as more generous towards potential Catholics than the Catholic church itself.

But even if Lord Nicholas's sons are considered Protestants in law, my question is why?

The RC Church treats baptised but not confirmed people as Catholics partly because it swells their numbers *a lot* (same for other churches including CofE) not because they're being more generous. It's sometimes difficult for adults to remove themselves from parish records when they wish to declare themselves definitely not Catholic or even members of another religion. And I suppose there's a difference between what is Sacramentally/theologically true and what is legally correct here.

It's definitely not the case now but in previous decades and centuries unless you were from an explicitly Catholic or Jewish etc family the presumption was that you were CofE (ish), especially with it being the official state religion. Nor in the more religious Catholic countries do they wait for the Christening to declare their heir officially the heir, even if it takes a few months to plan.

With a succession based on literally being born maybe the legal presumption is that if you otherwise qualify by birth then you have to do something explicit in order to be removed rather than having to do something extra explicit to join? Sienna's parents were baptised CofE, married CofE, she's being "raised protestant" at least in a vague cultural way.

It would be interesting to know the legal outcome if a member of the BRF (or another house with religious requirements) explicitly announced that they weren't having a Christening and were intending to raise the baby explicitly Humanist.