Line of Succession to the British Throne

[Tatiana Maria]

Curious...could Lili Sussex remain in the line of Succession if she is indeed not baptized, given the fact that Crown and Church are so inextricably linked?

She will never take the throne of course . But we are in uncharted territory. There has never been an unbaptized Royal relative in the British or any western monarchy that I am aware of.

Yes she can remain in the line of succession while not baptised. There is actually no requirement to be baptised until she is very close to the throne itself at which point, should she somehow become the heir, it would be expected that she becomes a communicant member of the CoE or at least be 'in communion with the CoE'. To do that she would first need to be baptised but that can happen in the same ceremony, or on the same day.

The actual requirement is for the monarch to be 'in communion with the CoE'. There is no specific requirements for those in the line of succession.
[...]

But "the line of succession" is not an official entity separate from the monarchy. It is simply an term of description for the set of individuals who are legally eligible to be monarch. And the laws governing eligibility to be monarch make no distinction between those who have a higher probability of becoming monarch and those who have a lower probability.

What Moonmaiden23's question means in practice is: Suppose all of the descendants of Charles III with the exception of Lilibet were to unexpectedly die, followed quickly by the death of Charles III himself, and Lilibet remained unbaptized up to the moment of Charles III's death. Would Lilibet or Andrew be the legal monarch? By law, the next sovereign succeeds immediately upon the death of the previous monarch, so one of them would be monarch in the eyes of the law, even if it was not immediately clear who it was.

Again, the statutory provisions are as follows, and it is clear that Lilibet would need to fulfill the Church of England's requirements for being "Protestant", at minimum:

Bill of Rights 1688

[...] And the said Crowne and Government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being Protestants [...]​

Act of Settlement 1700

[...] and for Default of Issue of the said Princess Ann and of His Majesty [King William III] respectively the Crown and Regall Government [...] shall be remain and continue to the said most Excellent Princess Sophia and the Heirs of Her Body being Protestants [...]

That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this crown shall joyn in communion with the Church of England as by law established [...]​

A House of Commons briefing paper explains that the last clause actually debars even some Protestant denominations:

At first the effect of this was to exclude all members of other churches. However, members of certain other Protestant churches may not now be debarred. Since 1972, by the Church of England’s Admission to Holy Communion Measure18, and the [Church of England] Canon (B15A) that followed it, “baptised persons who are communicant members of other churches which subscribe to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and who are in good standing in their own Church” shall without further process be admitted to Holy Communion in Church of England churches.

This means, for instance, that a Methodist, Congregationalist, Church of Scotland, or Baptist member can take Anglican Communion, though a Unitarian (who would reject the concept of the Trinity) and Quakers (who do not subscribe to the concept of the Lord’s Supper) could not. Hence in the strict sense of the wording of the Act of Settlement, members of most Protestant churches would not now be excluded.​

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Some further clarification about the religious requirements for succeeding to the British throne:


1. The Act of Settlement of 1700 stipulates that the British crown may only descend to Protestant descendants of Princess Sophia. Any person who is not a Protestant at the moment of the prior monarch's death or abdication will be bypassed for the succession to the throne.

This eliminates members of any Christian church that is incompatible with Protestant Christianity (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Jehovah's Witness, etc.) as well as people who have no religious affiliation.

the Crown and Regall Government of the said Kingdoms of England France and Ireland and of the Dominions thereunto belonging with the Royall State and Dignity of the said Realms and all Honours Stiles Titles Regalities Prerogatives Powers Jurisdictions and Authorities to the same belonging and appertaining shall be remain and continue to the said most Excellent Princess Sophia and the Heirs of Her Body being Protestants
​

2. The Bill of Rights of 1688 specifies that a Roman Catholic is forever incapable of succeeding to the throne. This means that even if a Roman Catholic converts to Protestantism and remains a Protestant at the moment of the prior monarch's death or abdication, he or she will still be unable to succeed to the throne.

This "forever" exclusion is specific to (ex-)Catholics. Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, non-religious people, and so forth all have the option to convert to Protestant Christianity in order to enjoy succession rights to the British throne (so long as they have never been Catholics).

That all and every person and persons that is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall professe the Popish Religion F3... shall be excluded and be for ever uncapeable to inherit possesse or enjoy the Crowne and Government of this Realme and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same or to have use or exercise any Regall Power Authoritie or Jurisdiction within the same
​

3. The Act of Settlement of 1700 also requires the monarch to be in communion with the Church of England.

That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this crown shall joyn in communion with the Church of England as by law established
​

At the time the Act of Settlement was enacted, only members of the Church of England itself were admitted to Holy Communion in the Church of England (refer to page 13 of this parliamentary research briefing from 2009). Therefore, the "communion" requirement in the Act of Settlement originally meant that the monarch was obliged to be a member of the Church of England.

Today, however, the Church of England admits to Holy Communion any baptized Christians who are members in good standing of a Christian church that subscribes to the doctrine of the "Holy Trinity" (which would mean that even Catholic and Orthodox Christians can be admitted to Communion in the Church of England).

1. There shall be admitted to the Holy Communion:

(a) members of the Church of England who have been confirmed in accordance with the rites of that Church or are ready and desirous to be so confirmed or who have been otherwise episcopally confirmed with unction or with the laying on of hands except as provided by the next following Canon;

(b) baptized persons who are communicant members of other Churches which subscribe to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and who are in good standing in their own Church;

(c) any other baptized persons authorized to be admitted under regulations of the General Synod; and

(d) any baptized person in immediate danger of death.

https://www.churchofengland.org/more/policy-and-thinking/canons-church-england/section-b
​

Therefore, by today's standards, anyone who meets the "Protestant" requirement in the Act of Settlement of 1700 will probably meet the "communion" requirement in the same Act.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Treason is not a reason to remove someone from the line of succession e.g. those men who fought against Britain in WWI and had their titles put in abeyance remained in the line of succession as do their descendants today.

I'm not sure we can make assumptions about the current Government's possible reaction to a war situation using the decisions of the Government of 1919. There are many things which were tolerated in 1919 but not today, and vice versa.

Surely the most treasonous was the Kaiser who led his nation to war with Britain but even he remained in the line of succession as do his descendants today.

While the German Emperor's continued entitlement to reign over Britain after leading a nation to war against Britain was, in my opinion, absurd, was it really treason? He was a German citizen, not (I assume) a British one.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I'm not sure we can make assumptions about the current Government's possible reaction to a war situation using the decisions of the Government of 1919. There are many things which were tolerated in 1919 but not today, and vice versa.



While the German Emperor's continued entitlement to reign over Britain after leading a nation to war against Britain was, in my opinion, absurd, was it really treason? He was a German citizen, not (I assume) a British one.

Emperor Wilhelm II did not "lead a nation to war against Britain". Austria-Hungary declared war to Serbia (where the Heir was assassinated in Sarajevo). As the German Reich was an ally to Austria-Hungary (like the US and the EU are "allies" to Ukraine now) they joined Austria-Hungary.

Immediately, and within a period of six days, European nations declared war on each other. It was actually the UK - and not Germany- which declared war first: upon Germany on 4 August 1914 because -like Germany was allied to Austria-Hungary- the UK was allied to Belgium. When Belgium denied German troops passage, the UK, an ally to Belgium, declared war.

 

[Mbruno]

Emperor Wilhelm II did not "lead a nation to war against Britain". Austria-Hungary declared war to Serbia (where the Heir was assassinated in Sarajevo). As the German Reich was an ally to Austria-Hungary (like the US and the EU are "allies" to Ukraine now) they joined Austria-Hungary.

Immediately, and within a period of six days, European nations declared war on each other. It was actually the UK - and not Germany- which declared war first: upon Germany on 4 August 1914 because -like Germany was allied to Austria-Hungary- the UK was allied to Belgium. When Belgium denied German troops passage, the UK, an ally to Belgium, declared war.

That is a bit disingenuous to say. In 1939, France and the UK declared war on Germany, rather than the other way around, but who is to blame for the onset of World War II?

And let us not forget that, in 1914, Germany did declare war first on Russia and France. Then the UK declared war on Germany when the German Empire violated Belgian neutrality.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

That is a bit disingenuous to say. In 1939, France and the UK declared war on Germany, rather than the other way around, but who is to blame for the onset of World War II?

And let us not forget that, in 1914, Germany did declare war first on Russia and France. Then the UK declared war on Germany when the German Empire violated Belgian neutrality.

But it is not the same as "leading a nation into war with the UK". It were falling domino stones but it is not that a roaring Wilhelm II headed to Britain's shores with destroyers from the Kaiserliche Marine. Anglosaxon propaganda has done its work, I see. The reality was much more nuanced.

 

[Mbruno]

But it is not the same as "leading a nation into war with the UK". It were falling domino stones but it is not that a roaring Wilhelm II headed to Britain's shores with destroyers from the Kaiserliche Marine. Anglosaxon propaganda has done its work, I see. The reality was much more nuanced.

The Kaiser was the commander in chief of the German armed forces and, although the German Empire had a chancellor and a parliament, it was still a semi-executive monarchy; the Kaiser was far from a ceremonial figurehead only.

World War I was a result of a series of complex circumstances and, in many ways, it was probably inevitable. So I agree that it is not correct to assign personal blame to the Kaiser or any other individual person for the war. But it is clear that the Kaiser was an enemy combatant from the UK's point of view during the war, even though, as a lax wartime leader, Wilhelm II left the operational decisions to the general staff and did not get involved in running the war himself.

We are going off-topic though for this forum.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The Kaiser was the commander in chief of the German armed forces and, although the German Empire had a chancellor and a parliament, it was still a semi-executive monarchy; the Kaiser was far from a ceremonial figurehead only.

World War I was a result of a series of complex circumstances and, in many ways, it was probably inevitable. So I agree that it is not correct to assign personal blame to the Kaiser or any other individual person for the war. But it is clear that the Kaiser was an enemy combatant from the UK's point of view during the war, even though, as a lax wartime leader, Wilhelm II left most of the operational decisions to the general staff and did not get involved in running the war himself.

We are going off-topic though for this forum.

Ok. We may conclude that descendants of Queen Victoria, including those of her very own grandson Wilhelm II, are still in line of succession.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

But it is not the same as "leading a nation into war with the UK". It were falling domino stones but it is not that a roaring Wilhelm II headed to Britain's shores with destroyers from the Kaiserliche Marine. Anglosaxon propaganda has done its work, I see. The reality was much more nuanced.

Thank you for the clarification, and I apologize for the overly simplistic phrasing. I wasn't intending to cast blame for the war - my only point was that I think it was politically silly, but not treasonous, for the German emperor to remain entitled to reign over Britain after the two countries had gone to war.

For comparison, the duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha had the sense to remove the British royals' rights to its throne during World War One.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/HGSachsen-CG.htm