Succession to the Crown Act 2013, Part 1: 2011 - Sep 2022

[Osipi]

Thanks much for the clarification on this. Ahhh... its wonderful that one can think they know something about something and along comes somebody else that adds to the depths of knowledge on things.

 

[Gawin]

I believe, actually that it’s the top FOUR in succession that are eligible to serve as Counsellors of State (provided they are 21 (or 18 in the case of the heir apparent or heir presumptive)), plus the consort. Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother was additionally eligible from 1953 for the rest of her life.

As to why they picked the number 6? It’s in the notes to the Act on the UK parliament website. Basically the rationale was this: NO ONE LOWER THAN 5TH HAS EVER SUCCEEDED TO THE THRONE so they picked 6 just to be safe.
The future Queen Victoria was 5th in line for a few months after she was born.

Aha, so there was a logical reason. Much better than simply pulling a number from a hat!

Thank you!

 

[Mbruno]

How did Parliament come up with the number six? I realize the advantages of limiting the number of heirs who need the monarch's permission to marry – others further down the line of succession probably wouldn't be working royals or even HRHs ?

Princess Alexandra is currently 50th in the line of succession and still an HRH and a working royal.

 

[Gawin]

Yes, but that's not the direction the Royal Family is moving in. There will be fewer HRHs and fewer working royals. Andrew's children aren't working royals and Edward's aren't even styled HRH. Of the Queen's grandchildren only William and Harry are capable of producing additional HRHs and even if Harry's are granted that style they might not be working royals. So that leaves only William's children.

I doubt we'll see a 50th in line who is an HRH and a working royal again.

 

[Ish]

I believe, actually that it’s the top FOUR in succession that are eligible to serve as Counsellors of State (provided they are 21 (or 18 in the case of the heir apparent or heir presumptive)), plus the consort. Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother was additionally eligible from 1953 for the rest of her life.

As to why they picked the number 6? It’s in the notes to the Act on the UK parliament website. Basically the rationale was this: NO ONE LOWER THAN 5TH HAS EVER SUCCEEDED TO THE THRONE so they picked 6 just to be safe.
The future Queen Victoria was 5th in line for a few months after she was born.

Do you have a link for that? I've not been able to find it myself. The claim that no one lower than 5th in the line of succession has inherited the throne is, frankly, inaccurate; George I, Henry VII, and Richard III were all a lot further down the line of succession and yet became Kings. There were some 50 people in the succession before George I.

What I figured the magic 6 number was set to cover (at the time the Bill was first proposed) the monarch's eldest sons and all their descendants - Charles, William, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice, and Eugenie. The number was first proposed in 2011, well before George was born, and at a time when it was possible that Harry, Beatrice, and Eugenie might all get engaged before William and Catherine had children.

 

[Mbruno]

Do you have a link for that? I've not been able to find it myself. The claim that no one lower than 5th in the line of succession has inherited the throne is, frankly, inaccurate; George I, Henry VII, and Richard III were all a lot further down the line of succession and yet became Kings. There were some 50 people in the succession before George I.

What I figured the magic 6 number was set to cover (at the time the Bill was first proposed) the monarch's eldest sons and all their descendants - Charles, William, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice, and Eugenie. The number was first proposed in 2011, well before George was born, and at a time when it was possible that Harry, Beatrice, and Eugenie might all get engaged before William and Catherine had children.

In the past, monarchs who were deceased without issue, or princes who didn't make to adulthood, were far more common and, therefore, it was sometimes necessary to go further down in the line of succession. That was even more critical in countries like France that used Salic law . In fact, it was not that uncommon for a French king to be succeeded by a fifth cousin or similar.

Nowadays, I agree it is very unlikely that someone lower than sixth in line will ever ascend the throne. Still, the "first six" rule is somewhat arbitrary.

 

[Gawin]

And sometimes monarchs moved to the #1 spot by simply eliminating the competition (Richard III and Henry VII).

Perhaps Parliament assumed those days are over when they settled on the number six. I can only speak for myself but I hope they were right! ?

 

[Duke of Leaside]

Do you have a link for that? I've not been able to find it myself. The claim that no one lower than 5th in the line of succession has inherited the throne is, frankly, inaccurate; George I, Henry VII, and Richard III were all a lot further down the line of succession and yet became Kings. There were some 50 people in the succession before George I.

What I figured the magic 6 number was set to cover (at the time the Bill was first proposed) the monarch's eldest sons and all their descendants - Charles, William, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice, and Eugenie. The number was first proposed in 2011, well before George was born, and at a time when it was possible that Harry, Beatrice, and Eugenie might all get engaged before William and Catherine had children.

Apologies - my original post was inaccurate in that I neglected to state no one since the enactment of the Royal Marriages Act 1772, had ever been lower than 5th in line and then later succeeded to the throne.

This stems from the following House of Lords library note from 2013 (see page 17).

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/LLN-2013-005/LLN-2013-005.pdf

The report says no one lower than 6 had ever succeeded but in the HC Hansard (see below) that was corrected to 5 (Queen Victoria).

The Lords note includes a link to Hansard which shows that discussion in the House of Commons on January 22, 2013 which is interesting but not totally accurate either. (They quote those ahead of Queen Victoria at her birth incorrectly).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think the limitation of the persons needing permission to marry to remain in the line of succession to the first six in line was very poorly written.

To illustrate why, imagine the following hypothetical situation.

William is the King. Prince George (1st in line to the throne) was given permission for his marriage and he and his wife have four children, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th in line. Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis are not yet married and are 6th and 7th in line.

Charlotte announces her engagement to a man who has a robbery conviction on his record. The Government is of the opinion that a convicted robber would be unsuitable as the consort of the UK's head of state (as Charlotte would become if something happened to George and his children). Acting on the Government's advice by constitutional convention, the King refuses his permission for the marriage, which will lead to Charlotte losing her place in the line of succession after the marriage.

However, ahead of Charlotte's wedding, Louis meets and marries a woman who has ten robbery convictions on her record. Because he is not one of the first six in line, Louis remains in the line of succession though he never received permission for his marriage. When Charlotte marries and loses her place, Louis moves up one place.

Subsequently, if George and his children were to die in a tragic accident, Louis would succeed as King and his wife would be Queen. The Government's decision that a convicted robber would be an unsuitable prince consort would have directly led to a convicted serial robber becoming the queen consort.


It would have been much better to make the new laws applicable to the entire line of succession. Invalidation of unapproved marriages is no longer part of the law. The only remaining consequence is disqualification from succession to the Crown. The hundreds of people further down the line whose chances of succeeding are nil for all practical purposes would not "have" to ask for consent, because the loss of their theoretical rights of succession would have absolutely no effect on their lives. In fact, I think it would not only acceptable but desirable to eliminate even the theoretical chance of e.g. the Norwegian royals succeeding to the British throne in this way.

 

[miss whirley]

I think the limitation of the persons needing permission to marry to remain in the line of succession to the first six in line was very poorly written.

To illustrate why, imagine the following hypothetical situation.

William is the King. Prince George (1st in line to the throne) was given permission for his marriage and he and his wife have four children, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th in line. Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis are not yet married and are 6th and 7th in line.

Charlotte announces her engagement to a man who has a robbery conviction on his record. The Government is of the opinion that a convicted robber would be unsuitable as the consort of the UK's head of state (as Charlotte would become if something happened to George and his children). Acting on the Government's advice by constitutional convention, the King refuses his permission for the marriage, which will lead to Charlotte losing her place in the line of succession after the marriage.

However, ahead of Charlotte's wedding, Louis meets and marries a woman who has ten robbery convictions on her record. Because he is not one of the first six in line, Louis remains in the line of succession though he never received permission for his marriage. When Charlotte marries and loses her place, Louis moves up one place.

Subsequently, if George and his children were to die in a tragic accident, Louis would succeed as King and his wife would be Queen. The Government's decision that a convicted robber would be an unsuitable prince consort would have directly led to a convicted serial robber becoming the queen consort.


It would have been much better to make the new laws applicable to the entire line of succession. Invalidation of unapproved marriages is no longer part of the law. The only remaining consequence is disqualification from succession to the Crown. The hundreds of people further down the line whose chances of succeeding are nil for all practical purposes would not "have" to ask for consent, because the loss of their theoretical rights of succession would have absolutely no effect on their lives. In fact, I think it would not only acceptable but desirable to eliminate even the theoretical chance of e.g. the Norwegian royals succeeding to the British throne in this way.

Or they could have put an age stipulation on it, similar to Counsellor of State though it would need to be bit younger. Just say the first 6 adults in the line of succession over the age of 18 need to ask permission. Under that scenario, currently Charles, William, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice and Eugenie would need to ask. Which leaves Lady Louise free to marry a serial bank robber in a few years.

 

[Heavs]

But there are a lot of people much lower down the line of succession who value being on it, hence the old announcements that X German aristocrat had asked and received permission to be married from HM when it didn't affect their lives in any way what so ever and they had never even been to the UK. They didn't have to ask permission, they *wanted* to do so. And it was automatically given.

So I don't think basically saying "ok don't ask for permission, get disqualified, it keeps Louis's serial bank robber wife from becoming Queen Consort, sorted!" would work. The fact that Norwegians etc did ask means they cared on some level as well.

Britain would be a republic long before we had to look at anyone past Zara, and probably before that.

No one is seriously worried about what anyone who is lower down than Peter and Zara does or doesn't do with lives except for reading about it in the papers when there's a scandal. A simpler way would be to do as the Dutch have done and severely limit the line of succession but I don't see that happening either.

The main pressure from Louis to not marry a convicted bank robber wife or lose his place in the succession and retire would be social, family and public opinion based, not legal, even if there should be. And if it proved too much then they would "voluntarily" step down.

And any time that happens in the core BRF there's bound to be some sort of uproar either way and a public debate on whether Mrs Louis deserves a chance or not. The "controversial" married ins of Europe are for the most part not the issues that are causing problems. Even with Mette-Marit, it's her health and not her past that is the main problem now.

I can't really imagine a Parliamentary debate on the subject either.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Or they could have put an age stipulation on it, similar to Counsellor of State though it would need to be bit younger. Just say the first 6 adults in the line of succession over the age of 18 need to ask permission. Under that scenario, currently Charles, William, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice and Eugenie would need to ask. Which leaves Lady Louise free to marry a serial bank robber in a few years.

But no matter exactly where the line is drawn, the same double standard exists: Certain senior royals will be banned from becoming King or Queen if they marry a person deemed inappropriate by the Sovereign and Government, while other relatives will be able to marry exactly the same inappropriate person and be permitted to ascend the throne with him or her as their queen consort/prince consort.

But there are a lot of people much lower down the line of succession who value being on it, hence the old announcements that X German aristocrat had asked and received permission to be married from HM when it didn't affect their lives in any way what so ever and they had never even been to the UK. They didn't have to ask permission, they *wanted* to do so. And it was automatically given.

So I don't think basically saying "ok don't ask for permission, get disqualified, it keeps Louis's serial bank robber wife from becoming Queen Consort, sorted!" would work. The fact that Norwegians etc did ask means they cared on some level as well.

Interesting, do you have any examples in mind? Under my suggested alternative, it would be still open to them to ask for permission to remain in the line of succession (which is more generous than the Netherlands or Norway). The difference would be that the Sovereign and Government would have the option of refusing.

But I would say the value someone places on the opportunity to become the British monarch should not outweigh the public policy interest in setting rules on eligibility to become Queen or King. And I assume there are Catholics, atheists, illegitimate sons and daughters, or individuals not descended from Sophia of Hanover who would like to be in the line of succession to the British throne. But that has not prevented the government from denying them a place in line.

Britain would be a republic long before we had to look at anyone past Zara, and probably before that.

No one is seriously worried about what anyone who is lower down than Peter and Zara does or doesn't do with lives except for reading about it in the papers when there's a scandal. A simpler way would be to do as the Dutch have done and severely limit the line of succession but I don't see that happening either.

If in actuality no one past Zara would be permitted to become Queen or King, then I can't see the benefit of having a succession law which maintains the fiction that they could. The Dutch law of succession isn't flawless, but I think it is substantially more reasonable than the British law.

 

[Furienna]

Or they could have put an age stipulation on it, similar to Counsellor of State though it would need to be bit younger. Just say the first 6 adults in the line of succession over the age of 18 need to ask permission. Under that scenario, currently Charles, William, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice and Eugenie would need to ask. Which leaves Lady Louise free to marry a serial bank robber in a few years.

I agree. Since the minors won't get married or be working royals yet anyway, it is wrong to count them in this situation.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Me too. It would have been pretty easy (i.e., the perfect moment) to include it in the Perth agreement and would have made total sense to restrict the line of succession either to George V's descendants (to include all current senior royals) or to a certain degree of relationship. 4th degree would have included all current senior royals and seems a rather safe number going forward.

The most efficient way, of course, to slim down the line would be, as Somebody suggested, to limit the number of eligible persons by proximity of blood to the last monarch. In the Netherlands, they use a cutoff in the third degree of consanguinity, which would include children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, siblings, nephews/nieces, and uncles/aunts of the monarch, but no cousins. The UK could go one degree further, i.e. up to the fourth degree, to include first cousins as well.

Again, the reason why, I think, that is not done is that it is considered innocuous anyway to have an unbounded line of succession as long as the Royal House properly is limited.

An adjustment as minor as applying the requirement of permission to marry in order to remain in the line of succession to all heirs, instead of only the first six in line, would slim down the farcical number of successors to the throne within a century or so (as well as eliminate the backward double standard I mentioned upthread).

I think the reason it was not done is that the government simply did not think it through. There were other points relating to the Succession to the Crown Bill where the government was caught unawares and forced to backpedal or unable to answer in Parliament.

My suspicion is that the government had it in mind to release the hundreds of individuals further down the line from the nuisance of having to ask permission to marry, and failed to see that they had already satisfied that goal by modifying the penalty for marrying without permission from completely nullifying the intended marriage in British law (which any British couple or couple with British connections would obviously wish to avoid) to merely losing the right to the crown (which would make no actual difference to most of the individuals theoretically in line).

 

[Marengo]

Succession to the Crown Act 2013: Discussion Until Sep 2022

It's time for a new thread. You can find the old one here.