That wasn’t true in every country. Some took the position that it wasn’t necessary. (At least two have it explicitly in their constitutions that the head of state of the UK is their head of state.)
The trouble is the constitution of country X is interpreted in the context of the COMMON LAW at the time of independence of country X … UK law changes do not update the common law for country X.
They’d have to update it themselves.
Yes the plain english says “The head of state is the current monarch of the UK”.
But that says that the person has the right to claim to be head of state.
What if the UK does something WRONG (according to the common law of country X)… another person can claim the right… "The UK parliament has given the nod to a serial rapist/murderer basturd ( the father being the self claimed Pope of Silly Willy Island) monarch of who is twice divorced and is currently married , same sex, to a divorcee… and that is wrong, I being 2,454,345,574th in line claim the right to be head of state by common law… "
It requires the Parliament of each Commonwealth realm to assent to the change, which they do by passing an Act which (a) expressed their assent to the change, and (b) making any changes to their own laws which they consider necessary.
But my point holds good. Unless the Parliaments of all the Commonwealth realms do this, the UK parliament will not amend UK law relating to the succession to the crown. The UK’s own law - specifically, the Statute of Westminster 1931 - says this:
“. . . any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom”.
Consequently there is no possiblity of different succession laws applying in different Commonwealth realms. Any change affects all the realms, or none of them.
Of course, any commonwealth country can have its own throne with its own succession laws. Tonga does, and so does Swaziland. But they are not considered “Commonwealth realms”.
Queen of the UK is what she’s called for short. Or QE2 if you’re in a hurry. Either of which is correct, while “Queen of England” isn’t.
Let me just state that yet again for Americans:
Queen of England - wrong.
Queen of the UK - right.
ETA - Imagine if everyone called the US President “President of the American Colonies” - that’s the same as calling QE2 “Queen of England”. Centuries out of date.
No Act will be necessary to “clarify” the issue. The various sons of George III spawned armies of bastards, most or all of whom would have been eligible to succeed before Victoria, had bastardy not been a bar. It has to be absolutely clear that bastardy is a bar because, if it isn’t, then the present Queen is not the lawful monarch.
And Act would be necessary to avoid excluding a non-marital child, if exclusion were to be found unconscionable by contemporary standards.
I’m not sure that the law is clear, because the case has never arisen. No unmarried queen of England, Great Britain or Scotland has had a child – with the exception of Mary, Queen of Scots, who had a child a few months after her husband had been murdered. However, that exception does not cause a problem, since King James I and VI was the legitimate heir of Queen Mary and Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley.
The bastard children of kings and peers are irrelevant, since there must be some doubt as to who the father is. However, if a queen regnant has a child, there is no doubt that it is her child, regardless of who the father is. So, in the inconceivable case that HM QE2 had an extra-marital affair, leading to the birth of a child, and Prince Philip disowned the child as not the fruit of his loins, that child would have to still be in line for the throne, since inheritance would come from the mother, not the father. I don’t think a child of an unmarried queen would be any different – though I would expect that the parliaments of HM’s realms would quickly pass legislation to clarify the issue.
But lots of unmarried women in the line of succession to the throne have had non-marital children. And these non-marital children have not been included in the line of succession. Whereas the subsequent marital children of the same women (often by the same man) have been included.
True, that’s not absolutely definitive, since no-one excluded on that basis has ever (SFAIK) mounted a court case seeking a declaration that their exclusion was wrong. They have all been too remote from any prospect of succession for their exclusion to make any practical difference worth litigating over. But the precedent of court [court of St James, not court of law) practice, plus the legal precedents for the exclusion of non-marital children claiming any other hereditary office or title through the female line, amounts to a fairly strong case that UK law excludes non-marital children from succession, regardless of whether they claim through the male or female parent. I don’t think there’s any uncertainty about it. If a case actually arose, any resulting legislation would not be to clarify uncertainty, but to remedy injustice.
Which is not a problem since the armies of bastards (band name!) were conceived, born, lived and died in an era when bastradry was in effect and the common law was clear, bastards could not inherit (and had few rights, period). Nowdays, bastardry has been abolished, as far as the law is concerned the status of children results from their parents, not the state of the parents relationship.
While you are correct* in practice* out of wedlock are excluded, its not clear as to what the legal position would be. There are as I stated, two possible interpretations and while I am inclined to agree with the “no bastards” position as being correct, what a Court seized of the matter may rule in another way also.
As it is, peerages are not a good guide as to how Court might rule, peerage inheritance is linked to the letters patent of the same and those often specifically state “legitimate” heirs… not surprising since many of them were created during the Georgian free love period.
That’s a pretty good band name too.
However, it is still correct US usage (in the now-traditional American pronunciation “Queena Vingland”) to designate a semi-abstract personification of a high-ranking VIP. As in, “You’re getting out the good china for our peanut-butter sandwiches? Who do you think I am, the Queena Vingland?!”
Until England secedes from the UK, the “Queen of the UK” is the queen of England.
One could argue that, if you allow a woman’s bastard to inherit, but do not allow a man’s bastard to inherit, that you are committing sexual discrimination. From that standpoint, you would either have to allow both, or forbid both.
Of course, a lot of these rules were established before DNA, before an enlightened point of view became common. A society that accepts illegitimacy is an irrelevant concept, and a society that can pinpoint the father’s identity, that does not consider adultery anything more than a domestic issue, is less concerned about the rules.
The legitimacy and bloodline rules typically were set before it was even possible to have female monarchs in many of the places that adopted those rules. Sexism was the least of their worries.
After all boinking the king’s wife was a capital offense back then, (as was being boinked while queen consort) so the risk of “pedigree error” was less of an issue.
“Queen of England” is NOT one of her names. It’s a title that hasn’t existed in the real world for 300 years. Calling her “Queen of England” is ignorant.
This site is supposed to be about fighting ignorance. Now, you can choose to be ignorant, and use the wrong name when you’ve been told the right one, but at the Straight Dope, you have to expect that people will call you on it.
Notice that I capitalized “Queen of the UK”, but did not capitalize “queen of England”. I am aware of what happened in 1603, and 1707, and 1801, and 1922. I simply choose not to go ballistic over the matter.
It hasn’t been a legal title for 300 years, but it was a common term in Britain, including by the kings and queens so referred to, until around 50 or 60 years ago. The current queen has called herself the Queen of England publicly. That’s because the use of “England” has changed within living memory in the UK (or maybe just England). It’s not “ignorant” for people speaking different dialects to not change words at the exact same time. But it is pretty ignorant to treat UK English as the colonial master language, where refusing to drop the definition of the word at the exact same time as British people is a sign of American bumpkinism.
Queen of England will probably become a legit title if and when Scotland secedes from the UK, unless the country continues to call itself United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, or some such combination.
Actually it’s still high treason under British law to commit adultery with the queen consort, or the wife of the heir apparent (or for either of those women to have sex w/ anyone other than their husbands); it just hasn’t been a capital crime since 1998. Granted the only plausible scenario I can see for anybody to prosecuted for treason under those provisions would be if they actually raped one of said women (or a queen-regnant).
Can’t we just refer to Elizabeth Windsor II as Her Madge and move on?*
Interestingly enough, Monaco seems to have already figured this out, as Wiki states “A person born to a dynast who was not married to the other parent at the time of birth (such as Alexander Coste or Camille Gottlieb) does not have any succession rights unless legitimised by his or her parents’ subsequent marriage, provided that the person was not born adulterously.”
So, Prince Albert II’s two children are not included in the line of succession as he was not married to either mother, but both Princess Caroline and Princess Stephanie ended up marrying the fathers of their children after the children were born, and thus, their children are included in the line of succession. Wiki also points out that this change to the constitution was made by the current monarch’s father, Prince Rainier III, who, if the law had been such when he was born, would not have been able to succeed as his own mother was illegitimate, then formally adopted by her father, and then ceded her right to the throne in favor of her son.
- I keed. I keed.
Going back to the original question, the correct term is “heir presumptive”, since (always assuming bastards could inherit) any future legitimate child would have precedence. It is also the case that William Bastard (Guillaume le Batard ie William I) gained the English throne. although this was by conquest when his claim for it by inheritance was denied.
Prince Louis II of Monaco was the son of Prince Albert I and his first wife, Mary Victoria Hamilton, daughter of the Scottish Duke of Hamilton. But soon after young Louis was born, his parents divorced. Louis needed a special Papal dispensation declaring his legitimacy despite his parents’ divorce, in order to retain his rights to the title.
As Louis grew older, he had no legitimate heir, and his legitimate heir was Wilhelm, Duke of Urach, a German nobleman (who was declared King of Lithuania in 1918, but never took the throne). The pro-French Monegasques had no desire to be ruled by a German, so a law was passed naming Louis’ illegitimate daughter, Charlotte, as his heir. But the law was declared illegal (I don’t know the details on that), so Louis had to formally adopt Charlotte, and then she became his legal heir. Charlotte’s mother was an Algerian cabaret singer. Charlotte was Prince Rainier’s mother. She never ruled, but instead gave up her rights to her son.