Who is the highest person in the line of succession to the British throne who is not a citizen of the United Kingdom? Looking at a list, I think it’s King Harald of Norway (who’s #65). But did I miss someone higher up?
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_British_Throne the King of Norway at 65, i think.
I didn’t have time to read your lengthy OP so I hope you haven’t mentioned this, but I think it’s the King of Norway. Ah, here’s a link to Wikipedia you probably weren’t aware of that bears this out.
Tewa Lascalles (#49) was born in New Mexico, which may make him the highest on the list to hold foreign citizenship. But I’m sure he also has British citizenship and considers himself more British than American.
I think the King of Norway is a British subject.
Under the Sophia Naturalisation Act 1705, Sophia, Electress of Hanover and her Protestant descendants were all made British subjects. The Protestant descendants of Sophia are of course the group which constitutes those in line to the British throne.
The Sophia Naturalisation Act 1705 was repealed in 1948. However the repeal did not remove the status of British subject from anyone who already had it. The King of Norway was born in 1937, and is Protestant, and is a descendant of Sophia’s. Hence, he is a British subject.
The Crown Prince of Norway, however, wasn’t born until 1973. I think he wins the cigar.
Interesting, but in 1937-1948, were all British subjects considered citizens of the United Kingdom?
If I’m not mistaken, until 1948 there was a single status of “British subject”. You were either a British subject, or you were not. It was the British Nationality Act 1948 which started down the road leading to the bewildering variety of British nationalities, citizenships and statuses that they have now.
Ah, that would be this then, and by my reading the king would have become a citizen. (Part II, section 12, paragraph 4), so it seems you’re right. (I am not a British lawyer.)
ETA: Oh, but wait: 5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
Unless he has a close connection to the UK and has otherwise acquired the right of abode, however, under BNA 1981, he would only be a British Overseas Citizen, not a full British Citizen.
Cite (Home Office PDF document)
I would say that being fairly high in the line of succession to the throne constitutes “a close connection to the UK.”
Nevertheless, the Home Office doesn’t see it that way. From the cite:
IIRC, right of adobe in the UK is only granted to Commonwealth Citizens with at least one parent or grandparent born in the UK or Islands, or those who have already settled in the UK or Islands prior to the enactment of the Immigration Act of 1971.
Check. Except (checks nervously for lurking Gaudere) that that would be the right of abode. The right of adobe is AFAIK inherent only in the Navajo and Pueblo nations as sovereign entities. 
What? No mention of John Goodman being in line?
I see that only 21 people will have to die to get us a King Xan!
Now where did I put that machine gun. . . . . . . . ?
I think the bigger question here is how far down am I in the line of succession? I am 1/4 English, that’s gotta count for something!
You think Xan is the oddest name a monarch could have? WRONG! KNEEL BEFORE ZOG!
(OK, he’s dead. And Albanian. And his real name was Zogu, which means “bird” and is singularly unimpressive unless the implied meaning is something along the lines of “flesh-eating raptor singing High-Speed Dirt in a power-dive towards your skull.” But at least he did have his own salute, which kind of looks like how you might describe certain gastric problems in sign language.)
Holy crap, that Wiki list is ridiculously exhaustive. Who knew that Prince Philip was 502nd in line for the throne?
On sort of a related British sucession question, I know British law forbids a Catholic or somebody married to a Catholic from becoming king. Lets say I am (or would be) next in the line of succession, but am also Catholic. Can I pull a reverse Henry IV and say, “a Mass isn’t worth London”, renounce my religion and become king?
You’ve probably got a better chance if you’re 1/4 German, since you have to be a descendent of Sophia of Hanover. Otherwise, no dice.
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
Can I pull a reverse Henry IV and say, “a Mass isn’t worth London”, renounce my religion and become king?
[/QUOTE]
Yes. The issue usually arises in respect of people fairly high up the list marrying Catholics, with it being recognised that it is legitimate for the would-be spouse to convert in order that the other and any of their future children retain their place in the line.
I have a related question, cause I’m not really sure how it all works. How far down on the list is the first person who would form a new dynasty line , not a Windsor.
Genealogically, #1. When HM QE2 breathes her last breath, Charles will ascend the throne as (reputedly) George VII and begin the “House of Mountbatten” – which is by male descent a cadet branch of the House of Schlewsig-Holstein-Sonderbur-Glucksburg, presently occupying the Danish and Norwegian thrones and pretenders to the Greek one, among others. But in 1960 HM decreed that her descendants would continue to be the House of Windsor, except that those not in the line of descent who needed a surname would use Mountbatten-Windsor.
#11 would begin the House of Phillips, were it not for the 1960 declaration.
Therefore the correct answer by British law is $13, David, Viscount Linley, who would begin the House of Armstrong-Jones.