Line of Succession to the British Throne


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If there had not been the Act of Settlement in 1701 who were more genealogically senior to George of Hanover to succeed to the British throne? I believe about 50 people were displaced by the Act of Settlement - does anyone have a full list of those displaced because of their religion?
As well as James II/VII and his children, there was Anne Marie d'Orleans, the daughter of "Minette", and her descendants, and the descendants of the Elector Palatine and the Count Palatine, George I's uncles.
 
I believe that would be James Francis Edward Stuart, the son of James II and Mary of Modena. He was Queen Mary II and Queen Anne's half-brother and James II's only legitimate son to live to adulthood. He later married and had two sons who lived to old age, so assuming he became king after Anne's death, his eldest son Charles would have succeeded him, and the BRF would have continued from that line.
 
I think you misunderstood my question. If there had not been the Act of Settlement 1701 there were 50 people in the line of succession before George of Hanover. Those 50 people were displaced by the Act because of their religion and I am looking for a list of those 50 people.
 
If there had not been the Act of Settlement in 1701 who were more genealogicaly senior to George of Hanover to suceed to the British throne? I believe about 50 people were dispaced by the Act of Settlement - does anyone have a full list of those dusplaced because of their religion?

Prior to the Act of Settlement, there was no statutory rule of succession to the English/British throne. There is no doubt that King James II/VII and his infant son James were displaced because of their religion, but even if religion had never been an issue, there would probably have been debate over who ought to succeed to the throne if James II and his son both died without having any further legitimate male issue.


During the Anglo-Saxon period there was no normative rule on succession, which was instead claimed on a range of bases, including inheritance, but also nomination by the previous monarch, conquest or election. In practice, the King tended to be the person who could secure the Crown, not a person who was emplaced according to an abstract principle.

The Normans continued broadly similar practice, with the early Kings nominating their successors from their own children or their nephews (generally women were not nominated, although this too was not an absolute rule). In this, the Kings did not respect primogeniture. William I, for instance, bequeathed the Crown to his second son, also called William, who was succeeded by his younger brother, Henry, despite an agreement to pass the Crown to his older brother, Robert. The situation remained complex, if viewed in terms of age, with just one extended period of primogeniture covering four successions (from Henry III to Edward III), until it finally collapsed into the War of the Roses. Even after this period, there was still a tendency to choose a successor rather than to follow a principle, with the authority to do so gradually moving from the reigning monarch to Parliament.

These periods of English history could be characterised as having a political monarchy in which succession took account of heredity in the male line, but was primarily determined by the realities of power. The deviation from this approach, under which male preference primogeniture became the controlling principle, happened when Parliament decided to entrench the succession in statute, as mentioned above, by conferring it on the heirs to the body of Princess Sophia:​

Is your real question perhaps "If the Act of Settlement in 1701 had not included a clause banning non-Protestants from the throne, which 50 or so people would have been senior to George of Hanover in the line of succession in 1714?" :flowers:
 
I think you misunderstood my question. If there had not been the Act of Settlement 1701 there were 50 people in the line of succession before George of Hanover. Those 50 people were displaced by the Act because of their religion and I am looking for a list of those 50 people.

I didn't misunderstand your question. You asked two different questions, and I answered one of them because I couldn't answer both of them. Your first question was who was genealogically senior to George I, and I said I believed it to be James II's son. With no Act of Settlement barring Catholics from the throne, that's who I believe would have succeeded Queen Anne.

Your second question asked for the 50 people displaced by the Act of Settlement, and since I didn't have that information available, I didn't answer it and figured someone else who did have it would.
 
This Wikipedia article lists 54 Roman Catholics disqualified by the Act of Settlement.


This is a quirky thing to see. I took a look at Electress Sophia's eldest brother Charles and he had a later marriage with protestant descendants alive in 1712. They had been flagged as illegitimate (by Sophia or who was proposing her as heir on her behalf?) but they are not. It's a morganite marriage which was made amongst some of Sophia's own descendants in the following 19th century such as the Cambridges so this is pretty strange when you think about it. Perhaps the Dagenfeld line was not known in the UK although googling shows they intermarried with British aristocracy for generations. I don't understand this really as it looks like Sophia and her descendants are not the closet legitimate protestants because there are others. There must have been a reason why things happened this way. George I would be more than 55 places out if Charles of Palatinate's full family was included, it could be well above 60 or even past 70. I don't understand what was going on here.
 
Last edited:
This is a quirky thing to see. I took a look at Electress Sophia's eldest brother Charles and he had a later marriage with protestant descendants alive in 1712. They had been flagged as illegitimate (by Sophia or who was proposing her as heir on her behalf?) but they are not. It's a morganite marriage which was made amongst some of Sophia's own descendants in the following 19th century such as the Cambridges so this is pretty strange when you think about it. Perhaps the Dagenfeld line was not known in the UK although googling shows they intermarried with British aristocracy for generations. I don't understand this really as it looks like Sophia and her descendants are not the closet legitimate protestants because there are others. There must have been a reason why things happened this way. George I would be more than 55 places out if Charles of Palatinate's full family was included, it could be well above 60 or even past 70. I don't understand what was going on here.
Charles's divorce from Charlotte of Hesse-Kassel wasn't universally recognized since she didn't agree to it. As George IV later learned, a prince cannot divorce an unwanted spouse simply because he wants to.
 
Charles's divorce from Charlotte of Hesse-Kassel wasn't universally recognized since she didn't agree to it. As George IV later learned, a prince cannot divorce an unwanted spouse simply because he wants to.
Hmm, I understand what you mean, but in the law of the day, they are divorced and the church performed the next marriage.
 
As well as James II/VII and his children, there was Anne Marie d'Orleans, the daughter of "Minette", and her descendants, and the descendants of the Elector Palatine and the Count Palatine, George I's uncles.
George I was around 55th in the line of succession before the Act of Settlement, which illustrates how radical that Act was at the time.
 
Hmm, I understand what you mean, but in the law of the day, they are divorced and the church performed the next marriage

Hmm, I understand what you mean, but in the law of the day, they are divorced and the church performed the next marriage.

Hmm, I understand what you mean, but in the law of the day, they are divorced and the church performed the next marriage.
But the legality of the divorce was questionable due to Charlotte's refusal to recognize it. The fact that a clergyman conducted the second marriage made no difference. For example, in 1540 Philip of Hesse made a bigamous second marriage with the approval of several Protestant clergymen.

After his second (morganatic) wife's death, Charles appealed to Charlotte again for a divorce, in order to make another equal marriage and sire more heirs. At that time his only heir was his son Charles (by Charlotte) who although married to a Danish princess had no children of his own. But Charlotte continued to refuse, tying Charles's hands.

See Nancy Goldstone's book about Charles and his sisters, Daughters of the Winter Queen (2018), p. 358.

I've not found any source that discusses why Parliament passed over Charles's morganatic children, but I suspect their questionable legitimacy was the reason.
 
But the legality of the divorce was questionable due to Charlotte's refusal to recognize it. The fact that a clergyman conducted the second marriage made no difference. For example, in 1540 Philip of Hesse made a bigamous second marriage with the approval of several Protestant clergymen.

After his second (morganatic) wife's death, Charles appealed to Charlotte again for a divorce, in order to make another equal marriage and sire more heirs. At that time his only heir was his son Charles (by Charlotte) who although married to a Danish princess had no children of his own. But Charlotte continued to refuse, tying Charles's hands.

See Nancy Goldstone's book about Charles and his sisters, Daughters of the Winter Queen (2018), p. 358.

I've not found any source that discusses why Parliament passed over Charles's morganatic children, but I suspect their questionable legitimacy was the reason.
I'll look for that book if I can get it. This is not an area I know too well but it seems surprisingly grey in the English sense of the word which was something I hadn't thought about. I'm just quite suprised looking at this tonight and the potential significance, like a gap opened up. It's a view point on who is heir after the Catholic relatives but it is not crystal clear why the choice is. Not something I really understand speaking personally.
 
Last edited:
I'll look for that book if I can get it. This is not an area I know too well but it seems surprisingly grey in the English sense of the word which was something I hadn't thought about. I'm just quite suprised looking at this tonight and the potential significance, like big gap in the history opened up.
Yes, definitely post a source that discusses Parliament's attitude about Charles's divorce, if you can find one. I should point out that the Church of England had very strict views on divorce compared to other Protestant sects. Even Charles and Camilla couldn't marry in a church because she was a divorcee whose former husband was still living. I suppose that influenced Parliament's view as well. As I pointed out earlier, George IV couldn't simply set his wife aside as the Elector Charles had.
 
Last edited:
Yes, definitely post a source that discusses Parliament's attitude about Charles's divorce, if you can find one. I should point out that the Church of England had very strict views on divorce, especially compared to other Protestant sects. Even Charles and Camilla couldn't marry in a church because she was a divorcee whose former husband was still living. I suppose that influenced Parliament's view as well. As I pointed out earlier, George IV couldn't simply set his wife aside as the Elector Charles had.
I think it is hard to see how Parliament was influenced.
 
I think it is hard to see how Parliament was influenced.
Yes, which is why I would like to find a source that covers it. There must have been some discussion about Charles's morganatic (and Protestant) children, even if only briefly. Their existence was certainly known in England considering one of the daughters married a general who fought for William III.
 
Morganatic marriage isn't really a thing in Britain, so it must have been due to doubts about the legality of the divorce rather than the status of the second wife.
 
By my count, there were 60.
I need to correct my earlier post. The Wikipedia article lists 54 Roman Catholics who were bypassed on Queen Anne's death in 1714. It doesn't include others disqualified by the Act of Settlement who died before she did.
 
For clarification, I was also referring to the number of people who were bypassed on Queen Anne's death in 1714.
 
Back
Top Bottom