Movin' on up... - orders of succession

Factual Questions
1

In the case of orders of succession for various high offices throughout the world (imagining the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development or some such watching the glowing mushroom cloud over Washington, thinking “OH. SHIT.”) - I’m wondering, what is the lowest that someone has ever started in an order of succession and still made it to the top position?

Everybody jokes about some Sir Eric of Dubuque, Iowa taking the British throne in a sweeping plague of some sort, and we laugh because it is impossible - but what is possible? What has happened historically?

I’m thinking of answers both for:

-hereditary, monarchy type offices, and

-elected offices.

I figured the answers will be different enough to make them worth splitting up.
(and I’m still waiting on the phone call inviting me to be an indolent monarch somewhere in a post-apocalyptic world…assuming the phones still work…)

2

One real life example is Nixon’s famous “Saturday Night Massacre” at the Department of Justice.

Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor investigating the Watergate affair. Richardson refused and immediately resigned in protest. That meant Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus immediately became Acting Attorney General. Nixon repeated his order and Ruckelshaus also refused and quit. That left Solicitor General Robert Bork as Acting AG, who eventually carried out the order to fire Cox.

I believe that’s the only time that a third-in-line official has become an acting cabinet-level officer in the US.

3

Well, lets’s see.

The eldest son of Louis XIV of France, also a Louis, was first in line to his father. He was knowns as Louis the Dauphin.

His eldest son, another Louis, was second in line. He’s generally known as Louis, Duke of Burgundy though he became Dauphin of France when his father died in 1711.

But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. In 1704 the Duke of Burgundy, then second in line, begat Louis, Duke of Brittany, who was third in line. This child died of convulsions before his first birthday.

Undeterred, the Duke of Brittany begat a second son (confusingly, also Louis, Duke of Brittany) in 1707. This child was third in line when born.

Finally, the Duke begat a third son, Louis, Duke of Anjou, in 1710. He was fourth in line at his birth. He was a great-grandson of the reigning king.

Then events start to move fast. In 1711 Anjou’s grandfather, the Dauphin, dies of smallpox at the age of 49. Anjou moves up to third in line. Less than a year later, Anjou’s father, the Duke of Burgundy, dies of measles, aged 29; Anjou becomes second in line. Three weeks later Anjou’s older brother dies of the same disease and Anjou, just after his second birthday, is now first in line. And in 1715, at the age of five, he becomes Louis XV of France on the death of his great-grandfather.

So, from fourth in line to king, in just over four years, skipping two generations.

4

Adolphe of Nassau succeeded his seventeenth cousin (once removed) as Grand Duke of Luxembourg in 1890. This is believed to be the most distant relationship over which a crown has been inherited. (Adolphe had not expected to inherit until quite late, because cousin William had three sons, but the sons all predeceased their father, as did all of the other closer relations.)

5

The biggest jump in British history (barring the Ralph Jones incident) was when Queen Anne died in 1714. The first fifty-five people in line to become the new monarch by birth order were ineligible due to being Catholic. So it was lucky Number 56, Georg Ludwig Prince Elector of Hanover, who became King George I.

6

For democratic succession, I don’t know if you’ll be able to beat Argentina, during the economic crisis of late 2001. President Fernando de la Rua and Vice President Carlos Alvarez resigned, leaving Senate President Pro Tempore Ramon Puerta as interim president. Under the Argentinian constitution, Congress elected a new President, Adolfo Rodriguez Saa. But he also resigned a week later, and this time Puerta resigned rather than assuming the interim presidency again.

So House leader Eduardo Camaño, originally fourth in line, served as Interim President for a little more than a day.

Monarchies are complicated, because generational succession is automatic. The current Prince George is third in line for the throne, but his succession is guaranteed if he survives his ancestors. This is rather different from a third son being third in line.

Also, historically, there have been many cases where either there was no succession law, or the law was disregarded or changed or annulled by force, and distant relatives succeeded. The Act of Settlement was one such case. These, it seems to me, should not count.

7

That sounds like really poor planning on the part of at least the senior-most of the 55. Let’s see, I can change religions and probably become Monarch pretty soon. Or not. Hmmm.

8

Willem III’s daughter Wilhelmina inherited the throne of Netherlands, since it was a new Kingdom, begun by Willem III’s grandfather Willem I. Since that dynasty had no legitimate male agnates, it was allowed to pass to a woman. Luxemburg however was an old heirloom of the Nassau family independent of the Dutch Kingdom. Not only did Willem III have no male heirs, neither did his father, nor grandfather, nor great-grandfather, nor great-great grandfather, nor … They had to go all the way back to his 17-great grandfather, Walram of Nassau who died in 1198, and then retrace forward to find a surviving branch of the House of Nassau. This makes Adolf and Willem III eighteenth cousins once removed on the agnatic lines. That this was no problem for the Nassau genealogists almost seems amazing, but I guess you keep track of such things when the family has such valuable heirlooms!

Of course the two men were more closely related when maternal ancestries are considered. Adolf’s great-grandfather married Wilhelmine, the aunt of King Willem I, making them 3rd cousins. Furthermore, the maternal grandmother of Adolf’s mother Luise von Saxe was Fredericka von Hesse and the maternal grandmother of King Willem II was a different Fredericka von Hesse. The two Frederickas were 1st cousins, making Adolf and Willem III 4th cousins. But these relationships were irrelevant for the Salic inheritance.

9

Well, it was a little more complicated than that. Queen Anne had been expected to produce heirs of her own (the poor lady had at least seventeen known pregnancies, most resulting in stillbirth or miscarriage). After the last of her children died in 1700, Parliament had to decide what to do about the succession, and the Act of Settlement 1701 was the result. That act specifically selected Sophia of Hanover as the heiress presumptive, and specifically barred anybody who was or who had ever been Catholic from the throne. (No changing religions a la Henri IV “Paris is worth a mass” of France.) Sophia died a mere two months before Queen Anne, and the succession went to Sophia’s son as George I of Great Britain.

10

It also barred anybody who married a Catholic. Parliament didn’t want to take any chances on the religious affiliation of any heirs born in a mixed marriage.

11

[From the trivia desk:] On the matter of succession to the Crown of England, the House of Hanover was advised by Gottfried Leibniz, the famous inventor of the calculus.

BTW, the Act of Succession imposed various restrictions on the Monarch. The King couldn’t leave the Kingdom without permission of Parliament; only British-born people could be appointed to the Privy Council; etc.

12

The senior most of those fifty-five was James Francis Edward Stuart, who was Anne’s brother. As far as he was concerned, he should have already been King and not just Anne’s successor. And he was willing to invade Britain to correct the situation. He also had no intention of letting Parliament tell him what religion he could follow or anything else.

13

Well, of course, strictly speaking they weren/t in line to become the new monarch - Catholics had been excluded from the Succession since the Bill of Rights in 1689. So they had either been removed from the line of succession in 1689 or, if born after that year, they had never been in the line of succession in the first place.

Georg didn’t leap from 55th place to king in 1714. Prior to 1701 the line of succession was unspecified. From 1701 onwards it was specified, and Georg was in second place. On the death of his mother in 1717 he rose to first place, and on Anne’s death a couple of months later he became king.

14

That’s why I said secession by birth order. Obviously anyone who becomes the monarch was, by definition, the first person in the line of succession. There may be situations where several claimants argue that they should be the next monarch and each has a different line of succession that puts them at the front of the list. And when one of them wins, his line of succession is recognized as having been the correct one.

15

Henry Tudor was pretty low on the list as well.

He rectified it by killing Richard III. And then marrying the first in line.

16

While researching the various Stanhope Earls I was reminded of this thread. I took the trouble of composing a post for this thread, FAR TOO BORING TO READ. I’m posting it anyway on the very off-chance that it will mesh with someone 's whimsy. Please PM if it did!

TL;DR summary: The Barony Stanhope of Elvaston passed to an 8th cousin.

When Henry VIII dissolved the Papist monasteries of England; Elvaston Castle was part of the Priory of Shelford and was purchased by Sir Michael Stanhope, who was Esquire of the Body of King Henry VIII, Groom of the Stool of Henry’s successor, etc. But we begin our story with Michael’s grandson John (I) Stanhope (1559-1611), Postmaster General for Her Majesty. We need mention only two of John’s sons: Philip, his only son by his first wife, was made 1st Earl of Chesterfield; so John left Elvaston Castle to his first son by his 2nd wife, John (II).

Philip had three sons whose heirs eventually held the Earldom of Chesterfield. One grandson became 2nd Earl of Chesterfield; another grandson, James, was Chief Minister of England and given several noble titles including Baron of Elvaston, Viscount of Mahon, Earl of Stanhope. The first two noble titles (but not the Earldom) were entailed: in the event that James’ heirs became extinct, they would pass to the heirs of the body of the owner of Elvaston Castle, John (IV), grandson of afore-said John (II). Thus John (IV) was the 2nd cousin of James (Chief Minister and 1st Earl Stanhope). John (IV)'s oldest son, William, was made 1st Earl of Harrington.

So we have three Earldoms held by the agnatic descandants of Elizabeth’s Postmaster General. Let’s review their course.

The Earldom Stanhope of Harrington passed successively to the son of the 1st Earl, son of 2nd, son of 3rd, brother of 4th, son of 5th, 1st cousin of 6th, son of 7th, brother of 8th, son of 9th, son of 10th, son of 11th, the living 12th Stanhope Earl of Harrington, Charles Henry Leicester Stanhope born 1945.

Meanwhile the Earldom Stanhope passed successively to the son of the 1st Earl, son of 2nd, son of 3rd, son of 4th, son of 5th, son of 6th, who was the 7th Earl Stanhope, James Richard Stanhope born 1880.

Finally the senior line: the Earldom of Chesterfield passed to the grandson of the 1st Earl, son of 2nd, son of 3rd, 3rd cousin once removed of 4th, son of 5th, son of 6th, 3rd cousin of 7th, 4th cousin of 8th, son of 9th, brother of 10th, nephew of 11th. However the Stanhope line was starting to be rather sparse. Note that already two 3rd-cousins and a 4th-cousin had shown up in the inheritance chain.

From the 12th Earl of Chesterfield, the Earldom passed to the 12th’s 7th cousin once removed! This 13th Earl of Chesterfield was the very same James Richard Stanhope, 7th Earl Stanhope, mentioned above. Two Earldoms, the Barony Stanhope of Elvaston and Stanhope Viscounty of Mahon were now all united!

But when James Richard died childless in 1967, both Earldoms went extinct. The lesser titles passed, via the entailment mentioned above, to the 11th Earl Stanhope of Harrington, who was James Richard’s 8th cousin once removed.

Such zig-zagging is common in Salic Law inheritances. Can anyone find a 9th cousin inheritance among English or Scottish noble titles?

17

An office with interesting - and odd - succession rules are those for the Lord Great Chamberlain - the hereditary custodian of the Palace of Westminster for Her Majesty.

The office was originally held by the son of one of William the Conqueror’s knights, but in 1133 given to the heirs of Aubrey de Vere, whose son was the Earl of Oxford.

In 1779 the Earl’s descendant, the fourth Duke of Ancaster and Kesteven, died leaving three claimants: two sisters (Priscilla, elder, and Georgiana, younger) and an uncle. After a bitter trial the uncle became the fifth and last Duke, but the House of Lords ruled the two sisters were jointly Lords Great Chamberlain (as women couldn’t actually do such jobs they appointed a Deputy to do it for them). Georgiana married the Marquess of Cholmondely and so her issue shared the inheritance with Priscilla’s descendants, the Barons Willoughby de Eresby.

In 1902 Priscilla’s line expired again, so the House of Lords amended the succession once more. This is the current state of inheritance for the Lord Great Chamberlain:

Half the inheritance goes through the Marquesses of Cholmondely;
A quarter through the Barons Willoughby de Eresby;
One twentieth through the Earls of Albermarle;
Another twentieth through the Legg-Bourke family;
Another twentieth through the Palmer family;
One eightieth through the Wilson family;
Another eightieth through the Dent family;
Another eightieth through the Garton family;
Another eightieth through the Wilson family;
A hundredth through the Findlay family;
Another hundredth through the Marquesses of Donegall;
Another hundredth through the Basset family;
Another hundredth through the Hamiton-Russell family;
Another hundredth through the Kwiatkowski family;

In practice this means that when one incumbent dies the inheritance cycles through the claimants. The Marquess of Cholmondeley ends up having it every other turn, and the Barons Willoughby de Eresby every fourth succession, and the Earls of Albermarle every twelfth or so. A bit complicated, but in practice they tend to appoint the Marquess of Cholmondely as Deputy to exercise the office anyway.

18

Even when female inheritance is allowed for English peerages it doesn’t work in quite as for males; elder daughters don’t take precedents over younger daughters, the title falls into abeyance. It the 1930s there was even some speculation this might apply to the Crown (eg Princesses Elizabeth & Margaret could somehow both inherit the throne), but that was dismissed because the Crown can’t be split among two people (except for that one time).