When the Soverign of the United Kingdom dies, the next person in the line of succession immediately ascends as the new soverign. The line of succession is set by the Act of Settlement 1701, which, in short states that the throne belongs to the senior descendant of Sophia, Electress of Hanover (provided, of course, the person in question isn’t a Catholic or married to one).
Elizabeth II was third in line at the time of her birth in 1926. Ahead of her were her uncle Prince Edward (who later became Edward VIII) and her father, Prince Albert (who became George VI).
My question is, who was the furthest from the throne at birth (or anytime afterwards) who eventually made it to the throne of the United Kingdom? I know that before the Act of Settlement, the line of succession wasn’t set and was, IIRC, sometimes at the whim of the current soverign. So, for purposes of this question, please feel free to limit it to monarchs who ascended after the Act was passed.
Frank T. Peterson, age 48, a Chillicothe, Ohio, brick and tile factory foreman, was briefly appointed King Edward IX in 1936 after the abdication of the Duke of Windsor-to-be, until the British consul in New York cabled London that he’d read the book wrong, so never mind.
Queen Victoria was born on May 24, 1819. At that time, George III was on the throne, and ahead of Princess Victoria were:
(1) The Prince of Wales, later King Georege IV, who had one legitimate child, Princess Charlotte Augusta. However, the princess had already died.
(2) Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany, who died in 1827 without legitimate issue
(3) Prince William, Duke of Clarence and St Andrews, later King William IV. He had three legitimate children between 1819 and 1823, but they died in infancy.
(4) Prince Edward Augustus, Duke of Kent and Strathearn, the father of Victoria, who died in 1820, shortly before King George III.
(5) Princess Victoria.
I think, if I’ve calculated right, that number 5 was the furthest down that Victoria was in the line of succession.
When William III was born, he wasn’t in the line of succession at all, since there was no king at the time. When the monarchy was restored, he was probably pretty far back: his wife, Mary, was ahead of him in succession when the two of them were made joint rulers.
But probably the furthest from the thone was Henry VII. He wasn’t even the legitimate Lancastrian claimant by birth (though he claimed the role). When he was born in 1457, his connection to the throne was tenuous as possible: he was the king’s father’s widow’s grandson. They both were related through John of Gaunt, who was his several times great grandfather. And that doesn’t include the Yorkist claim (which did have some legitimacy if you followed strict promogeniture).
Not all that distant, and when born in 1566 he would have been second in line. (First in line would have been his mother, Mary, Queen of Scots). He became first in line when his mother died in 1567, and at the age of 1 he became King of Scotland.
(James I and IV was a great great grandson of Henry VII of England, and Elizabeth I was a granddaughter of Henry VII, so they were first cousins, twice removed).
I see that most of the respondents didn’t bother to read the limiting qualifications imposed by the OP.
Prior to the 1701 Act of Succession, I doubt you’d get further away from the throne than Henry Tudor, who had plenty of more legitimate heirs ahead of him at his birth.
Canute was unrelated to the Saxon royal house when he became king (by right of conquest), he didn’t even have the tenuous claim that William had.
To get back to the strict conditions of the OP, George I succeeded in 1714 (*after * the Act of Settlement) but at the time of his birth in 1660 (*before * the Act) Catholics could still inherit. At the time of the Act George was 58th in line, but the previous 57 were all Catholics and so were removed from the succession. I imagine if he was 58th in 1714 he was not very close to the throne even in 1660.
Of course there’s the question of whether there *was * a line of succession at the time, as George was born *one day * before the monarchy was restored after the Commonwealth period.
Since 1701, I thik the renotest would have been King George I. When he was born, on May 28, 1660, was one day before Charles II became de facto king of England and Scotland. At that time, the line would have been (treating Charles II as de jure king):
(1) Prince James, the younger brother, later King James II and VII
(2) Henry Stuart, Duke of Gloucester, the next and last brother, who died later in 1660.
(3) Mary, Princess Royal and Princess of Orange, sister of the above, and the oldest daughter of Charles I.
(4) her only son, who later became King William III.
(5) Henrietta Anne, Princess of England, the youngest daughter of Charles I (her other older sistsers had died before 1660)
(6) Elisabeth, Electress Palatine and Queen of Bohemia, oldest daughter of James I and VI
(7) Charles I Louis, Elector Palatine, Elisabeth’s oldest son
(8) Karl II, Elector Palatine, his oldest son
(9) Friedrich von der Pfalz, his second son
(10) Karl Ludwig von der Pfalz, his third son
(11) Elizabeth Charlotte, Princess Palatine, his oldest daughter
(12) Karoline von der Pfalz, his second daughter
(13) Prince Rupert of the Rhine, and Duke of Cumberland, Elisabeth’s second son, who had no legitimate children
(14) Edward, Count Palatine of Simmern, Elisabeth’s next living son
(15)-(17) Edward’s three daughters
(18) Louise Hollandine, Elisabeth’s oldest living daughter. I can’t find if she married or had children.
(19) Sophia, Duchess of Brunswick-Lüneburg, later Electress of Hanover, Elisabeth’s youngest daughter, and King George I’s mother.
(20) George I.
I don’t think there’s another case where someone 20th in line inherited since 1660.
And being 20th in line at birth in 1660 is completely consistent with being 58th in 1714. Some of those earlier in the line in 1660 were young children, who would go on the have children and grandechildren by 1714.
My earlier post saying more or less the same thing was a simulpost, becauseI didn’t review before posting. However, Charles II was on his way to London and had been crowned a couple of days before George I was born. And Richard Cromwell had resigned as Lord Protector the previous year, so that for some months in 1659-1660 England, Scotland and Ireland had no de facto head of state.
Definitely off-topic, but every time we’re talking British royalty, I feel the need to share this bit:
According to some, Franz, Duke of Bavaria, current head of the house of Wittelsbach (of Neuschwanstein fame) “is the heir-general of the Royal House of Stuart and thus is (…) the rightful King of England and Scotland”, amongst other realms.
Yes, I saw it, but found it distinctly lacking in genealogical details. (In real life, you would have to work your way through hundreds of Scandinavians and Germans, before you reached an American in the line of succession).
I didn’t want to be the first to bring it up, since its GD territory, but it occurs to me that if some disaster really did take out the top thirty or forty in the line, what are the chances this could lead to a general abolition of the monarch in the UK?
Anyway, that’s best discussed in a GD thread, which I’d cheerfully read if someone more knowledgeable than I started one.
Not to mention the fact that, IIRC, the whole thing was based on Ralph being an illegitimate descendant of a monarch. That, in itself, would toss out any claim he had.
According to Wikipedia, no. 60 is King Harald V of Norway. There would be nothing against him personally, but it might seem odd to have a personal union of the crowns of the UK and Norway, and that might lead either to the abiolition ofv the monarchy, or going rather deeping into the line of succession, perhaps to Princess Margarita of Romania, the next person not a Norwegian, and a person who cannot succeed to the Romanian throne (for various reasons, including the fact that Romania is not a monarchgy any more).
This would be sooooooo kewl! We could have the War of the British Succession! One line-up of countries would back the Norwegian candidate, and one the plucky Romanian princess. I’d fight as a craven American mercenary for whichever side paid better. Oooh, if only the necessary 59 people would perish from fluxes and ague!
