George V had several other children, who (except in one case, which might turn into another GQ) in turn had other children. Presumably one of them, but which one?
[QUOTE=Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]
/QUOTE]
The current line of succession is:
Sovereign
- The Prince of Wales
- Prince William of Wales
- Prince Henry of Wales
- The Duke of York
- Princess Beatrice of York
- Princess Eugenie of York
- The Earl of Wessex
- The Lady Louise Windsor
- The Princess Royal
- Mr. Peter Phillips
- Miss Zara Phillips
- Viscount Linley
- The Hon. Charles Armstrong-Jones
- The Hon. Margarita Armstrong-Jones
- The Lady Sarah Chatto
- Master Samuel Chatto
- Master Arthur Chatto
- The Duke of Gloucester
- Earl of Ulster
- The Lady Davina Windsor
So it looks like Princess Maraget’s kid would be next
**Tapioca Dextrin ** is correct. If Elizabeth II had not had any issue, on her death the Crown would pass to David Armstrong-Jones, styled by courtesy Visount Linley, the son of the Queen’s sister HRH Princess Margaret (deceased) and Anthony Armstrong-Jones, the 1st Earl of Snowdon.
I have a question on a related subject which I’ll ask here rather than start a new thread.
If Andrew, the Duke of York, were to die tomorrow, would his two daughters, Beatrice and Eugenie, retain their current position in the order of succession? Or would they be moved down because they are female descendants of someone who wasn’t a Monarch?
If Prince Andrew was to die tomorrow (in some hideous golfing accident?), his daughters would each simply move up one place in the line of succession.
If the descendants of George VI die out, the throne would pass to the Duke of Gloucester, the eldest surviving son of George V’s third son. (The present Duke did have an elder brother but he died without leaving any children.)
And if only the next two million people in the Royal succession were to die in, say, a freak croquet accident then I, I would be King*.
Kneel before me, subjects. I shall be benevolent.
*Roughly true.
Help me out with this, please. I know who most of the people on Tapioca Dextrin’s list are, but I have a couple of questions.
-
The Earl of Wessex (This is Prince Edward)
-
The Lady Louise Windsor (This is his new daughter, right?)
-
The Princess Royal (Princess Anne?)
-
& 11. are Anne’s kids, right?
-
Viscount Linley (Margaret’s son?)
-
& 14. are Viscount Linley’s kids, right? Who is he married to?
-
The Lady Sarah Chatto is Margaret’s daughter, right?
-
& 17. are her kids, I assume. Who is Sarah married to?
Who are these last three?
18. The Duke of Gloucester
19. Earl of Ulster
20. The Lady Davina Windsor
Thanks!
I didn’t know Princess Margaret had died. When did she die?
Not unless you are a (non-Catholic) descendant of Sophia, Electress of Hanover. If all of Sophia’s descendants (and there are thousands of them out there) were to disappear tomorrow, then it would be up to Parliament to decide who (if anyone) gets the throne.
Zev Steinhardt
Who is closest to the crown and not of the House of Windsor? Is it number 10, Mr Peter Phillips? Would the UK then be ruled by the House of Phillips?
And, if a descendant of Sophia of Hanover were to convert to Catholicism, does that necessarily eliminate all of that descendant’s descendants from the line of succession? In other words, does one have to prove that all of one’s ancestors back to Sophia were not Catholic in order to remain in the line of succession?
I can answer this one. You’re only taken off the list if you personally become a Catholic or marry a Catholic. Having a Catholic ancestor does not disqualify you. As an example, there is a member of the Norwegian royal family who is in the order of succession for the British throne but whose mother is not. Ironically, because of differing laws, she is not in the order of succession for the Norwegian throne.
February 9, 2002
Aren’t Zara and Peter Phillips Lady/Lord or Hons at the very least?
No. Peter and Zara Phillips have no titles. Their father turned down an offer of peerage when he got married and since peerage goes through the father’s line, thier children have no titles.
Zev Steinhardt
Here’s a list with some annotations as to who they are, and notes to who excluded themselves due to Catholocism:
http://www.etoile.co.uk/Rsucc.html
Concerning Norwegian royalty - if that list is continued out a little further, HRH Harold of Norway is in the succession himself.
Ah, here - King Harold of Norway would be 59th:
Victoria was in a similar position to the hypothetical, but she just kept on moving up the succession, ultimately becoming Queen.
Victoria was born in 1819, during the reign of mad King George III. She was the only child of the Duke of Kent, who was the fourth son of George III.
When she was born, she was quite removed from the succession. Counting her father, there were four others in line in front of her: George, Prince Regent and Prince of Wales; Frederick, Duke of York; William, Duke of Gloucester; and her father, the Duke of Kent. None of her three uncles had any legitimate children but there was no guarantee when she was born that Victoria would have inherited the Crown. Bookies of the day probably would have given long odds against it.
It was unlikely that either the Prince Regent or the Duke of York would have produced an heir at that late stage in their lives. The Prince Regent was estranged from his wife, and his only daughter had died in childbirth in 1817. The Duke of York was married, but his wife was past child-bearing. In addition, both the Regent and the Duke of York weren’t in very good health.
On the other hand, the Duke of Gloucester had recently married a young woman, Princess Adelaide, and the Duke and Duchess of Kent could have had more children. If the Kents had a son, or if the Gloucesters had either a son or daughter, Victoria might never have come to the throne. However, althouth the Gloucesters got pregnant a couple of times, the children didn’t survive infancy, and the Duke of Kent died suddenly of pneumonia in 1820.
Mad King George III died in 1820 and the Prince Regent succeeded as George IV. Victoria was then third in line, after the Duke of York and the Duke of Gloucester.* The Duke of York died of pleurisy in 1827, so the Duke of Gloucester and Victoria both moved up a step. George IV died in 1830, and the Duke of Gloucester succeeded as William IV. Victoria was now the heir presumptive, but still could have been pushed back down the succession if the King and Queen Adelaide had a child. They didn’t, William died in 1837, and Victoria succeeded.
- I think Kent died before George III, but don’t have the exact dates.
Northern Piper-William IV was the Duke of Clarence, not Gloucester.
And the Duke of Kent died on the exact same day as his father, George III did, IIRC.
:smack: You’re quite right, Guin. I was confusing him with George III’s brother, Prince William Henry, Duke of Gloucester & Edinburgh, and his son, George III’s nephew, Prince William Frederick, Duke of Gloucester & Edinburgh.
Just too many Royal Williams! :eek: