Line of Succession to the British Throne

[Gawin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/20160513014456/https://www.royal.uk/succession

And another from August 2017:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170801050555/https://www.royal.uk/succession

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

 

[Mbruno]

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]

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]

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]

Thank you to everybody who provided the many informative answers.

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.

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).

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/20160513014456/https://www.royal.uk/succession

And another from August 2017:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170801050555/https://www.royal.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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).