Idle Curiosity re British royal succession

[Northern_Piper]

@Baker

Victoria became queen after her uncle William IV died without legitimate living heirs. Had her father still been living he would have become king, but it still had to go through his line. She had male cousins but they were the children of yet younger brothers of her father and uncle.

Another example of a grandchild succeeding in preference to an uncle was George III, grandson of George II.

George II had eight children:

Frederick, Prince of Wales
Anne, Princess Royal, Princess of Orange
Princess Amelia
Princess Caroline
Prince George William
Prince William, Duke of Cumberland
Princess Mary, Landgravine of Hesse
Louise, Queen of Denmark and Norway

Frederick, Prince of Wales, was George III’s father. He died young, in 1751, while his father was still alive. He was also survived by one brother (Prince William) and five sisters. (George William died as an infant.)

Even though Prince William, Duke of Cumberland, was alive when George II died in 1763, Frederick’s oldest son succeeded to the throne as George III.

[Northern_Piper]

@A.Gwilliam

There’s no existing constitutional mechanism within the UK for permanently removing a particular monarch. The other Commonwealth realms don’t have any difficulty because of how their constitutional/legal systems works. But in the UK the Sovereign is formally part of Parliament, and would have to assent to any Act of Parliament deposing themselves. Thus, when Edward VIII abdicated, he had to assent to the Act of Parliament confirming it.

Yes and no, at least for Canada. The Crown is formally part of Parliament, merely being represented by the GovGen. While the GovGen could grant Royal Assent to a bill deposing the current monarch, the Crown has the power to disallow a bill even once Royal Assent has been granted. Of course, the Crown normally would only exercise that power on the advice of her/his elected Canadian government, but if you had a renegade monarch already, as a matter of law, if the monarch disallowed against the advice of the Canadian government, the bill would fail.

[Northern_Piper]

@Alka_Seltzer

I imagine the commonwealth realms such as Australia and Canada would quickly become republics, and possibly even the UK as well.

People often say that on these boards as if it’s quite simple to go from a constitutional monarchy to a republican form of government, but I have my doubts, as discussed in this thread:

[QUOTE=Northern Piper]

This is a lot easier said than done, as the Australian referendum on abolishing the monarchy showed.

The difficulty is that it requires a substantial re-write of the Constitutions. You can’t just strike out “Queen” and put in “President”. You always have to answer at least two major questions: how do you select the President? and what powers do you want the President to have? Those points of detail are the difficult ones.

For example, in Canada, the Queen has extensive constitutional powers, both prerogative and written. If you want to keep the focus of the Constitution as a system of responsible government, with the new President as a figurehead, and real power resting with the Prime Minister, you have to have a system of election that does not give the new President the political legitimacy to use those enormous powers. You also likely have to define the principles of responsible government much more carefully in a written constitutional instrument, rather than relying solely on constitutional convention, because now you would have two different politicians squabbling over power, rather than the unelected representative of a hereditary monarch deferring automatically to the elected Prime Minister.

But if you want the President to be popularly elected, or to have real powers, then it’s even more difficult - that would be a wholesale change to the constitutional and political system. Those types of fundamental constitutional changes are typically not easily made. The most difficult is to combine popular election with the system of responsible government - you might end up with a completely hybrid system, more akin to the French or Russian governments.

The difficulty in switching from a constitutional monarchy to a republic is well-illustrated by this comment in the wiki article:

The Australian Electoral Survey that is conducted following all elections by the Australian National University has found that support for a republic has remained reasonably static since 1987 at around 60%, if the type of republic is not part of the question.

(My emphasis.)

In short, abolishing the monarchy and switching to a republic is easy in theory, hard in practice. So I’m not convinced that as soon as Her Majesty is no longer with us, you’ll have a rash of Commonwealth Realms suddenly going republic.
[/QUOTE]

[A.Gwilliam]

@Northern_Piper

Yes and no, at least for Canada. The Crown is formally part of Parliament, merely being represented by the GovGen. While the GovGen could grant Royal Assent to a bill deposing the current monarch, the Crown has the power to disallow a bill even once Royal Assent has been granted. Of course, the Crown normally would only exercise that power on the advice of her/his elected Canadian government, but if you had a renegade monarch already, as a matter of law, if the monarch disallowed against the advice of the Canadian government, the bill would fail.

Nope!

Deposing the monarch requires a constitutional amendment.

[QUOTE=Constitution Act, 1982]
41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:

(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;

[…]
[/QUOTE]

There is no power of disallowance of constitutional amendments; only of ordinary legislation. However, even then our putative dastardly monarch would be thwarted. Besides the problem that disallowance requires an order in council, and thus British ministerial involvement, the disallowance doesn’t take effect until the Governor General has formally signified it to both Houses of Parliament. Clearly, the GG will be advised by his/her ministers not to signify the disallowance. Problem sorted!

[A.Gwilliam]

@Northern_Piper

People often say that on these boards as if it’s quite simple to go from a constitutional monarchy to a republican form of government, but I have my doubts, as discussed in this thread:

In addition to that, the bar is set very high for [federal] constitutional amendment in Australia. After being approved by Parliament, proposed amendments are put to a referendum, where historically they have a less than one-in-five chance of being passed!

But even before getting to the federal Parliament, a constitutional amendment abolishing the monarchy would seem to necessitate “request” legislation from each of the several states. Certainly that’s what happened in the run-up to the 1999 referendum.

Amending the Canadian constitution seems positively straightforward in comparison! All that’s needed there is for all of the federal/provincial parliamentary chambers to agree on an amendment…

[alphaboi867]

@Lord_Feldon

…(If she has a sister, the title will go into abeyance until one line dies out or the abeyance is terminated by the Crown.)…

For English titles this is correct. For Scottish titles an elder sister takes precedence over a younger sister the exact same way an elder son takes precedence over a younger son. Obviously the British Crown itself doesn’t work the same way as English titles; the Crown cannot go into abeyance. Otherwise Princess Elizabeth and Princess Margaret would’ve both inheirited an equal claim on the Crown.

[Lord_Feldon]

@alphaboi867

For English titles this is correct. For Scottish titles an elder sister takes precedence over a younger sister the exact same way an elder son takes precedence over a younger son.

:smack: And the two I was thinking of who were elected to hereditary seats are Scottish, too (the Countess of Mar and Lady Saltoun).

@alphaboi867

Otherwise Princess Elizabeth and Princess Margaret would’ve both inheirited an equal claim on the Crown.

I can’t find anything now, but I think there was actually a minor concern about that in the 30s.

ETA: Posthumous Child and Abeyance

[Baker]

Could I add another question about succession? I don’t think that it’s ever come up(to my knowledge).

What if Kate, say, bore identical twin boys. Would the one who managed to come out first be next in line, beating out his minutes younger brother? I’ll bet that could cause some sibling rivalry!

[Cazzle]

@Baker

What if Kate, say, bore identical twin boys. Would the one who managed to come out first be next in line, beating out his minutes younger brother? I’ll bet that could cause some sibling rivalry!

Oldest is oldest, whether it’s by 30 seconds, 30 months or 30 years.

[A.Gwilliam]

@Lord_Feldon

I can’t find anything now, but I think there was actually a minor concern about that in the 30s.

ETA: Posthumous Child and Abeyance

Beat me to it!

On a sort-of related note, there’d also been some doubt in the sixteenth century as to whether Queen Mary could have the same powers as a King (because she was the first ever Queen Regnant):

[QUOTE=Queen Regent’s Prerogative Act 1554]
An Acte declaring that the Regall Power of this Realme is in the Quenes Majestie as fully and absolutely as ever it was in any of her moste noble Progenitours Kinges of this Realme.

FORASMUCHE as the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme, withe all Dignities Honours Prerogatives Aucthorities Jurisdictions and Preheminences therunto annexed united and belonging, by the Dyvine Providence of Almighty God, ye most lawfully justly and rightfully discended and comme unto the Quenes Highnes that now ys, being the verye true and undoubted heire and inheritrixe therof, and invested in her most Royall Person, according unto the Lawes of this Realme; And by force and vertue of the same, all Regall Power Dignitie Honour Aucthoritie Prerogative Preheminence and Jurisdictions dothe apperteine, and of right out to apperteine and belong unto her Highnes, as to the Sovereine supreme Governour and Quene of this Realme and the Dominions therof, in as full large and ample maner as it hathe done heretofore to any other her most noble Progenitours Kinges of this Realme: Nevertheles the most auncient Statutes of this Realme being made by Kinges then reigning, doo not onely attribute and referre all Prerogative Preheminence Power and Jurisdiction Roiall unto the name of King, but also doo gyve assigne and appointe the Correccion and Punishment of all Offendours agaynst the Regaltie and Dignitie of the Crowne and the Lawes of this Realme unto the Kinge; By occasion wherof the malitious and ignorant persones may bee hereafter induced and perswaded unto this errour and folly, to thinck that her Hignes coulde ne shoulde have enjoye and use such lyke Royall Aucthoritie Power Preheminence Prerogative and Jurisdiccion, nor doo ne execute and use all thinges concerning the sayd Statutes, and take the benefit and privilege of the same, nor correcte and punishe Offendours against her most Royall Person and the Regaltie and Dignitie of the Crowne of this Realme and the Dominions thereof, as the Kinges of this Realme her most noble Progenitours have heretofore doon enjoied used and exersised:

For thavoiding and clere extinguishment of whiche sayd errour or doubte, and for a playn declaracion of the Lawes of this Realme in that behalf;

Be it declared and enacted by thauctorite of this presente Parliament, that the Lawe of this Realme is and ever hathe been and ought to bee understande, that the Kinglye or Regall Office of the Realme, and all Dignities Prerogative Royall Power Preheminences Privilegies Aucthorities and Jurisdiccions therunto annexed united or belonging, being invested either in Male or Female, are and bee and ought to bee as fully wholly absolutely and [enteerly] demed judged accepted invested and taken in thone as in thother; so that what or whansoever Statute or Law doothe lymitte and appointe that the King of this Realme may or shall have execute and doo any thing as King, or dothe geve any profitt or commodite to the King, or dothe lymitte or appointe any paines or punishement for the Correction of Offendours or Transgressoures against the Regaltie and Dignitie of the King or of the Crowne, The same the Quene, (being supreme Governesse possessour and enheritour to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme as our sayd Sovereigne Ladye the Quene most justly presentlye is,) may by the same aucthoritie and power likewise have exersice execute punishe correcte and doo, to all intentes construccions and purposes without Doubte Ambiguitie Scruple or Question: Any Custome Use or Scruple or any other thing whatsoever to be made to the contrary notwithstanding.

[/QUOTE]

The above wasn’t repealed until 1969!

@Cazzle

Oldest is oldest, whether it’s by 30 seconds, 30 months or 30 years.

You say that, but in French law the first-born twin was (is?) considered to be the younger of the two. This was an application of the principle “first in, last out”!

[flodnak]

@Baker

Victoria became queen after her uncle William IV died without legitimate living heirs. Had her father still been living he would have become king, but it still had to go through his line. She had male cousins but they were the children of yet younger brothers of her father and uncle.

And she was only under consideration at all because William IV’s two older brothers had died without leaving legitimate living heirs. The period between George III and Victoria was a bit messy for the British monarchy.

At least one present-day monarch came to the throne under a similar situation. Sweden’s Carl XVI Gustav (referred to as “Carl Gustav” in ordinary conversation) was born in 1946 as the first son of the man who was the eldest son of the heir apparent, and thus second in line to the throne; the infant, as the eldest son of the eldest son, became third in line under the laws at the time. But his father was killed in a plane crash when Carl Gustav was still an infant, and the baby immeditely moved to the second-in-line position; he was Crown Prince and heir apparent before he started school. He took the throne following the death of his grandfather in 1973, although he had four surviving uncles (and one surviving aunt, but under the Swedish constitution at that time I believe she didn’t count).

[Hypnagogic_Jerk]

@Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus

It’s all about descent. Even if Prince Charles kicks the bucket before ever ascending to the throne, William’s place in the succession is guaranteed.

Remind me: would William become Prince of Wales in this case? Or more generally, which ones of Charles’ titles would he inherit, which ones would be recreated for him, and which ones wouldn’t move down to him?

[alphaboi867]

@Hypnagogic_Jerk

Remind me: would William become Prince of Wales in this case? Or more generally, which ones of Charles’ titles would he inherit, which ones would be recreated for him, and which ones wouldn’t move down to him?

The Queen would need to issue letters patent creating him Prince of Wales, the title cannot be inheirited. None of Charles’s other titles (Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, etc) would pass on to William since they can only be held by the eldest son of a reigning monarch. Anyone who’s heir apparent (as opposed to heir[ess] presumptive) can by styled Prince of Wales by the monarch, but it’s not automatic. Now if Prince Phillip was dead too his titles (Duke of Edinburgh, etc) would pass on to William (via Charles) because they operate just like any other peerage title.

[Alka_Seltzer]

@Northern_Piper

People often say that on these boards as if it’s quite simple to go from a constitutional monarchy to a republican form of government, but I have my doubts, as discussed in this thread:

Yes, but I think the process of becoming a republic would probably start quite quickly if they started offing each other. Like you say, sorting out the legalities could take years.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@Lord_Feldon

Some can actually be held outright by women. Most everything really old that was created by writ of summons rather than letters patent goes to heirs general, and a single female heir will succeed to the peerage in her own right (although she couldn’t sit in Parliament until the 50s or 60s, and that was taken away in 1999 (although I think a couple of hereditary peeresses were elected to take a couple of the remaining seats)). (If she has a sister, the title will go into abeyance until one line dies out or the abeyance is terminated by the Crown.)

Thank you for clarifying this. Ignorance fought.

Also, every once in a while, a peerage granted to a man who only had daughters would have a special remainder specifying that it would go to the eldest living daughter in the absence of a son (that’s why Earl Mountbatten’s eldest daughter is Countess Mountbatten in her own right).

I suppose nowadays, though, this is usually moot since ennoblements are almost always Life only.

[A.Gwilliam]

@alphaboi867

The Queen would need to issue letters patent creating him Prince of Wales, the title cannot be inheirited. None of Charles’s other titles (Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, etc) would pass on to William since they can only be held by the eldest son of a reigning monarch. Anyone who’s heir apparent (as opposed to heir[ess] presumptive) can by styled Prince of Wales by the monarch, but it’s not automatic. Now if Prince Phillip was dead too his titles (Duke of Edinburgh, etc) would pass on to William (via Charles) because they operate just like any other peerage title.

I believe that what you’ve said here regarding the title of “Prince of Wales” also applies to the title of “Earl of Chester”.

[StarvingButStrong]

Here’s another question, though I’m not sure exactly how to phrase: what makes one a prince/princess? Obviously all of the queen’s, or king’s, as the case may be, children have the title. Prince Charles’ sons are princes. Prince Andrew’s daughters are princesses. But how many generations along does that carry?

Apparently the children of Princesses don’t inherit the title, going by Princess Anne’s children. How about the children of princes that never become King?

Say things go “normally.” As in, QE2 dies at some point, Charles becomes king, eventually he dies, too, and now it’s King William.

How about the children of Prince Henry and, um, any princes spawned by Prince Edward? (Is he even married?) Are their children Prince Whoozies and Princess Whatzits? I’m guessing there has to be some cutoff rule, otherwise you’d be knee deep in excess royalty after a generation or two.

[Farmer_Jane]

@StarvingButStrong

Dang. That’s sensible, I guess, but boring. I want that joust! Followed by combat on foot with those big pointy balls…yeah!
But your response raises another question: So, what if Prince Charles gets tired of waiting around and decides to kill his mother? That’s attempted murder, at least, and I’m guessing treason as well.

What happens if he succeeds? What happens if the attempt fails?

Does he go to trial? If convicted, does he still retain his place in line? Prince Charles, convict #12345678? (Possibly King Charles, convict #12345678?)

I’m thinking of the general principle that criminals shouldn’t be allowed to benefit from their crimes.

Or…do you still behead royal traitors?

Um, I don’t think it’s treason if the British monarchy are just figureheads.

No one gets beheaded in GB.

Anyway, the whole line of succession could be changed if this guy gets his way.

As far as Charles, succession and murder goes, I’m 99 per cent sure he’d lose his succession rights. I don’t know about his heirs, though.

[alphaboi867]

Any child of a British monarch is automatically a Prince(ss) of the UK, with the qualification of Royal Higness. Ditto for all male-line (ie children of the monarch’s sons). This is why neither of Princess Anne’s kids have any titles (their father is a commoner who declined an earldom). The Queen did offer to grant them titles by letters patent, but Anne declined. Male-line great-grandchildren are styled as children of dukes. Prince Michael of Kent (George V’s grandson) is not himself a duke, but his two children are syled Lord Frederick Windsor and Lady Gabriella Windsor.

Before 1917 they would’ve had “princely rank”, but with the qualification of Highness (ie “His Higness Prince Frederick of Kent”). Prince Edward is marred and his two kids are technically “HRH Princess Louise of Wessex” and “HRH Prince James of Wessex”. In practice because they’re so far down in the line of succession their parents didn’t want them to have royal titles, but instead of formally issuing letters patent to that effect the Queen gave permission for them to use their lower styles as children of an earl. Hence "Lady Louise (Mountbatten-)Windsor and Viscount Severn. They can still opt to use their royal titles as adults.

If Prince Harry were to have children while his grandmother is still alive they’d only be Lord/Lady _____ Mountbatten-Windsor, moving up to royal status when Charles becomes king. Ditto with Prince William’s kids, except that his eldest son will be a prince from birth (eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales). The Queen can change this by letters patent. She might choose to do it when she creates William a duke on his wedding day.

[Farmer_Jane]

@StarvingButStrong

Here’s another question, though I’m not sure exactly how to phrase: what makes one a prince/princess? Obviously all of the queen’s, or king’s, as the case may be, children have the title. Prince Charles’ sons are princes. Prince Andrew’s daughters are princesses. But how many generations along does that carry?

Apparently the children of Princesses don’t inherit the title, going by Princess Anne’s children. How about the children of princes that never become King?

Say things go “normally.” As in, QE2 dies at some point, Charles becomes king, eventually he dies, too, and now it’s King William.

How about the children of Prince Henry and, um, any princes spawned by Prince Edward? (Is he even married?) Are their children Prince Whoozies and Princess Whatzits? I’m guessing there has to be some cutoff rule, otherwise you’d be knee deep in excess royalty after a generation or two.

Title of Princess/Prince is a little complicated and always has been. I’m not sure how it exactly goes in the British Royal Monarchy nowadays (like any other self-respecting chick, I lost interest after the 1600s ;)) but His Royal Highness Prince Harry of Wales will be HRH The Prince Henry after William ascends to the throne.

His children would (probably) be children of a duke, i.e., Duke of York. It’s up to the monarch to give out those titles. His cousin, Princess Eugene, is not eligible for Dukedom. Any divorcee of a Royal loses the HRH title.

His children wouldn’t be princes or princesses because they aren’t next in line to the throne when born. (I think.)