Succession Rules For European Monarchies


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
The UK, like a few other monarchies like Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands, was actually historically progressive in terms of allowing women to succeed to the Crown when most European kingdoms/empires had strictly agnatic succession.

In 1917 women were allowed to succeed to the crowns of approximately half of the European kingdoms and empires. Women had no succession rights to the crowns of the Italy, the German Empire, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Montenegro, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, or Belgium. But female succession to the crowns of the UK, Spain, the Netherlands, Russia, Austria, Bavaria, Saxony, Württemberg, and Greece was allowed under these countries' laws.

Where the succession laws of the UK and Spanish monarchies (but not yet the Netherlands as of 1917), and Portugal before it became a republic in 1910, were distinctive was that a woman was allowed to succeed to the crown even if there were male heirs available in more junior branches of the family. The successions of Queen Mary II and Queen Anne to the British throne were in line with European standards, since there were no remaining agnates after the overthrow of King James II and the exclusion of his son the Prince of Wales from the crown. But the successions of Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II would not have occurred in most other European monarchies which allowed female succession; the Duke of Cumberland or the Duke of Gloucester respectively would have taken the crown instead.
 
In 1917 women were allowed to succeed to the crowns of approximately half of the European kingdoms and empires. Women had no succession rights to the crowns of the Italy, the German Empire, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Montenegro, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, or Belgium. But female succession to the crowns of the UK, Spain, the Netherlands, Russia, Austria, Bavaria, Saxony, Württemberg, and Greece was allowed under these countries' laws.

Where the succession laws of the UK and Spanish monarchies (but not yet the Netherlands as of 1917), and Portugal before it became a republic in 1910, were distinctive was that a woman was allowed to succeed to the crown even if there were male heirs available in more junior branches of the family. The successions of Queen Mary II and Queen Anne to the British throne were in line with European standards, since there were no remaining agnates after the overthrow of King James II and the exclusion of his son the Prince of Wales from the crown. But the successions of Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II would not have occurred in most other European monarchies which allowed female succession; the Duke of Cumberland or the Duke of Gloucester respectively would have taken the crown instead.
When was there female succession in Wurttemberg, Bavaria, Saxony at the time monarchy was present in those states? You stated that there was no female succession to the German Empire, but the three German states pre-1918 were part of the Empire, unless you are referring to the Imperial and Royal Prussian succession?
 
Last edited:
When was there female succession in Wurttemberg, Bavaria, Saxony at the time monarchy was present in those states?

I'm afraid I don't know exactly when female succession was first introduced in those states. But the monarchical constitutions which allowed female succession and were in effect in those states in 1917 (the year which was discussed in my post) dated to 1819 in Württemberg, 1818 in Bavaria, and 1831 in Saxony.


You stated that there was no female succession to the German Empire, but the three German states pre-1918 were part of the Empire, unless you are referring to the Imperial and Royal Prussian succession?

Yes, I was referring to succession to the crown of the German Empire, which was held by the kings of Prussia.
 
I'm afraid I don't know exactly when female succession was first introduced in those states. But the monarchical constitutions which allowed female succession and were in effect in those states in 1917 (the year which was discussed in my post) dated to 1819 in Württemberg, 1818 in Bavaria, and 1831 in Saxony.




Yes, I was referring to succession to the crown of the German Empire, which was held by the kings of Prussia.
Then for the first part above, I’m sure there was a provision such as in the event of the extinction of all (legitimate) male heirs, then female succession.

Than you for clarifying on my second inquiry.
 
Then for the first part above, I’m sure there was a provision such as in the event of the extinction of all (legitimate) male heirs, then female succession.

You are correct. The only European kingdoms in 1917 which allowed female succession before the extinction of all legal male male-line heirs were the UK and Spain. (That is what I meant in my original comment.)
 
In 1917 women were allowed to succeed to the crowns of approximately half of the European kingdoms and empires. Women had no succession rights to the crowns of the Italy, the German Empire, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Montenegro, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, or Belgium. But female succession to the crowns of the UK, Spain, the Netherlands, Russia, Austria, Bavaria, Saxony, Württemberg, and Greece was allowed under these countries' laws.
.


So 10 out of 19 countries that you listed had strictly agnatic succession, which means that my statement that most (i.e., more than half) of the European kingdoms or empires did not allow female succession at all was correct. Out of the 9 that did, only 2 (the UK and Spain) had male-preference cognatic primogeniture (and were in that sense, quite progressive for their time). All the others, some of which were actually subnational monarchies like Bavaria, Saxony and Württemberg, had variations, if I understood it correctly, of semi-Salic law, meaning that female succession, albeit possible, would be expected to be comparatively less frequent.

Did the other German princely states (duchies and grand duchies for exmple, as opposed to kingdoms) use semi-Salic law too?
 
So 10 out of 19 countries that you listed had strictly agnatic succession, which means that my statement that most (i.e., more than half) of the European kingdoms or empires did not allow female succession at all was correct. Out of the 9 that did, only 2 (the UK and Spain) had male-preference cognatic primogeniture (and were in that sense, quite progressive for their time). All the others, some of which were actually subnational monarchies like Bavaria, Saxony and Württemberg, had variations, if I understood it correctly, of semi-Salic law, meaning that female succession, albeit possible, would be expected to be comparatively less frequent.

Did the other German princely states (duchies and grand duchies for exmple, as opposed to kingdoms) use semi-Salic law too?

Just as a clarification, my intention wasn't to criticize your statement (and I apologize if I gave that impression!) but to use the opportunity to review the European royal and imperial succession laws of that era, as I've noticed that many underestimate the number of monarchies which had adopted semi-Salic law.

I haven't looked into the number of German grand duchies, duchies and principalities which used semi-Salic law, but Heraldica is very informative in regard to the house laws of nineteenth-century German states, if you are interested.
 
Just as a clarification, my intention wasn't to criticize your statement (and I apologize if I gave that impression!) but to use the opportunity to review the European royal and imperial succession laws of that era, as I've noticed that many underestimate the number of monarchies which had adopted semi-Salic law.

I haven't looked into the number of German grand duchies, duchies and principalities which used semi-Salic law, but Heraldica is very informative in regard to the house laws of nineteenth-century German states, if you are interested.
The Schwarzburg princely family that died out in the 70s had a succession in the event of extinction of all males then females would take over, unfortunately all the branches died out but the daughter of the last Prince has descendants. One of the Wettin branches has semi-Salic succession
 
It seems there are different versions of semi-salic law:
1) a woman cannot inherit herself but her male-descendants can. See this short explanation.
2) women can only inherit if no males are available (after which a return to males is made once again. Wikipedia describes it as the woman who inherits will be considered male for this specific purpose. See below:

The so-called Semi-Salic version of succession order stipulates that firstly all-male descendance is applied, including all collateral male lines; but if all such lines are extinct, then the closest female agnate (such as a daughter) of the last male holder of the property inherits, and after her, her own male heirs according to the Salic order. In other words, the female closest to the last incumbent is "regarded as a male" for the purposes of inheritance and succession.
 
Last edited:
What exactly is semi-Salic law?

It is a label used for systems of inheritance under which females and/or their descendants will inherit if, and only if, there are no remaining male descendants in the male line who have rights of inheritance.

In most but not all systems which use both primogeniture (meaning that the inheritance is given undivided to the eldest son, instead of being divided amongst all the sons) and semi-Salic law: when every male line has become extinct, the last male is succeeded by his eldest daughter or, should he have no surviving daughters, by his closest female relative in the male line.
 
It is a label used for systems of inheritance under which females and/or their descendants will inherit if, and only if, there are no remaining male descendants in the male line who have rights of inheritance.



In most but not all systems which use both primogeniture (meaning that the inheritance is given undivided to the eldest son, instead of being divided amongst all the sons) and semi-Salic law: when every male line has become extinct, the last male is succeeded by his eldest daughter or, should he have no surviving daughters, by his closest female relative in the male line.



So is the British royal family semi-Salic?
 
So is the British royal family semi-Salic?

No, it was male-preference primogeniture but nowadays it is just primogeniture (meaning the eldest child will inherit independent of whether they are a boy or a girl).
 
If it was semi-Salic, nieces would not have been able to inherit ahead of uncles, which they notably have.
 
Not sure where to place this - but as it is about how much is permitted for those in line to the throne, I figured this might be an appropriate place (as the discussion above will not be revived given that Charles now is king):

I am amazed at what some royals (spares) can get away with from a government point of view - as they are still in line to the throne even though some of them have decided (or it has been decided for them) to fully live their own lives - and in doing so sometimes damage the monarchy.

Is there no such thing as 'ministerial responsibility' in other countries? In the Netherlands, the ministerial responsibility applies to all members of the royal house (previously that was equal to those in line to the throne and their spouses - which makes most sense to me-; now the king's nieces and nephew although still in line to the throne are not included). Meaning that those closest in line to the throne (in practice children and siblings of monarchs - if they remain in line to the throne) cannot just do and say as they please because the prime minister bears responsibility for what they do and say and will need to answer for their actions in parliament if push comes to shove. To me this makes sense given that each of them could become the future monarch (or spouse) and therefore should be 'above reproach' and their actions reflect on the Monarch and monarchy - by virtue of them not only being close family members but eligible to become the future monarch; in most cases that is only one terrible accident away.
 
Last edited:
It's a good question. And a bit of an Achilles' heel for monarchies I suppose.

I think the only course of action is making it clear that any such individuals do not represent the monarch. As I understand they have done in Norway? If they did succeed to the throne then presumably there would be some sort of constitutional crises if most people simply didn't want them. So the question would then be what is the mechanism (if any) for the removal of an unwanted monarch. A constitutional convention followed by a referendum on a republic or changing the line of succession possibly.

A nightmare scenario.
 
Last edited:
It's a good question. And a bit of an Achilles' heel for monarchies I suppose.

I think the only course of action is making it clear that any such individuals do not represent the monarch. As I understand they have done in Norway? If they did succeed to the throne then presumably there would be some sort of constitutional crises if most people simply didn't want them. So the question would then be what is the mechanism (if any) for the removal of an unwanted monarch. A constitutional convention followed by a referendum on a republic or changing the line of succession possibly.

A nightmare scenario.

I would suggest that including parliament in decisions on who remains in line to the throne upon marriage would be a small step that might mitigate some of the issues (although some issues arise after marriage); as it seems most monarchs nowadays are rather reluctant to withhold (official) permission from their close family member to marry - even if they would marry someone who is deemed fully unsuitable by everyone else. In that case being able to blame parliament (or deciding not to ask permission given that the outcome might be guaranteed) would be a way to diffuse such a situation.

Distancing yourself from someone who remains in line to the throne, to me is contradictory. If that person is so 'toxic' that public distancing is required, that person should not remain in the line of succession imho.

The advantage of having additional mechanisms to remove people from the line of succession if they decide their membership of the royal house is too much of a burden as it limits them in their professional lives (distinguishing between a royal house and royal family is meaningful in that situation as well), might actually enhance family relationships as personal and business matters can be separated.
 
Not sure where to place this - but as it is about how much is permitted for those in line to the throne, I figured this might be an appropriate place (as the discussion above will not be revived given that Charles now is king):

I am amazed at what some royals (spares) can get away with from a government point of view - as they are still in line to the throne even though some of them have decided (or it has been decided for them) to fully live their own lives - and in doing so sometimes damage the monarchy.

Is there no such thing as 'ministerial responsibility' in other countries? In the Netherlands, the ministerial responsibility applies to all members of the royal house (previously that was equal to those in line to the throne and their spouses - which makes most sense to me-; now the king's nieces and nephew although still in line to the throne are not included). Meaning that those closest in line to the throne (in practice children and siblings of monarchs - if they remain in line to the throne) cannot just do and say as they please because the prime minister bears responsibility for what they do and say and will need to answer for their actions in parliament if push comes to shove. To me this makes sense given that each of them could become the future monarch (or spouse) and therefore should be 'above reproach' and their actions reflect on the Monarch and monarchy (by virtue of them not only being close family members but eligible to become the future monarch; in most cases that is only one terrible accident away).


I don't know how it works in the Netherlands, but ministerial responsibility normally applies to official acts of the monarch that are carried out on ministerial advice. For example, the ministers bear responsibility for any order approved by the monarch in a meeting of the Privy Council or, generally, for any appointment of a public officer made by the monarch, or for a royal proclamation dissolving or proroguing Parliament, or declaring war.


By extension, I suppose ministerial responsibility also applies to official acts undertaken by the heir and other members of the RF on behalf of the King. So, for example, if William is on a official visit representing the UK and gives a speech in connection with that visit, I understand that falls under ministerial responsibility too.


Ministerial responsibility does not extend in my opinion, however, to the royals' private lives. Furthermore, as Harry and Meghan are no longer working royals, and no longer officially represent the United Kingdom, nor act on the advice of British ministers, they are personally responsible for whatever they say or do.


I would suggest that including parliament in decisions on who remains in line to the throne upon marriage would be a small step that might mitigate some of the issues (although some issues arise after marriage); as it seems most monarchs nowadays are rather reluctant to withhold (official) permission from their close family member to marry - even if they would marry someone who is deemed fully unsuitable by everyone else. In that case being able to blame parliament (or deciding not to ask permission given that the outcome might be guaranteed) would be a way to diffuse such a situation.


Parliament is not directly involved, but the government is since the King's consent to a marriage of one of the first six persons in line is declared in the Privy Council, so, in my opinion, it falls under ministerial responsibility too.


Involving the King and the government seems to be the standard approach as far as royal marriages are concerned. It is, in one form or another, what is done in practice in the UK, Denmark, Belgium, and, more explicitly, Sweden. The Netherlands is the only European kingdom where an act of Parliament is required to consent to a marriage of someone in the line of succession. Spain, on the other hand, is a bit of an outlier in the sense that consent is not required, but, in order to effect a prohibition of the marriage that may affect the line of succession, both the King and the Parliament have to be involved.
 
Last edited:
Maybe individuals should be given the ability to renounce their succession rights? Similar to renouncing peerages.

I suspect that might be the best answer. At least that way no one can complain that they are "trapped".
 
Maybe individuals should be given the ability to renounce their succession rights? Similar to renouncing peerages.

I suspect that might be the best answer. At least that way no one can complain that they are "trapped".
Plus signing an contract that they cannot renege on renouncing their succession rights along with/without descendants (you can’t change the choice once you’ve signed the contract).
 
Back
Top Bottom