Farthest from the British Throne to Inherit?

Factual Questions
21

[QUOTE=Freddy the Pig]
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!
[/QUOTE]

This is speculation on top of speculation, but in reality no war of succession is likely to take place. Assuming the British Prime Minister survives whatever disaster killed off 60 royals, the PM and Cabinet will make the real decision, with due deference to public opinion, and having the plan ratified if necessary by Parliament. It might be that King Harald became the British king briefly, then abdicated after signing off on the new Act of Succession (on the advice of his British ministers, of course).

If the PM were dead too, that would complicate matters. King Harald would have to take the throne, to appoint an interim PM, to convene an emergency session of Parliament (with whichever MPs survived the disaster), and perhaps to hold a general election. Then his new British advisers would decide what constitutional measures were necessary. But even then, I doubt if they’d want the monarch of a foreign country to be the new British monarch.

22

[QUOTE=RealityChuck]
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).
[/QUOTE]

Good call on Henry VII. Although he could have taken an anachronistic precedent from William and Mary, as his wife was the Yorkist heiress after Richard III’s death (barring Richard’s story about Edward IV’s bigamy making all his kids illegitimate). This was Philip II’s (the Philip II, of Spanish Armada fame) claim to the throne – he was Mary I’s husband, and “due the throne by the crown matrimonial.”

William III, however, requires a bit of clarification. He was in fact not that far removed in succession. First, going on the pretendership theory that the heir apparent or presumptive accedes when the reigning monarch is overthrown and executed, Charles II would be the “king of record,” even though the only pieces of the realm to recognize him were the Channel Islands and Virginia. In 1650, when the future William III was born, the line of succession after the de jure and future Charles II would have been:

  1. Prince James, brother of the King, later James II
  2. Princess Mary, Princess Consort of Orange, eldest sister of the King
  3. Her son William, the future William III
    …

On January 1, 1688, prior to the birth of the Old Pretender, the line of succession from James II was:

  1. Princess Mary, Princess Consort of Orange, the King’s elder daughter
  2. Princess Anne, the King’s younger daughter
  3. William, Prince of Orange, the future William III, nephew of the King and son of his late eldest sister
    …

If Mary had acceded alone after the Glorious Revolution in 1689, the succession would have been Anne, her infant son Prince William, and William of Orange, with William twice briefly bumped to fourth place by Anne’s babies Mary and George, who were born and died in infancy in 1690 and 1692 respectively. Anne herself would have succeeded on Mary’s death in 1694, instead of Wlliam reigning alone as he did. From Prince William’s death at age 11 in 1700 until William of Orange’s own death in 1702, he would have been heir presumptive in his own right.

So all things considered he was not that far removed.

23

Dead last in the line of succession (he gets the throne if he’s the last person alive in the UK) would be Andy Capp.

24

To answer the question that wasn’t asked, this website lists the 4804 people eligible to succeed the British throne as of January 1, 2001.

25

Me.

According to (notoriously inaccurate) family lore, we’re 10th cousins to the late Queen Mother. One day there’s going to be a freak blimp accident that knocks out the entire house of Windsor, other European royals, and the government too, and then I shall ascend the throne, and my grateful subjects will bow in obeisance, and the former colonies will beg forgiveness and demand to be re-placed under my rule.

And I may deign to have you back, if you anoint me with enough unguent. Or send me your finest women, washed and oiled. (Actually, forget about the unguent.)

26

[QUOTE=jjimm]
Me.

According to (notoriously inaccurate) family lore, we’re 10th cousins to the late Queen Mother. One day there’s going to be a freak blimp accident that knocks out the entire house of Windsor, other European royals, and the government too, and then I shall ascend the throne,
[/QUOTE]

Sadly, being related to the Queen Mother isn’t going to do it. Mary of Teck was not Queen in her own right, but was the consort to George VI. I don’t believe Mary was a descendant of Sophia, and so, she was not eligible to rule in her own right.

Just out of curiosity, who is the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great granparent that you have in common with Mary. (I don’t even know who my 9x great-grandparents were, let alone know someone else descended from them…)

Zev Steinhardt

27

I did say “notoriously inaccurate”. Anyway, somehow we plug into this in the 17th century. There’s some royal connection buried in that. And Atilla the Hun. Don’t forget him.

28

My money’s on Cecil Adams.

29

[QUOTE=zev_steinhardt]
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.

Zev Steinhardt
[/QUOTE]

Would it? Does the Act of Succession rule out descendants of royal bastards?

30

[QUOTE=Giles]
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).
[/QUOTE]

So, a German emigrated to America and had kids who grew up as Americans.

31

[QUOTE=zev_steinhardt]
Sadly, being related to the Queen Mother isn’t going to do it. Mary of Teck was not Queen in her own right, but was the consort to George VI. I don’t believe Mary was a descendant of Sophia, and so, she was not eligible to rule in her own right.

Just out of curiosity, who is the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great granparent that you have in common with Mary. (I don’t even know who my 9x great-grandparents were, let alone know someone else descended from them…)

Zev Steinhardt
[/QUOTE]

Although Queen Mary was a forceful personality, she was the present Queen’s grandmother, the widow of George V. The former Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was the Queen Mother, widow of George VI, son of George V and Queen Mary. There was a short period in 1953 between the death of George VI and his mother, when the U.K. had three queens, Elizabeth II and I regnant and her mother and grandmother, Elizabeth and Mary, as dowager queens consort.

32

[QUOTE=zev_steinhardt]
Sadly, being related to the Queen Mother isn’t going to do it. Mary of Teck was not Queen in her own right, but was the consort to George VI. I don’t believe Mary was a descendant of Sophia, and so, she was not eligible to rule in her own right.
[/QUOTE]
A couple of corrections here:

The late Queen Mother, consort of King George VI, was born Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, the daughter of the Earl of Strathmore. Mary of Teck was the consort of King George V.

And Mary of Teck was a descendant of Sophia. Mary’s mother, HRH Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge, was the granddaughter of King George III.

33

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Would it? Does the Act of Succession rule out descendants of royal bastards?
[/QUOTE]

It does. So does common law. However a bastard can inheirit if an act of parliament places them in line. Mary I and Elizabeth I were both illegitmate when they came to the throne (and both had parliament pass acts legitimating them after the fact). Apparently at one point Henry VIII even considered allowing one of his bastard sons to marry Mary and to succeed him.

34

[QUOTE=Giles]
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.
[/QUOTE]

For the record, Mary abdicated in 1567, passing the Scottish throne to one-year-old James; but she didn’t die until twenty years later. Until then, she was still the heir apparent to the English throne (not that there was any chance in Hell that she would ever sit on it).

35

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
There was a short period in 1953 between the death of George VI and his mother, when the U.K. had three queens, Elizabeth II and I regnant and her mother and grandmother, Elizabeth and Mary, as dowager queens consort.
[/QUOTE]

(Bolding mine)

Are you calling her this because Elizabeth I was never Queen of Scotland? Because as far as I know, the usual method to number British monarchs is to give them the largest number they would have in the list of English, Scottish and British monarchs. As far as I know, the current Queen is only known as Elizabeth II.

36

[QUOTE=severus]
(Bolding mine)

Are you calling her this because Elizabeth I was never Queen of Scotland? Because as far as I know, the usual method to number British monarchs is to give them the largest number they would have in the list of English, Scottish and British monarchs. As far as I know, the current Queen is only known as Elizabeth II.
[/QUOTE]

Yes. And the usual method is to give them the appropriate regnal number in the English line since William the Conqueror. Otherwise the Glorious Revolution would have dethroned James VII, and Baldwin would have forced Edward X to abdicate.

However, the double-number system is a small element of courtesy to Scotland that costs minimal typing and causes little confusion, so it’s one which I try to use, at least for the first reference. I.e., “Elizabeth I of England was succeeded by James (VI and) I, her cousin once removed the King of Scots. James I is the ‘King James’ who commissioned the Authorized Bible.”

37

Thanks Polycarp!

38

[QUOTE=alphaboi867]
It does. So does common law. However a bastard can inheirit if an act of parliament places them in line. Mary I and Elizabeth I were both illegitmate when they came to the throne (and both had parliament pass acts legitimating them after the fact). Apparently at one point Henry VIII even considered allowing one of his bastard sons to marry Mary and to succeed him.
[/QUOTE]

…

Ew.

39

Blithely ignoring the Act of Settlement stuff …

My understanding is that Henry VII had virtually no claim to the throne.
We were always amused that he was the offspring of an ex-queen who married her Welsh Dresser. (In the UK that is a bit of kitchen furniture).

Another complete non contender was Harold Godwinson, his only claim was that Edward The Confessor had a shotgun marriage with Harold’s sister, and that he and his father bullied Edward mercilessly.

Since Edward was brought up in Normandy, and brought over Norman barons, also that he had a visceral loathing of the family Godwinson, it seems possible that he really did want William to succeed him - if only to spite the Gs - who incidentally pulled a stunt on Edward’s older brother Alfred.

40

[QUOTE=alphaboi867]
However a bastard can inheirit if an act of parliament places them in line. Mary I and Elizabeth I were both illegitmate when they came to the throne (and both had parliament pass acts legitimating them after the fact).
[/QUOTE]

The illegitimacy of Mary I and Elizabeth I depends on your view on a coupl of very controversial marriages. However, when they were conceived and born, their father King Henry VIII considered that he was married to their respectve mothers, and anyone expressing doubts on the subject would have been accused of treason.

[QUOTE=SCSimmons]
For the record, Mary abdicated in 1567, passing the Scottish throne to one-year-old James; but she didn’t die until twenty years later. Until then, she was still the heir apparent to the English throne (not that there was any chance in Hell that she would ever sit on it).
[/QUOTE]

Of course, you’re right: I forgot a very memorable bit of Scottish (and English) history there.