Tatiana Maria
Majesty
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2013
- Messages
- 7,096
- City
- St Petersburg
- Country
- United States
There are a couple of sizable problems with long lines of succession.
1. The problem with adults who carry out no royal duties being in the line of succession: Someone who has never carried out royal duties cannot be expected to be a competent monarch. Even individuals like Prince Daniel who come into royal families as consorts embark on months of prior preparation.
2. The problem with individuals who are not princesses or princes being in the line of succession: It is contradictory to ensure that someone would automatically be queen or king if something happened, but deny them the even lower role of princess or prince.
To be fair, the chance that someone who's not an HRH or working royal will succeed to the throne is, at this point, slim to none. Getting one of the Phillipses on the the throne (the first people without the HRH/royal duties who aren't minors) would require some extreme tragedy, meaning it probably won't happen
Thank you for the thoughtful reply!
The probability would be a question of the monarchy's limits on working royals, titles, and succession rights. Felipe de Marichalar is fourth in line to the throne, with only the king and his children ahead of him and his mother. In my opinion:
When the chances that someone will succeed to the throne are actually none, preserving their place in the line of succession is meaningless and uselessly confusing.
When there is a slim chance of someone succeeding to the throne as an adult, but they are missing the experience with royal duties which serving as monarch requires, preserving their place in the line of succession is a gamble for the monarchy.
A more suitable approach to avoiding extinction of a monarchy is legislation requiring the appointment of a new monarch (someone who meets the requirements of the position) if there is no successor, as for example in the Norwegian Constitution:
Article 48
If the royal line has died out, and no successor to the throne has been designated, then a new Queen or King shall be chosen by the Storting.
The issue I could see with that is people saying "To heck with it, if we have to choose a new monarch we might as well just get rid of the thing entirely". In a King Ralph scenario, the point is to show continuity and the strength of the institution. If all the Bernadottes of the Norweigan RF suddenly disappeared for whatever reason, I have a feeling their respective countries would choose to go full on republic rather then conduct a search for a new monarch
A very valid point. On the other hand, the public's opinion may be similarly negative if they are forced to accept as their new monarch (owing to the line of succession) a non-royal stranger of whose competencies and background they have no idea.
The more likely scenario, however, is that the number of heirs would drop gradually rather than suddenly (see the example of what occurred in the mid-twentieth century under Kings Gustaf V and Gustaf VI Adolf). This would provide the royal family and the government with some time to choose an heir from among the monarch's relatives, ensure they receive long-term preparation, and win the public's blessing.
Last edited: