Line of Succession to the British Throne

[jacqui24]

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]

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]

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]

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/421542/Buckingham-Palace-lists-Catholics-in-line-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]

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/421542/Buckingham-Palace-lists-Catholics-in-line-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).

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.

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]

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.

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]

.

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Denville]

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.

Thank you. I know he was rather a dim bulb.. but I thought that there was a possibility, if Anne did not have heirs that the Jacobite cuase still had a chance if Charles would accept the C of E....(and married a Protestant wife - of couse he did not marry till late in life....

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I am not familiar with the events under discussion, but a Parliament which had twice altered the succession laws could theoretically alter them a third time if a claimant gained sufficient popularity, and a converted Anglican claimant would presumably obtain more support than one who continued to be Catholic.

 

[Denville]

In theory yes, but in practice I think that while there was still a Jacobite faction, CE didn't have enough support to pull it off. THe Stuarts were not wanted overall because of their Catholicism, their tendency towards Absolutism and a general ineptness at ruling.. But in theory, if Charles had turned Anglican married a Protestant princess, he might have had a chance of the law being changed in his favour….However OTOH the Stuarts had been restored in 1660, and although Charle II had stayed away from the Roman Church, he had still been something of an absolutist, he had married a Catholic wife.. and his broter had been more inflexible as a Catholic.. so maybe they weren't willing to give them another chance

 

[Ish]

In theory yes, but in practice I think that while there was still a Jacobite faction, CE didn't have enough support to pull it off. THe Stuarts were not wanted overall because of their Catholicism, their tendency towards Absolutism and a general ineptness at ruling.. But in theory, if Charles had turned Anglican married a Protestant princess, he might have had a chance of the law being changed in his favour….However OTOH the Stuarts had been restored in 1660, and although Charle II had stayed away from the Roman Church, he had still been something of an absolutist, he had married a Catholic wife.. and his broter had been more inflexible as a Catholic.. so maybe they weren't willing to give them another chance

Except the Stuarts weren't overthrown; after James II was deposed his daughter and her husband (who was a grandson of Charles I and James' nephew) reigned, then after their deaths James' other daughter reigned.


Charles II is noted as having been a popular monarch during his reign. James I was a popular monarch as well. Both had their issues, but they were not really worse than many other monarchs. James II, however, was because of his Catholicism.



Charles Edward Stuart's willingness to convert to Anglicanism came up after his defeat in 1745; he decided that he was willing to convert in order to gain further support in England. He wasn't a strong candidate for the throne regardless of his religion - his claim came through his then still living father, he had just been hugely defeated in a rebellion to overthrow the monarch, and the monarch (George II) had no shortage of eligible, Protestant heirs.

 

[danishjaveed]

First of all thank you all for all the information on this thread.

Only being confirmed as Roman Catholic would do that.

As a Roman Catholic will not be in the line of succession only after he/she is confirmed, this means that Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick, Lady Marina Windsor and Lord Nicholas Windsor were not in the line of succession only after they were confirmed. So. Does anyone know when were their confirmation dates? Plus who else converted to Roman Catholism and was concequently not in the line of succession and what were their confirmation dates?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Lord Nicholas Windsor converted in 2001.

Baron Downpatrick converted in 2003.

Lady Marina did so in 2008.

The other person who has lost their place due to conversion is Princess Alexandra of Hanover who converted last year.

Exact dates aren't given anywhere - only years - that I can find.

 

[Kataryn]

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).

How were the Crown princes of France (who reigned as Louis XV.) and Spain (later Louis I. of Spain) in the line to the British throne?

 

[wyevale]

^ The future Louis XV was certainly baptised as a Catholic, within days of his birth, so would [under the act of Settlement] have been excluded from the succession to the British throne..
Given the appalling rates of infant mortality, babies tended to be baptised asap.. sometimes within 24 hours of birth, lest they die 'unsaved'.

 

[Gawin]

How were the Crown princes of France (who reigned as Louis XV.) and Spain (later Louis I. of Spain) in the line to the British throne?

They were both great-grandsons of Henrietta Anne Duchess of Orleans, the daughter of Charles I.


King Charles I > Henrietta Anne (m. Philippe Duke of Orleans) > Anne Marie (m. Victor Amadeus Duke of Savoy & later King of Sardinia) > Marie Adelaide (m. Louis Duke of Burgundy later Dauphin of France) > Louis XV


King Charles I > Henrietta Anne (m. Philippe Duke of Orleans) > Anne Marie (m. Victor Amadeus Duke of Savoy & later King of Sardinia) > Marie Louise (m. Philip V King of Spain) > Luis I

 

[Mbruno]

They were both great-grandsons of Henrietta Anne Duchess of Orleans, the daughter of Charles I.


King Charles I > Henrietta Anne (m. Philippe Duke of Orleans) > Anne Marie (m. Victor Amadeus Duke of Savoy & later King of Sardinia) > Marie Adelaide (m. Louis Duke of Burgundy later Dauphin of France) > Louis XV


King Charles I > Henrietta Anne (m. Philippe Duke of Orleans) > Anne Marie (m. Victor Amadeus Duke of Savoy & later King of Sardinia) > Marie Louise (m. Philip V King of Spain) > Luis I

Wikipedia has an article with the Jacobite line of succession in 1714 . Apparently, the future King Louis XV of France and the future Luis I of Spain were actually fifth and sixth in line to the thrones of England and Scotland (the Jacobites of course not recognizing the legal validity of the Acts of Union of 1707).



Interestingly, the future King George I of Great Britain was only 56th in line under the Jacobite succession, which really highlights how dramatic the Act of Settlement was. I am surprised there was so little opposition to the legitimacy of the Hanoverians, but I understand it in the context of the time when the Act of Settlement was passed.

 

[Gawin]

Wikipedia has an article with the Jacobite line of succession in 1714 . Apparently, the future King Louis XV of France and the future Luis I of Spain were actually fifth and sixth in line to the thrones of England and Scotland (the Jacobites of course not recognizing the legal validity of the Acts of Union of 1707).



Interestingly, the future King George I of Great Britain was only 56th in line under the Jacobite succession, which really highlights how dramatic the Act of Settlement was. I am surprised there was so little opposition to the legitimacy of the Hanoverians, but I understand it in the context of the time when the Act of Settlement was passed.

Interesting article. However it lists the future George I's brother Maximilian as #65 in line. But as a convert to the Roman Catholic faith (1692) Maximilian was disqualified.

 

[Duke of Leaside]

Interesting article. However it lists the future George I's brother Maximilian as #65 in line. But as a convert to the Roman Catholic faith (1692) Maximilian was disqualified.

At the top of the line of succession in the article it says that eligible Protestants are listed in italics. Maximilian is not italicized as he wasn't eligible, because as you say he had converted to the Roman Catholic faith.

 

[Gawin]

At the top of the line of succession in the article it says that eligible Protestants are listed in italics. Maximilian is not italicized as he wasn't eligible, because as you say he had converted to the Roman Catholic faith.

Ah, I didn't catch that, thanks!

 

[Kataryn]

Wikipedia has an article with the Jacobite line of succession in 1714 . Apparently, the future King Louis XV of France and the future Luis I of Spain were actually fifth and sixth in line to the thrones of England and Scotland (the Jacobites of course not recognizing the legal validity of the Acts of Union of 1707).



Interestingly, the future King George I of Great Britain was only 56th in line under the Jacobite succession, which really highlights how dramatic the Act of Settlement was. I am surprised there was so little opposition to the legitimacy of the Hanoverians, but I understand it in the context of the time when the Act of Settlement was passed.

You are right, I didn't think of the Savoy-girls! Thank you.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

When Prince William was born the law was that males had precedence over females in the line of succession, so even if Diana and Charles had had a daughter before William was born, William would still be next in line after Charles. Now...the law has changed, making the eldest child, male or female, the next in line. So if Charles and Diana HAD had a female before William, would she have replaced William as heir to the thrown behind Charles, or would they have skipped a generation with the new rule, since William had already been giving that "right" at birth before the law had changed?

The Succession to the Crown Act states:

"In determining the succession to the Crown, the gender of a person born after 28 October 2011 does not give that person, or that person’s descendants, precedence over any other person (whenever born)."

As the Duke of Cambridge was born before 28 October 2011, his gender would still give him precedence over a hypothetical older sister.


However, I have no idea whether the law would have been changed in the 1980s if Prince Charles had in fact had a female child before William.

 

[Iluvbertie]

It was definitely discussed when Diana was expecting William. I am sure it would have been passed then.

 

[Mbruno]

I am not sure if the topic has been discussed here before, but on October 28, 2019, the Quebec Court of Appeal finally ruled to dismiss the appeal by Geneviève Motard and Patrick Taillon against the previous decision of the Quebec Superior Court that upheld the validity of Canada's Succession to the Throne Act, 2013. The full text of the Court's ruling can be found here . Unfortunately it is in French (I couldn't find the English translation).


Just to give some context, the Succession to the Throne Act was passed by the federal Parliament of Canada to assent to the UK's Succession to the Crown Act, 2013 in accordance with the requirement set out in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, 1931. The plaintiffs, who are two law professors from the University of Laval, challenged the legislation in the Quebec courts on the basis that it did not comply with Section 41(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982 under which any change to the constitution of Canada affecting "the office of the Queen" also requires resolutions from the Legislative Assemblies of all provinces of Canada. Furthermore, the plaintiffs also claimed that the Succession to the Throne Act violated Section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by assenting to the exclusion of Roman Catholics from the line of succession.


If I understand it correctly, what the Superior Court found, and was upheld on appeal by the Court of Appeal, is that:


1. The British laws of succession are not part of the constitution of Canada and apply to Canada solely by the principle of symmetry implied in the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867, under which the person who occupies the throne of the United Kingdom is also the King or Queen of Canada. There is therefore no need to resort to the amendment procedure in Part V of the Constitution Act , 1982 to give assent to the amendment in British law to the British rules of succession. The enactment of a statute of assent by the Canadian Parliament such as the one passed in 2013 (again in accordance with the Statute of Westminster) was sufficient.


2. Section 41(a) in the Constitution Act, 1982 protects the institution of the monarchy, but not the procedural rules that allow a person to accede to the throne. The Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 makes no change to the powers, status or constitutional role vested in the Queen of Canada and therefore does not fall within the meaning of the “office of the Queen” as envisaged in Section 41(a).


3. Neither the Canadian Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 nor the unwritten principle of symmetry regarding the hereditary succession to the thrones of the United Kingdom and Canada incorporate the British sucession laws into Canadian domestic law. Since the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply to British laws, the challenge to the 2013 act based on incompatibility with the Charter is also dismissed.




Finally, the Court of Appeal also rejected another claim by the plaintiffs of an alleged violation of s. 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which provides that legislation must be enacted in both English and French. Again, since the UK law of succession is not part of Canadian domestic law, the Court ruled that Section 133 did not apply in this case.

 

[Somebody]

I have a question and I have no idea where to post it. I'm watching a clip from Good Morning Britain and they're talking about Charles possibly abdicating for William. One of the panelists said that if Charles abdicated the throne wouldn't go to William it would go to Andrew. I've never heard this before anyone know if this is true?

That is total garbage.

If Charles abdicated, which he won't, he would be treated as though dead for the line of succession which would then pass to William.

In 1936, the last time there was an abdication in the UK, there was some discussion about by-passing Prince Albert and Prince Henry as it was felt that Prince George, who had a son to be Prince of Wales may have been a better option but ... they simply followed the line of succession and decided that Prince Albert would become George VI.

Charles can't abdicate for his sons or grandchildren.

Moved it to this thread which seems more appropriate for this question.

It seems whoever it was confused abdication and renunciation. While abdication only applies to a Sovereign (as you cannot abdicate when not on the throne); renunciation is an act that can be done by anyone in the line of succession and many times is done 'for him/herself and his/her descendants'; especially in the case of marriage (a relatively recent example is prince Louis of Luxembourg whose renounced his rights, which impacted both him and Noah - Gabriel was never in line so was not impacted by this decision).

However, if the descendants are already born from an approved marriage, it would be extremely unlikely that someone would renounce his/her succession rights not only for him/herself but also for his/her descendants. The only recent example in which something like that happened was in Romania where not only Irina but also their children and grandchildren were not included in the line of succession when the king decided that his daughters should form the new line of succession to the Romanian throne. As we now know, Albert of Belgium would have renounced his rights (only for himself; otherwise there would have been noone left) in favor of his eldest son (who became king 20 years later), had he been divorced instead of still married to Paola when his brother died.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I am not sure if the topic has been discussed here before, but on October 28, 2019, the Quebec Court of Appeal finally ruled to dismiss the appeal by Geneviève Motard and Patrick Taillon against the previous decision of the Quebec Superior Court that upheld the validity of Canada's Succession to the Throne Act, 2013. The full text of the Court's ruling can be found here . Unfortunately it is in French (I couldn't find the English translation).


Just to give some context, the Succession to the Throne Act was passed by the federal Parliament of Canada to assent to the UK's Succession to the Crown Act, 2013 in accordance with the requirement set out in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, 1931. The plaintiffs, who are two law professors from the University of Laval, challenged the legislation in the Quebec courts on the basis that it did not comply with Section 41(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982 under which any change to the constitution of Canada affecting "the office of the Queen" also requires resolutions from the Legislative Assemblies of all provinces of Canada. Furthermore, the plaintiffs also claimed that the Succession to the Throne Act violated Section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by assenting to the exclusion of Roman Catholics from the line of succession.


If I understand it correctly, what the Superior Court found, and was upheld on appeal by the Court of Appeal, is that:


1. The British laws of succession are not part of the constitution of Canada and apply to Canada solely by the principle of symmetry implied in the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867, under which the person who occupies the throne of the United Kingdom is also the King or Queen of Canada. There is therefore no need to resort to the amendment procedure in Part V of the Constitution Act , 1982 to give assent to the amendment in British law to the British rules of succession. The enactment of a statute of assent by the Canadian Parliament such as the one passed in 2013 (again in accordance with the Statute of Westminster) was sufficient.


2. Section 41(a) in the Constitution Act, 1982 protects the institution of the monarchy, but not the procedural rules that allow a person to accede to the throne. The Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 makes no change to the powers, status or constitutional role vested in the Queen of Canada and therefore does not fall within the meaning of the “office of the Queen” as envisaged in Section 41(a).


3. Neither the Canadian Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 nor the unwritten principle of symmetry regarding the hereditary succession to the thrones of the United Kingdom and Canada incorporate the British sucession laws into Canadian domestic law. Since the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply to British laws, the challenge to the 2013 act based on incompatibility with the Charter is also dismissed.




Finally, the Court of Appeal also rejected another claim by the plaintiffs of an alleged violation of s. 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which provides that legislation must be enacted in both English and French. Again, since the UK law of succession is not part of Canadian domestic law, the Court ruled that Section 133 did not apply in this case.

I don't believe it has, so thank you for posting it.

Although I have not read the ruling, it seems to be perfectly sensible from your summary. If the intentions of the legislator are given any consideration in Canadian law, I can't imagine that anyone concerned in Canadian constitutional legislation would have wanted to have a minor member of the British royal family as the Canadian monarch, simply because the British heir was a firstborn woman or married to a Roman Catholic. And of course the Roman Catholic exclusion was implemented by the Bill of Rights 1688, not the Succession to the Crown Act 2013.

[...] renunciation is an act that can be done by anyone in the line of succession and many times is done 'for him/herself and his/her descendants'; especially in the case of marriage (a relatively recent example is prince Louis of Luxembourg whose renounced his rights, which impacted both him and Noah - Gabriel was never in line so was not impacted by this decision).

Noah was also never in line due to being born after the marriage and renunciation. It's my understanding of the 1907 law that renunciation or no renunciation, Gabriel and Noah would not have been in line given that their parents' marriage was not legally approved by the Grand Duke. The renunciation did impact Prince Louis's own rights (and presumably the rights of potential children from a second, approved marriage, although I haven't seen the text of the renunciation).

 

[Mbruno]

Could anyone on this forum kindly list the potential successors to the UK and Commonwealth realms thrones from number 60 to 80 at least ?

Most online sources stop at the descendants of sons of King George V, the last of whom is currently # 59 in line.