Succession to the Crown Act 2013, Part 2: Sep 2022 -

[Marengo]

Arms of The United Kingdom

Welcome to the thread Succession to the Crown Act 2013, Part 2

Commencing September 1st, 2022

The previous thread can be found here


Please take a look at the
TRF Community Rules & FAQs



· Only pictures that you have written permission to share can be posted here. You can post links to any pictures.

· It's a copyright violation to post translations of entire articles, so no more than 20% of an article

text should be posted, along with the link to the original article.

· We expect our members to treat each other, and the royals and persons in these threads, with respect.

· The Report Post button is for reporting inappropriate content in a post if no moderators or administrators are online.

· Threads should remain on topic. Posts which are irrelevant or disruptive

will be deleted or moved by one of the moderators.



***

​

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I wish King Charles III went one step further and revoked the old line current of succession by having it according to birth order as is the current version. Like making it retroactive to have Princess Anne and family be after the Prince of Wales and family and have the Duke of York take a step back behind her.

Is there a suggestion box outside of the palace someone can drop off a note about it?

What for? What is the chance of Anne ever becoming queen? Would it worth the fuss to make the parliament of 15 countries changing their legislation just for a mere reason of making Anne ahead of Andrew on the royal website considering he's unlikely to make appearance in official royal occasion?

That would be a MASSIVE undertaking and not worth it.

Many countries did change their legislation in 2011-2015 in a coordinated project to modify the laws of succession to the British throne.

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2015-03-26/HCWS490

I can't see how Toledo's proposal would have required any additional parliamentary time.

It wouldn't just be Anne for instance but Louise, Alexandra, Lady Helen Taylor etc.

How far back does it go e.g. to put the Harewoods ahead of the Gloucesters (why not ... why should they be lower because they descend from a girl and not a boy). What about the descendants of Queen Victoria's eldest daughter - should they actually be the royal family as Vicky was the eldest child?

Once you start trying for retroactivity you have to ask 'how far back' and 'why stop there'. What makes Anne more deserving than Mary or Vicky or whomever?

One could just as well ask "What makes Anne less deserving than Charlotte (who will not be superseded by her younger brother)?" I'm not sure that is the most helpful way to frame the issue.

If Toledo truly meant to advocate for a retroactive change, then I suppose one could set the retroactive date of effect to Anne's birthdate in 1950. But it if the goal is simply to move Anne ahead of Andrew in the order of succession to the throne, it would have sufficed to apply the changes to living people.

 

[Claire]

Also starting with Anne might be an issue. As many might ask why you cant go back to Princess Mary - hey whey stop there lets go back further. Essential moving to the female line and you will have a completely different royal family

 

[yukari]

(...)
One could just as well ask "What makes Anne less deserving than Charlotte (who will not be superseded by her younger brother)?" I'm not sure that is the most helpful way to frame the issue.

If Toledo truly meant to advocate for a retroactive change, then I suppose one could set the retroactive date of effect to Anne's birthdate in 1950. But it if the goal is simply to move Anne ahead of Andrew in the order of succession to the throne, it would have sufficed to apply the changes to living people.

What makes Charlotte but not Anne? Maybe for the simple reason that the rule has already been in place when Charlotte was born.

And again, would it be worth it to take the time of the 15 countries parliaments to work on making Anne ahead of Andrew while they can use that time to work on other more pressing issue that can affect more people's lives?

 

[Meee]

I’m sure the explanation at the time was that it had been done without being retrospective so as to not affect anyone’s realistic chances of inheriting the throne. All countries have to agree so it must be that there is a Prince somewhere who might well accede, but who would lose the claim to an elder sister if all countries had instead agreed that it would be retrospective.

The monarchy would lose public consent if Andrew got anywhere near the throne, so I don’t think we need to worry about Anne not superseding him as much as I’d like to see it. The people would also like Edward above Andrew but that’s never going to happen unless the latter is excluded.

This way, Beatrice continues to be eligible as a CoS having grown up with some expectation of royal duties and it is not thrust upon Peter who did not.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

What makes Charlotte but not Anne? Maybe for the simple reason that the rule has already been in place when Charlotte was born.

I’m sure the explanation at the time was that it had been done without being retrospective so as to not affect anyone’s realistic chances of inheriting the throne.

Yes, that was the official explanation when the question was asked in Parliament: that the people born before the announcement had "legitimate expectations", to use the government's phrase.

And again, would it be worth it to take the time of the 15 countries parliaments to work on making Anne ahead of Andrew while they can use that time to work on other more pressing issue that can affect more people's lives?

The fact is that the 15 parliaments did do the work and take the time between 2011 and 2015. If they had placed Anne ahead of Andrew, I do not see how it would have taken any more time than it the changes they made. (We are not talking about a separate process, but about hypothetically having included it along with the other changes to the line of succession, such as restoring Prince Michael of Kent, which came into effect in 2015.)

The monarchy would lose public consent if Andrew got anywhere near the throne, so I don’t think we need to worry about Anne not superseding him as much as I’d like to see it.

While the reasoning of the 2011 government makes logical sense, I do wonder if they would have made the same decision if the events of 2018-2022 regarding the Duke of York, Jeffrey Epstein and Virginia Giuffre had occurred before 2011.

 

[yukari]

(...)
The fact is that the 15 parliaments did do the work and take the time between 2011 and 2015. If they had placed Anne ahead of Andrew, I do not see how it would have taken any more time than it the changes they made. (We are not talking about a separate process, but about hypothetically having included it along with the other changes to the line of succession, such as restoring Prince Michael of Kent, which came into effect in 2015.)

Respectfully Tatiana Maria, but my understanding of this conversation (hence my reply to Toledo's) is since Charles III is specifically mentioned, and not Elizabeth II, means that it'd be separate process from one in 2011-2015 as we're not discussing the hypothetical 2013 Act process, but making (changing) it to be retroactive. Surely to make any slight change on one legislation from the previous Monarch's reign would required additional parliamentary time, no? Particularly since they also need to decide how far the retroactivity would be applied.

I wish King Charles III went one step further and revoked the old line current of succession by having it according to birth order as is the current version. Like making it retroactive to have Princess Anne and family be after the Prince of Wales and family and have the Duke of York take a step back behind her.

Is there a suggestion box outside of the palace someone can drop off a note about it?

What for? What is the chance of Anne ever becoming queen? Would it worth the fuss to make the parliament of 15 countries changing their legislation just for a mere reason of making Anne ahead of Andrew on the royal website considering he's unlikely to make appearance in official royal occasion?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Respectfully Tatiana Maria, but my understanding of this conversation (hence my reply to Toledo's) is since Charles III is specifically mentioned, and not Elizabeth II, means that it'd be separate process from one in 2011-2015 as we're not discussing the hypothetical 2013 Act process, but making (changing) it to be retroactive. Surely to make any slight change on one legislation from the previous Monarch's reign would required additional parliamentary time, no? Particularly since they also need to decide how far the retroactivity would be applied.

Sorry, I realize my first post was confusing. Toledo's original proposal was for King Charles III to amend the order of succession to the throne, but - prior to my first reply - you and Iluvbertie had already correctly pointed out (in that reply to Toledo) that succession to the throne is the prerogative of Parliament, not the King, so I assumed the original proposal was no longer under consideration.

Thus, my proposal:

Many countries did change their legislation in 2011-2015 in a coordinated project to modify the laws of succession to the British throne.

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2015-03-26/HCWS490

I can't see how Toledo's proposal would have required any additional parliamentary time.

was that if the aim was to move Anne ahead of Andrew (which is what I meant by "Toledo's proposal" - I can see how my wording was confusing as I was only talking about that part of Toledo's proposal, not the "new amendments by King Charles III" proposal), the most efficient way to accomplish it would be to include it with the other changes of 2011-2015.

 

[Meee]

I have also found the top six thing quite bizarre, as it’s not aligned with the CoS rules in any way (6 rather than 4, and not applying an age restriction; nor is it a round number.) I think even the top 5 of age would be better than the current rule (before someone is of age there is a higher chance of them dying an untimely death in an accident with a parent or sibling) but realise that the age limit would have to be 18 at most, as otherwise you would have a 3 year window to marry someone unsuitable and not be excluded. Even with that it would be theoretically possible for a 16 year old to marry someone unsuitable without either parental consent or the Sovereign’s permission via having the wedding in Scotland.

Ultimately I wonder if the better solution would be permission is needed if you are a child, grandchild (and maybe great-grandchild) of a monarch. I figure you’re not one of those without knowing about it by the time you’re old enough to marry, whether it is the current monarch or a prior one. It seemed to be people not knowing that they were subject to the previous act that was the problem, rather than the Queen being asked for permission by too many people (as she had also been asked by people who weren’t required to seek permission and gave her consent.)

I suspect this number gets looked at if Archie is still required to ask when he becomes of age, especially if he is still living in the US at that time. I wouldn’t find it unreasonable if all of the late Queen’s great-grandchildren had to ask, but it’s a bizarre thing when the line is drawn between two siblings. Limiting it to current monarch’s descendants would be fine for now but were a monarch to die without issue it might be a problem in the future.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I have also found the top six thing quite bizarre, as it’s not aligned with the CoS rules in any way (6 rather than 4, and not applying an age restriction; nor is it a round number.)

The government's justification at the time was that ever since the passage of the Royal Marriages Act of 1772 nobody who had placed further than sixth in line had subsequently succeeded to the throne.

I think even the top 5 of age would be better than the current rule (before someone is of age there is a higher chance of them dying an untimely death in an accident with a parent or sibling) but realise that the age limit would have to be 18 at most, as otherwise you would have a 3 year window to marry someone unsuitable and not be excluded. Even with that it would be theoretically possible for a 16 year old to marry someone unsuitable without either parental consent or the Sovereign’s permission via having the wedding in Scotland.

Ultimately I wonder if the better solution would be permission is needed if you are a child, grandchild (and maybe great-grandchild) of a monarch. I figure you’re not one of those without knowing about it by the time you’re old enough to marry, whether it is the current monarch or a prior one. It seemed to be people not knowing that they were subject to the previous act that was the problem, rather than the Queen being asked for permission by too many people (as she had also been asked by people who weren’t required to seek permission and gave her consent.)

I suspect this number gets looked at if Archie is still required to ask when he becomes of age, especially if he is still living in the US at that time. I wouldn’t find it unreasonable if all of the late Queen’s great-grandchildren had to ask, but it’s a bizarre thing when the line is drawn between two siblings. Limiting it to current monarch’s descendants would be fine for now but were a monarch to die without issue it might be a problem in the future.

I respectfully disagree. In my opinion, the only solution which avoids producing bizarre results is to require permission to remain in line to the throne for the marriage of any person in line. That does not mean that hundreds of distant relatives would need to ask for permission to marry: Most of them could, and should, simply marry and lose their distant rights to the throne, which would be a positive development for the monarchy.

I explained my reasons in a bit more detail in this previous post:

I think the limitation of the persons needing permission to marry to remain in the line of succession to the first six in line was very poorly written.

To illustrate why, imagine the following hypothetical situation.

William is the King. Prince George (1st in line to the throne) was given permission for his marriage and he and his wife have four children, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th in line. Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis are not yet married and are 6th and 7th in line.

Charlotte announces her engagement to a man who has a robbery conviction on his record. The Government is of the opinion that a convicted robber would be unsuitable as the consort of the UK's head of state (as Charlotte would become if something happened to George and his children). Acting on the Government's advice by constitutional convention, the King refuses his permission for the marriage, which will lead to Charlotte losing her place in the line of succession after the marriage.

However, ahead of Charlotte's wedding, Louis meets and marries a woman who has ten robbery convictions on her record. Because he is not one of the first six in line, Louis remains in the line of succession though he never received permission for his marriage. When Charlotte marries and loses her place, Louis moves up one place.

Subsequently, if George and his children were to die in a tragic accident, Louis would succeed as King and his wife would be Queen. The Government's decision that a convicted robber would be an unsuitable prince consort would have directly led to a convicted serial robber becoming the queen consort.


It would have been much better to make the new laws applicable to the entire line of succession. Invalidation of unapproved marriages is no longer part of the law. The only remaining consequence is disqualification from succession to the Crown. The hundreds of people further down the line whose chances of succeeding are nil for all practical purposes would not "have" to ask for consent, because the loss of their theoretical rights of succession would have absolutely no effect on their lives. In fact, I think it would not only acceptable but desirable to eliminate even the theoretical chance of e.g. the Norwegian royals succeeding to the British throne in this way.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

This report from James Chapman was published by the Mail online on January 6, 2013:

My fears on rushed new laws over Kate's baby, by Charles: Shake-up to let a daughter succeed to the throne 'has not been thought through', says Prince

Friends told the Daily Mail that he believes altering the rules that give male heirs priority and bar members of the Royal Family from marrying Roman Catholics could have 'unintended consequences' that have not been properly considered.

www.dailymail.co.uk

“Friends [of Prince Charles] told the Daily Mail that he believes altering the rules that give male heirs priority and bar members of the Royal Family from marrying Roman Catholics could have ‘unintended consequences’ that have not been properly considered.

[…]

The Prince of Wales backs the principle of changing the law to ensure the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's first child becomes Queen if it is a girl, a move which has been discussed for several years, as long as it commands popular support.

But according to a well-placed source, he believes the potential consequences for the delicate relationship between the state and the Church of England, as well as for the rules governing other hereditary titles, have not been thought through.

In a meeting with Richard Heaton, permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office, the Prince is said to have raised concerns about what will happen if his grandchild is allowed to marry a Roman Catholic, as the Government proposes.

[…]

According to the source, the Prince was told the situation could be resolved by negotiations with the Vatican if it arose - a response he is said to have found ‘unsatisfactory and unconvincing’.

He also raised questions about the potential impact of changing the rules of Royal succession for other titles that are currently passed down the male line. Already, several senior figures have raised the prospect of changing peerage law so that female heirs can succeed to the hereditary peerage.

[…]

The disclosure of the Prince’s reservations is a serious blow to the Government’s plans to change Royal succession law.

[…]

Buckingham Palace was said to have agreed that the time had come to launch a concerted effort to change the law, even though that will mean legislation having to be overhauled or introduced in countries across the world.

A senior Government source said: ‘The idea that the Government would move one inch on this without the Palace being on board is ridiculous.’

A Cabinet Office spokesman added: ‘We would never comment on exchanges between the Government and the Prince of Wales.’

A spokesman for the Prince of Wales said: 'Any change in the law is a matter for the Government. If and when the Prince of Wales meets with senior civil servants it is always documented properly in the Court Circular. Issues discussed in those meetings are private.'”​

Royal reporter Valentine Low recently revealed more about the events surrounding this article's publication (more on that later).

 

[Somebody]

If true, that's interesting and I somewhat understand Charles's reservations of a marriage to a Catholic (although it would make much more sense if it would be applied to other religions as well, as that would be complicating the relation to the Church of England much more than a marriage to another christian). And what would 'negotiations with the Vatican' entail and result in?

 

[Lord-of-the-Manor]

Growing up in a strict Anglican family, we were always told the Catholic prohibition was because of the belief that catholics only obeyed the Pope, and therefore wouldn't be loyal to the crown, which is a load of nonsense.

 

[caethi]

Growing up in a strict Anglican family, we were always told the Catholic prohibition was because of the belief that catholics only obeyed the Pope, and therefore wouldn't be loyal to the crown, which is a load of nonsense.

Nonsense, indeed. It doesn't happen. It seemed to be big deal when John F Kennedy was elected US President. There was a faction that was convinced that Roman Catholics would always fall in line with Catholic doctrine.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If true, that's interesting and I somewhat understand Charles's reservations of a marriage to a Catholic (although it would make much more sense if it would be applied to other religions as well, as that would be complicating the relation to the Church of England much more than a marriage to another christian).

That is also my issue with the then Prince Charles’s religious “concerns”. The Catholic Church is certainly not the only church or religion to encourage members to raise their children in the same faith.

Some other religions even require it, as acknowledged by the parliamentary Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in its report:

“9. There is one possible consequence of allowing a monarch to be married to a Catholic that might be considered of contemporary relevance. Catholics are normally obliged under canon law to bring up as Catholics any children from an inter-faith marriage.[7] The proposal thus raises the prospect of the children of a monarch being brought up in a faith which would not allow them to be in communion with the Church of England. This would prevent them from acceding to the throne.

10. It is worth noting, however, that this requirement of canon law is occasionally waived through papal dispensation, and indeed has been waived for members of the royal family.[8] An heir to the throne who was considering marrying a Catholic could seek this dispensation before proceeding with the marriage. The Monarch and Parliament could also prevent the marriage from going ahead if they so wished, as for any royal marriage.[9] It is also perhaps worth noting that Catholicism is not the only religion to impose such a requirement. [10]”

8 for the children of HRH Prince Michael of Kent
9 Royal Marriages Act 1772
10 Islam, for example, requires that any children of a Muslim parent be raised Muslim.”​

For the then-Prince of Wales to express “concerns” about his grandchild marrying a Catholic, but not express the same concerns about his grandchild marrying a Muslim, even though Islam imposes stricter requirements on raising children in the faith than Catholicism does, strikes me as a double standard.

And what would 'negotiations with the Vatican' entail and result in?

That answer from the government is puzzling. Even assuming the hypothetical Catholic spouse wanted to remain in good standing with their church (which is not always the case, e.g. Autumn Kelly), the Vatican itself only asks Catholics to obtain their local bishop’s permission if they wish to marry a non-Catholic baptized Christian.

The couple do not even need to promise to raise their children as Catholics.

“Can. 1125 The local ordinary [bishop] can grant a permission of this kind if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions have been fulfilled:

1/ the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church;

2/ the other party is to be informed at an appropriate time about the promises which the Catholic party is to make, in such a way that it is certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and obligation of the Catholic party;

3/ both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage which neither of the contracting parties is to exclude.”​

Do Catholic Parents Have to Raise their Children as Catholics?

Q: A friend’s daughter is planning to marry a Lutheran. They’re going to get married at our parish by the assistant pastor. My friend told me that nowadays, when a Catholic marries a non-Catholic, …

canonlawmadeeasy.com

Code of Canon Law - Book IV - Function of the Church Liber (Cann. 998-1165)

Code of Canon Law - Book IV - Function of the Church Liber (Cann. 998-1165)

www.vatican.va

 

[Tatiana Maria]

This report from James Chapman was published by the Mail online on January 6, 2013:

My fears on rushed new laws over Kate's baby, by Charles: Shake-up to let a daughter succeed to the throne 'has not been thought through', says Prince

Friends told the Daily Mail that he believes altering the rules that give male heirs priority and bar members of the Royal Family from marrying Roman Catholics could have 'unintended consequences' that have not been properly considered.

www.dailymail.co.uk

[…] The Prince of Wales backs the principle of changing the law to ensure the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's first child becomes Queen if it is a girl, a move which has been discussed for several years, as long as it commands popular support.

But […] He also raised questions about the potential impact of changing the rules of Royal succession for other titles that are currently passed down the male line. Already, several senior figures have raised the prospect of changing peerage law so that female heirs can succeed to the hereditary peerage.

Nor does this other “reservation” from the Prince make sense, either. One of two things would happen: Either the government would continue to block women from inheriting peerages (which is what happened), in which case the situation would simply remain the same as it has been for centuries. Or the government would finally allow women to inherit peerages, in which case the situation for peerages would be the same as the situation of women inheriting the throne – which also has happened for centuries and which Prince Charles already “backed”, according to this report.

(Not certain whether this response should be here or in the female succession thread, please move as necessary.)

 

[Biri]

Definitely if Prince George's firstborn child is a girl, she will be Queen Regnant (and earlier - the Princess of Wales in her own right).

 

[BJB]

Nor does this other “reservation” from the Prince make sense, either. One of two things would happen: Either the government would continue to block women from inheriting peerages (which is what happened), in which case the situation would simply remain the same as it has been for centuries. Or the government would finally allow women to inherit peerages, in which case the situation for peerages would be the same as the situation of women inheriting the throne – which also has happened for centuries and which Prince Charles already “backed”, according to this report.

(Not certain whether this response should be here or in the female succession thread, please move as necessary.)

The question if women can inherit peerages comes down to how the letters patent is worded.

A recent example was when Lord Mountbatten was created Earl Mountbatten of Burma, where the letters patent explicitly allowed his daughters to inherit the title (although it then defaults to the normal male heir rules).

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/38109/page/5074/data.pdf

So there is a halfway recent example where it was handled differently.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

This report from James Chapman was published by the Mail online on January 6, 2013:

My fears on rushed new laws over Kate's baby, by Charles: Shake-up to let a daughter succeed to the throne 'has not been thought through', says Prince

Friends told the Daily Mail that he believes altering the rules that give male heirs priority and bar members of the Royal Family from marrying Roman Catholics could have 'unintended consequences' that have not been properly considered.

www.dailymail.co.uk

“Friends [of Prince Charles] told the Daily Mail that he believes altering the rules that give male heirs priority and bar members of the Royal Family from marrying Roman Catholics could have ‘unintended consequences’ that have not been properly considered.

[…]

The Prince of Wales backs the principle of changing the law to ensure the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's first child becomes Queen if it is a girl, a move which has been discussed for several years, as long as it commands popular support.

But according to a well-placed source, he believes the potential consequences for the delicate relationship between the state and the Church of England, as well as for the rules governing other hereditary titles, have not been thought through.

In a meeting with Richard Heaton, permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office, the Prince is said to have raised concerns about what will happen if his grandchild is allowed to marry a Roman Catholic, as the Government proposes.

[…]

According to the source, the Prince was told the situation could be resolved by negotiations with the Vatican if it arose - a response he is said to have found ‘unsatisfactory and unconvincing’.

He also raised questions about the potential impact of changing the rules of Royal succession for other titles that are currently passed down the male line. Already, several senior figures have raised the prospect of changing peerage law so that female heirs can succeed to the hereditary peerage.

[…]

The disclosure of the Prince’s reservations is a serious blow to the Government’s plans to change Royal succession law.

[…]

Buckingham Palace was said to have agreed that the time had come to launch a concerted effort to change the law, even though that will mean legislation having to be overhauled or introduced in countries across the world.

A senior Government source said: ‘The idea that the Government would move one inch on this without the Palace being on board is ridiculous.’

A Cabinet Office spokesman added: ‘We would never comment on exchanges between the Government and the Prince of Wales.’

A spokesman for the Prince of Wales said: 'Any change in the law is a matter for the Government. If and when the Prince of Wales meets with senior civil servants it is always documented properly in the Court Circular. Issues discussed in those meetings are private.'”​

Royal reporter Valentine Low recently revealed more about the events surrounding this article's publication (more on that later).

In his new book Power and the Palace, royal reporter Valentine Low gave the then Government's version of the events described in the Mail article.

According to government officials, Queen Elizabeth II (who had given her blessing to the royal succession reforms) asked the government to deal only with Buckingham Palace on the succession – and not to consult with Prince Charles or his office.

Despite this, Prince Charles ambushed a government official with questions about female succession and marriage to Catholics, then leaked his "concerns" about the reform plans to the Mail for a front-page story.

The government took offense that the Prince of Wales leaked a private conversation with a civil servant, misrepresented their conversation, and criticized government plans which had already been settled with the Queen.

The Prince never apologized.

"A few days before Christmas 2012, Richard Heaton, permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office, had an unexpected invitation to have tea with the Prince of Wales at Clarence House, ostensibly to discuss the relationship between the government and the prince’s charities. Joined by their respective private secretaries in the upstairs drawing room, they talked about various subjects including India and the Freedom of Information Act.

According to Whitehall sources, towards the end the conversation shifted to the Succession to the Crown Bill, which gave daughters equal rights in the line of succession, and which was at the time making its way through parliament. [...] What, Charles wanted to know, would happen if his first grandchild were a girl, and she married a Mr Smith? Would the royal house be Smith or Windsor? He had other questions too — about what would happen if his grandchild married a Catholic and what effect the new law would have on hereditary peerages. It was not Heaton’s area of responsibility, and he had not been briefed on the subject, but he gave what answers he could.

During all the discussions about the change in the rules of succession Buckingham Palace had one stipulation: they told Whitehall politely but firmly that government officials should just deal with Buckingham Palace on this one. There was absolutely no need, in other words, to bring the Prince of Wales’s people at Clarence House into the discussion.

That, then, may explain why the Prince of Wales ambushed Heaton with questions about the Succession to the Crown Bill. It may also explain why, a couple of weeks later, a story appeared on the front page of the Daily Mail saying that the prince had “voiced serious concerns” about “rushed plans” to change the laws governing the royal line of succession. Charles backed the law in principle, the article said, but thought that the consequences for the relationship between the state and the Church of England, and the rules governing hereditary titles, had not been thought through.

Significantly, Simon Heffer wrote in the paper that Charles was concerned about “the lack of detailed consultation on the process”. He and Prince William, said Heffer, “appear not to have been consulted at all, which rankled with the Prince of Wales”. And why was that? Because that is the way Buckingham Palace wanted it.

As soon as the article appeared, Heaton was contacted on holiday by the cabinet secretary Jeremy Heywood’s office, asking what had happened. By the time he got back, according to Whitehall sources, Heywood was sounding more relaxed about the whole episode. What was all this about the Prince of Wales, Heaton asked. “Oh, don’t worry about that,” said Heywood. “He’s in the doghouse.”

There were three reasons why Whitehall saw it that way. One was that the prince had, in their view, misrepresented the conversation between him and Heaton. Second, he had leaked — or someone had leaked on his behalf — a private conversation with a civil servant. And third, he was criticising government policy, which he was not supposed to do. The bill had been carefully brokered with Buckingham Palace and sources say he had no business “to haul someone in and give them a dressing-down on something which was settled government policy”.

A short while later, Charles invited Heaton to join him on a visit to a pottery that one of the prince’s charities had helped to save. Charles showed him around, and the two men chatted on the royal train. It wasn’t an apology, but it was the next best thing."​

The Queen was a Remainer: her secret views on Brexit revealed

archived 30 Aug 2025 10:12:39 UTC

archive.ph

The Queen was a Remainer: her secret views on Brexit revealed

In Power and the Palace, Valentine Low uncovers the relationship between monarch and government. He speaks to aides, politicians and civil servants

www.thetimes.com

 

[Sun Lion]

In his new book Power and the Palace, royal reporter Valentine Low gave the then Government's version of the events described in the Mail article.

According to government officials, Queen Elizabeth II (who had given her blessing to the royal succession reforms) asked the government to deal only with Buckingham Palace on the succession – and not to consult with Prince Charles or his office.

Despite this, Prince Charles ambushed a government official with questions about female succession and marriage to Catholics, then leaked his "concerns" about the reform plans to the Mail for a front-page story.

The government took offense that the Prince of Wales leaked a private conversation with a civil servant, misrepresented their conversation, and criticized government plans which had already been settled with the Queen.

The Prince never apologized.

"A few days before Christmas 2012, Richard Heaton, permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office, had an unexpected invitation to have tea with the Prince of Wales at Clarence House, ostensibly to discuss the relationship between the government and the prince’s charities. Joined by their respective private secretaries in the upstairs drawing room, they talked about various subjects including India and the Freedom of Information Act.​

​

According to Whitehall sources, towards the end the conversation shifted to the Succession to the Crown Bill, which gave daughters equal rights in the line of succession, and which was at the time making its way through parliament. [...] What, Charles wanted to know, would happen if his first grandchild were a girl, and she married a Mr Smith? Would the royal house be Smith or Windsor? He had other questions too — about what would happen if his grandchild married a Catholic and what effect the new law would have on hereditary peerages. It was not Heaton’s area of responsibility, and he had not been briefed on the subject, but he gave what answers he could.​

​

During all the discussions about the change in the rules of succession Buckingham Palace had one stipulation: they told Whitehall politely but firmly that government officials should just deal with Buckingham Palace on this one. There was absolutely no need, in other words, to bring the Prince of Wales’s people at Clarence House into the discussion.​

​

That, then, may explain why the Prince of Wales ambushed Heaton with questions about the Succession to the Crown Bill. It may also explain why, a couple of weeks later, a story appeared on the front page of the Daily Mail saying that the prince had “voiced serious concerns” about “rushed plans” to change the laws governing the royal line of succession. Charles backed the law in principle, the article said, but thought that the consequences for the relationship between the state and the Church of England, and the rules governing hereditary titles, had not been thought through.​

​

Significantly, Simon Heffer wrote in the paper that Charles was concerned about “the lack of detailed consultation on the process”. He and Prince William, said Heffer, “appear not to have been consulted at all, which rankled with the Prince of Wales”. And why was that? Because that is the way Buckingham Palace wanted it.​

​

As soon as the article appeared, Heaton was contacted on holiday by the cabinet secretary Jeremy Heywood’s office, asking what had happened. By the time he got back, according to Whitehall sources, Heywood was sounding more relaxed about the whole episode. What was all this about the Prince of Wales, Heaton asked. “Oh, don’t worry about that,” said Heywood. “He’s in the doghouse.”​

​

There were three reasons why Whitehall saw it that way. One was that the prince had, in their view, misrepresented the conversation between him and Heaton. Second, he had leaked — or someone had leaked on his behalf — a private conversation with a civil servant. And third, he was criticising government policy, which he was not supposed to do. The bill had been carefully brokered with Buckingham Palace and sources say he had no business “to haul someone in and give them a dressing-down on something which was settled government policy”.​

​

A short while later, Charles invited Heaton to join him on a visit to a pottery that one of the prince’s charities had helped to save. Charles showed him around, and the two men chatted on the royal train. It wasn’t an apology, but it was the next best thing."​

The Queen was a Remainer: her secret views on Brexit revealed

archived 30 Aug 2025 10:12:39 UTC

archive.ph

The Queen was a Remainer: her secret views on Brexit revealed

In Power and the Palace, Valentine Low uncovers the relationship between monarch and government. He speaks to aides, politicians and civil servants

www.thetimes.com

So interesting Tatiana Maria … as are all your in-depth posts.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Thank you, @Sun Lion, I’m happy you found it as interesting as I did.


In light of recent discussions of the former Prince Andrew’s behavior and personality: I wonder if the then Duke of York’s own preferences influenced the Cameron-Clegg government’s decision to only apply gender-equal succession to persons born after October 28, 2011 (i.e., those born after the reform process commenced).

I think the government’s decision was sensible, but they could have as sensibly gone the other way.

Consider that the very same government applied the reform regarding spouses of Catholics to all living persons, such that they restored the Earl of St Andrews and Prince Michael of Kent’s succession rights to the throne, even though this meant that, say, Princess Alexandra was pushed further down the line.

Succession to the Crown Act 2013

www.legislation.gov.uk

Other European governments that addressed sex discrimination in succession to the throne applied changes to already living “spares”:

• Princess Irene of the Netherlands lost her expectation of remaining “spare” until the end of her mother’s reign as a result of the Dutch reform of 1963.
• Prince Laurent of Belgium fell behind his sister Princess Astrid and her children when Belgium adopted gender-equal succession in 1991.
• Prince Sébastien of Luxembourg fell behind his sister Princess Alexandra when Luxembourg adopted gender-equal succession in 2011.
• Princess Märtha Louise of Norway gained a very real chance of becoming monarch, with all the associated responsibility (to which she was personally averse), when Norway adopted gender-equal succession in 1990 (with a grandfather clause keeping Prince Haakon ahead of his older sister).

Thus, if the Duke of York had been a very different personality, a man who had no interest in status and privilege and readily deferred to others, including women, I think the government in 2011 may have allowed the Princess Royal to move ahead of him in the line of succession.

But as it was, the then Duke of York probably would have reacted poorly to being demoted, even in this relatively small way, and I imagine his mother Queen Elizabeth II would have supported his wishes and conveyed her preferences to the government.

I would be curious as to what others think.

 

[tommy100]

Queen Elizabeth II would never have allowed it I imagine. He was her blindspot.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I remember when Norway made the change Anne was asked if she would like the same change to be made in the UK - to which she replied something along the lines of 'of course - so long as it doesn't affect me'. In other words she would be happy to see it happen for future unborn children but not for her and her children.

Making it retrospective could have seen a number of challenges e.g. would the Lascelles have been moved ahead of the Gloucesters (Princess Mary being older than the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent) and what about the Hohenzollerns - could they claim the throne based on descent from Queen Victoria's eldest child? It is much easier to make it from a specific date and only applying to yet to be born children so as not to open a potential pandora's box.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Queen Elizabeth II and her aides were "lukewarm" about removing sexism from the order of succession, according to a government source.

"However, in his book Power and the Palace, author Valentine Low wrote: 'According to a government source, he [then Prime Minister David Cameron] said to [then Australian Prime Minister Julia] Gillard: "William and Kate are getting married, there's going to be kids, shall we sort this out?".

'Crucially, the palace was not against it. But they said that the government had to ensure the backing of the other 15 realms.'

The source is quoted as saying: 'I always thought that the signals from Buckingham Palace were that if it was the wish of the duly elected prime minister of the day, and the realms can be sorted out, we will not stand in its way. I didn’t get the sense there was any great enthusiasm from the palace and the Queen herself.'"​

Queen Elizabeth was 'lukewarm' on princesses taking the throne

According to a new book, the beloved monarch and her aides at Buckingham Palace were seemingly less than keen on a change in the law, which would allow girls to ascend to the throne.

www.dailymail.co.uk

This does not surprise me.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Making it retrospective could have seen a number of challenges e.g. would the Lascelles have been moved ahead of the Gloucesters (Princess Mary being older than the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent) and what about the Hohenzollerns - could they claim the throne based on descent from Queen Victoria's eldest child? It is much easier to make it from a specific date and only applying to yet to be born children so as not to open a potential pandora's box.

Good point: Unlike male preference, the ban on spouses of Catholics had remained theoretical. No one who married a Catholic was close to actually inheriting the throne. (In 1714, dozens of relatives were bypassed for being Catholic, but no non-Catholic was ever skipped over for the Crown due to marriage to a Catholic.)

So perhaps the Government would have made a different decision about restoring spouses of Catholics if, for example, Elizabeth II had an older sister who lost her position as heiress by marrying a Catholic.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

"[...] According to Whitehall sources, towards the end the conversation shifted to the Succession to the Crown Bill, which gave daughters equal rights in the line of succession, and which was at the time making its way through parliament. [...] What, Charles wanted to know, would happen if his first grandchild were a girl, and she married a Mr Smith? Would the royal house be Smith or Windsor? [...]

The Queen was a Remainer: her secret views on Brexit revealed

archived 30 Aug 2025 10:12:39 UTC

archive.ph

The Queen was a Remainer: her secret views on Brexit revealed

In Power and the Palace, Valentine Low uncovers the relationship between monarch and government. He speaks to aides, politicians and civil servants

www.thetimes.com

That paragraph is astonishing (assuming the government sources' recollection is correct). What an absurd question for a man who is a member of the House of Windsor through his mother (and who wouldn't be heir to the throne but for female succession) to ask.