Post by Louis Epstein Post by Rico Post by Mike
Why is the Earl of St Andrews's 2 kids (out of 3) in the line of
succession when he is not (marriage to a Roman Catholic)? Who will
inherited the title The Duke of Kent? Baron Downpatrick or Lady Helen's
sons or Lord Nicholas Windsor?
PREVIOUS ANSWER (read it wrong, hence the answer)
The Earl of St Andrew's two older children were born while he was not
married. If he had been married (to their mother) at the time of the
eldest childs birth they would be in line to the throne, I assume that
the elder two are protestant from the question. It's not the fact that
their mother is catholic its the fact that they were illegitimate at
birth that prevents them from being in the line of succession to the
throne and to his peerage title.
The earl is out of succession because of his marriage to a
Post by Louis Epstein Post by Rico
His children are in line to succession because they are being raised as
The children are NOT being raised as Protestants;
as they become old enough,they are being confirmed in the Catholic
church,which removes them from the succession.Only the eldest has
had this happen so far,but expect it to happen to the others,or
their Catholic parents will be rather upset.
Lord Downpatrick's eventual succession to the Dukedom is undisturbed,
as the Act of Settlement says nothing about peerages,only the Throne;
if he were born out of wedlock he would not be eligible for the Dukedom.
Since it was created with remainder to heirs-male,his sisters can not
inherit the peerages regardless of religion.
What exactly does papist mean in the Act of Settlement?
Suppose that the following things happen:
All persons in the Order of Succession ahead of the Earl of Saint
Andrews die and the Parliament has made no prior provision for this.
This is not implausible. It is around thirty persons or so and this
newsgroup has on occasion mentioned the presence of about this number
of persons starting the order of succession on some events. Yet the
Parliament does not seem to make very thorough regency acts.
When the Accession Council, or whoever has survived from them, meet -
who is the Sovereign?
Seems plausible that the Earl of Saint Andrews is not. And suppose that
Edward, Lord Downpatrick is not. Then the elder of the girls - Lady
Now, imagine that she protests that she does not want to be Queen. She
also declares that she has, in fact, already been confirmed Catholic.
However, it is not a publicly known fact - she seems to be lying. She
also declares that she'd rather die a martyr for Popish faith than rule
as a heretic queen. Further, she declares that if she is declared a
queen against her wishes, she wants to exclude herself by openly
professing Popish faith immediately, or abdicate from throne and
But the would-be Regent, Lady Helen Taylor cannot do anything - under
the Regency Act, she or any other Regent is unable to give Royal Assent
to any Act of Parliament affecting the succession to the Throne. Thus,
there is no way to pass an Act of Abdication until Marina comes of age.
The Accession Council has the bad experience of having faced another
distressed girl four and half centuries ago who also said she did not
want to be Sovereign, and forcing her to be one. Queen Jane was
beheaded - and so were the councillors who did it.
If Marina really is a Papist, the next in the Order of Succession is
Lady Amelia. She, however, tells the same story. She is younger. So it
is even less credible that she should have been confirmed as she
claims, and there is slightly more chance that she might change her
mind. But if you believe one minor, what legal grounds do you have to
If Amelia also is a Papist, then Helen is Queen.
But Edward, the Baron Downpatrick, also speaks out. Let us assume that
the whole scenario happens before next year, so he is not yet 18. He
complains that if the Accession Council wants to discount the
professions of Popery on the part of Marina and Amelia just because
they are minors, his own admitted confirmation should also not matter,
because he is a minor, too. And he wants to be a King even if a
Catholic one. So there is a plausible argument for Edward.
Now, the surviving members of the Accession Council are faced with 4
plausible Sovereigns under different but plausible readings of the Act
of Settlement. Who are they to proclaim? And if they disagree among
each other, how are they going to decide who to proclaim? Vote? How
many votes in Accession Council are required for someone to be the
Sovereign of UK? Is plurality on the first vote enough or should runoff
votes be held in the Council?