Discussion:
A Question about Succession and Abdication
(too old to reply)
s***@hotmail.com
2005-01-05 19:30:25 UTC
Permalink
Let us assume a fictional King Henry with two sons, James and Edward.
When Henry dies, James, as the elder son, rightly assumes the throne.
Later he abdicates (unmarried and without issue) and his brother Edward
is crowned. James, the former-King later has a son, George. My
question is: Where, if anywhere, would George fall in the line of
succession to the thrown?

Thank you for your time and your considerations.
Respectfully submitted,
Stace
d***@excite.com
2005-01-05 19:40:07 UTC
Permalink
It would depend on the laws of the country. In the UK George would
have no succession rights. When James abdicated he was 'dead' as far
as the crown was concerned, and dead people can't have kids.

DKM
Guy Stair Sainty
2005-01-05 19:54:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@excite.com
It would depend on the laws of the country. In the UK George would
have no succession rights. When James abdicated he was 'dead' as far
as the crown was concerned, and dead people can't have kids.
That would actually depend on the wording of the act of abdication; following
ther 1936 precedent that is true, but there is no rule that binds the British
succession that cannot be changed by parliament (except in so far as such a law
is also dependent on the assent of the other states over which the British
sovereign reigns).
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
DKM
2005-01-06 03:26:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by d***@excite.com
It would depend on the laws of the country. In the UK George would
have no succession rights. When James abdicated he was 'dead' as far
as the crown was concerned, and dead people can't have kids.
That would actually depend on the wording of the act of abdication; following
ther 1936 precedent that is true, but there is no rule that binds the British
succession that cannot be changed by parliament (except in so far as such a law
is also dependent on the assent of the other states over which the British
sovereign reigns).
There is not any law or rule that can not be changed by parliament.

Here is an example where the child of a former king might be still be in the
succession. 45 year old King Henry abdicates in favor of his 20 year old
son, the new King Edward. Any future children Henry could still be in
succession, because their place would be the same as they would be if Henry
was still king.

My guess, however, is that part of the abdication act would still remove
them. After all if Edward died and uncle John became King and then Henry
had another kid things would be confused again.

Has anything like this ever happened?

DKM
George Knighton
2005-01-06 15:35:10 UTC
Permalink
From: "DKM"
There is not any law or rule that can not be changed by parliament.
Strictly speaking, it is the legislature that is supreme, not Parliament by
itself.

The legislature consists of the Queen in Parliament, and it is only all three
parts of the legislature together that are constitutionally "supreme."
(except in so far as such
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
a law
is also dependent on the assent of the other states over which the British
sovereign reigns).
I believe he was referring to what is generally accepted in royal circles as a
constitutional precedent established by Baldwin's example in the abdication
crisis.

A government would never move in this direction of its own accord, because the
government would be placing the Queen in a position of having to interfere, and
this would bring the whole system tumbling down in all its various permutations
and variations depending on whether you think the Queen or the cabinet would
win a constitutional confrontation that had already gone public.

I'd prefer to think that everyone would exercise the greatest common sense, all
governments consulting each other, even though it clearly would mean that an
actual change in succession rules would take a decade to implement instead of a
couple of weeks. :)
Don Aitken
2005-01-06 17:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Knighton
From: "DKM"
There is not any law or rule that can not be changed by parliament.
Strictly speaking, it is the legislature that is supreme, not Parliament by
itself.
The legislature consists of the Queen in Parliament, and it is only all three
parts of the legislature together that are constitutionally "supreme."
To get the terminology, quite correct, the term "Parliament" *means*
the Queen in Parliament. Without the sovereign there is no Parliament.
Post by George Knighton
(except in so far as such
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
a law
is also dependent on the assent of the other states over which the British
sovereign reigns).
I believe he was referring to what is generally accepted in royal circles as a
constitutional precedent established by Baldwin's example in the abdication
crisis.
The relevance of the precedent depends on the continuing validity of
the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, which is extremely
doubtful.
Post by George Knighton
A government would never move in this direction of its own accord, because the
government would be placing the Queen in a position of having to interfere, and
this would bring the whole system tumbling down in all its various permutations
and variations depending on whether you think the Queen or the cabinet would
win a constitutional confrontation that had already gone public.
I'd prefer to think that everyone would exercise the greatest common sense, all
governments consulting each other, even though it clearly would mean that an
actual change in succession rules would take a decade to implement instead of a
couple of weeks. :)
I suspect that, if necessary, it could be done a lot quicker than
that. The problem, of course, is that doing such a thing would
encourage republicans to argue that if a change is to be made it
should be in their direction - hence the current tendency to let
sleeping dogs lie.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Francois R. Velde
2005-01-06 17:14:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
To get the terminology, quite correct, the term "Parliament" *means*
the Queen in Parliament. Without the sovereign
...or some reasonable facsimile thereof (cf. George III regency crises)...
Post by Don Aitken
there is no Parliament.
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Louis Epstein
2005-01-07 20:05:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
Post by George Knighton
From: "DKM"
There is not any law or rule that can not be changed by parliament.
Strictly speaking, it is the legislature that is supreme, not Parliament
by itself.
The legislature consists of the Queen in Parliament, and it is only
all three parts of the legislature together that are constitutionally
"supreme."
To get the terminology, quite correct, the term "Parliament" *means*
the Queen in Parliament. Without the sovereign there is no Parliament.
Post by George Knighton
(except in so far as such
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
a law
is also dependent on the assent of the other states over which the British
sovereign reigns).
I believe he was referring to what is generally accepted in royal circles as
a constitutional precedent established by Baldwin's example in the abdication
crisis.
The relevance of the precedent depends on the continuing validity of
the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, which is extremely
doubtful.
An argument that assumes relevance capable of not being perpetual.

Anyway,that Statute would certainly be on the list for repeal
if a fan club of mine ever got elected to control the House
of Commons!
Post by Don Aitken
Post by George Knighton
A government would never move in this direction of its own accord, because
the government would be placing the Queen in a position of having to
interfere, and this would bring the whole system tumbling down in all
its various permutations and variations depending on whether you think
the Queen or the cabinet would win a constitutional confrontation that
had already gone public.
I'd prefer to think that everyone would exercise the greatest common sense,
all governments consulting each other, even though it clearly would
mean that an actual change in succession rules would take a decade to
implement instead of a couple of weeks. :)
I suspect that, if necessary, it could be done a lot quicker than
that. The problem, of course, is that doing such a thing would
encourage republicans to argue that if a change is to be made it
should be in their direction - hence the current tendency to let
sleeping dogs lie.
I do wonder if debate on the Succession to the Crown Bill will cause
some unwelcome stirring of this sort.Since the way it's written it
puts sisters and issue ahead of younger brothers and issue whenever
the Crown would reach them (Princess Royal ahead of Duke of York,
Harewoods ahead of Gloucesters) it reaches a sort of self-destruct
position when/if descendants of Edward VII are exhausted,as the line
of his elder sister would theoretically be ahead of his in the first
place.

So the chance might be taken to deny all right of succession to anyone
not descended from Edward VII,regardless of the Act of Settlement...and
then someone would bring up Queen Alexandra and the Farran Exemption,
and the RMA might get affected...etc.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Gary Holtzman
2005-01-08 22:55:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
I do wonder if debate on the Succession to the Crown Bill will cause
some unwelcome stirring of this sort.Since the way it's written it
puts sisters and issue ahead of younger brothers and issue whenever
the Crown would reach them (Princess Royal ahead of Duke of York,
Harewoods ahead of Gloucesters) it reaches a sort of self-destruct
position when/if descendants of Edward VII are exhausted,as the line
of his elder sister would theoretically be ahead of his in the first
place.
So the chance might be taken to deny all right of succession to anyone
not descended from Edward VII,regardless of the Act of Settlement...and
then someone would bring up Queen Alexandra and the Farran Exemption,
and the RMA might get affected...etc.
I believe the bill proposes to repeal the RMA in any case. I suspect if it reaches a final
form for passage it will probably limit succession to descendants of George VI or some
such.
--
Gary Holtzman
Hoping the world will have a more peaceful year in 2005
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Gidzmo
2005-01-28 19:17:24 UTC
Permalink
I suspect if it reaches a final form for passage it will probably limit
succession to descendants of George VI or some such.

In which case, the succession would be limited to Elizabeth, Margaret, and
their respective descendants.

From http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page389.asp

HM The Queen
1. The Prince of Wales (Charles)
2. Prince William of Wales
3. Prince Henry of Wales
4. The Duke of York (Andrew)
5. Princess Beatrice of York
6. Princess Eugenie of York
7. The Earl of Wessex (Edward)
8. The Lady Louise Windsor
9. The Princess Royal (Anne)
10. Mr. Peter Phillips
11. Miss Zara Phillips

HRH The Princess Margaret
12. Viscount Linley
13. The Hon. Charles Armstrong-Jones
14. The Hon. Margarita Armstrong-Jones
15. The Lady Sarah Chatto
16. Master Samuel Chatto
17. Master Arthur Chatto

The Gloucesters, Kents, Harewoods, and everyone else after them would be
deleted from the succession.

BTW, the Netherlands has limited succession--the right to succeed is limited to
the Sovereign's children and grandchildren.
Gillian White
2005-01-29 01:03:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gidzmo
BTW, the Netherlands has limited succession--the right to succeed is limited to
the Sovereign's children and grandchildren.
The degrees of relationship between the old and new monarch cannot be more
than three.

How is a degree defined? Are siblings related in a single degree?

Gillian
Francois R. Velde
2005-02-02 15:05:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gillian White
Post by Gidzmo
BTW, the Netherlands has limited succession--the right to succeed is limited to
the Sovereign's children and grandchildren.
The degrees of relationship between the old and new monarch cannot be more
than three.
How is a degree defined? Are siblings related in a single degree?
For computing degrees in general see:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/msg/c85d136e4585e799

Canonical would be 1, Roman would be 2.

The way I parse the article, which I reproduce below in ICL's English
translation, those eligible to succeed are:
* sovereign's descendants (no limit)
* sovereign's siblings and their descendants (no limit)
* siblings of sovereign's parent (3 degree limit)

Here is the article, which I have broken down according to its apparent
English syntax (the numbers and letters are not in the original, they
are mine). It seems to me that the 3-degree rule only applies to (2b).

"(1) On the death of the King, the title to the Throne shall pass by hereditary
succession to the King's legitimate descendants in order of seniority, the
same rule governing succession by the issue of descendants who predecease the
King.

(2) If the King has no descendants, the title to the Throne shall pass in
the same way
(a) to the legitimate descendants of the King's parent
(b) and then of his grandparent
* who are in the line of succession
* but are not further removed from the deceased King than the third
degree of consanguinity."
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Henri van Oene
2005-02-04 10:26:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Gillian White
Post by Gidzmo
BTW, the Netherlands has limited succession--the right to succeed is limited to
the Sovereign's children and grandchildren.
The degrees of relationship between the old and new monarch cannot be more
than three.
How is a degree defined? Are siblings related in a single degree?
In the Netherlands degrees are defined in the Civil Code:

Book 1. Persons and family law
Title 1. General provisions
Article 3. 1. The degree of consanguinity will be established by the
number of births, who have caused the consanguinity. An
acknowledgement, a judicial establishment of fatherhood or an adoption
will count as a birth.
2. Marriage or registered partnership will cause kinship between one
spouse or one registered partner and a cognate of the other spouse or
the other registered partner in the same degree as there is
consanguinity between the other spouse or the other registered partner
and its cognate.
3. Dissolving of the marriage will not abolish the kinship.
Post by Francois R. Velde
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/msg/c85d136e4585e799
Canonical would be 1, Roman would be 2.
The way I parse the article, which I reproduce below in ICL's English
* sovereign's descendants (no limit)
* sovereign's siblings and their descendants (no limit)
* siblings of sovereign's parent (3 degree limit)
Here is the article, which I have broken down according to its apparent
English syntax (the numbers and letters are not in the original, they
are mine). It seems to me that the 3-degree rule only applies to (2b).
"(1) On the death of the King, the title to the Throne shall pass by hereditary
succession to the King's legitimate descendants in order of seniority, the
same rule governing succession by the issue of descendants who predecease the
King.
(2) If the King has no descendants, the title to the Throne shall pass in
the same way
(a) to the legitimate descendants of the King's parent
(b) and then of his grandparent
* who are in the line of succession
* but are not further removed from the deceased King than the third
degree of consanguinity."
In this case the apparent English syntax causes confusion while the
Dutch syntax does not. The limitation to the third degree of
consanguinity applies to both the descendants of the king's parent and
the descendants of the king's grandparent.
Francois R. Velde
2005-02-04 13:51:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henri van Oene
The degree of consanguinity will be established by the
number of births, who have caused the consanguinity.
Not sure what that means. I am a kin of my brother: how many births caused this
kinship? Do I count my/his birth??
Post by Henri van Oene
In this case the apparent English syntax causes confusion while the
Dutch syntax does not. The limitation to the third degree of
consanguinity applies to both the descendants of the king's parent and
the descendants of the king's grandparent.
Thanks for clarifying that. I was suspicious that the English translation might
not have been careful.

So there is no limit to direct descent of the crown, but there is a 3-degree
limit to collateral inheritance.

--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Henri van Oene
2005-02-07 12:06:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Henri van Oene
The degree of consanguinity will be established by the
number of births, who have caused the consanguinity.
Not sure what that means. I am a kin of my brother: how many births caused this
kinship? Do I count my/his birth??
Yes you have to count all the births. So your brother is related in
the second degree: your birth and his birth.
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Henri van Oene
In this case the apparent English syntax causes confusion while the
Dutch syntax does not. The limitation to the third degree of
consanguinity applies to both the descendants of the king's parent and
the descendants of the king's grandparent.
Thanks for clarifying that. I was suspicious that the English translation might
not have been careful.
So there is no limit to direct descent of the crown, but there is a 3-degree
limit to collateral inheritance.
Correct.
Francois R. Velde
2005-02-07 14:09:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henri van Oene
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Henri van Oene
The degree of consanguinity will be established by the
number of births, who have caused the consanguinity.
Not sure what that means. I am a kin of my brother: how many births caused this
kinship? Do I count my/his birth??
Yes you have to count all the births. So your brother is related in
the second degree: your birth and his birth.
So the common ancestor is excluded?

If that's the case, this sounds like it's the same thing as the standard method
of counting degrees.
--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Henri van Oene
2005-02-08 07:54:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Henri van Oene
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Henri van Oene
The degree of consanguinity will be established by the
number of births, who have caused the consanguinity.
Not sure what that means. I am a kin of my brother: how many births caused this
kinship? Do I count my/his birth??
Yes you have to count all the births. So your brother is related in
the second degree: your birth and his birth.
So the common ancestor is excluded?
If that's the case, this sounds like it's the same thing as the standard method
of counting degrees.
Indeed it is.

Stan Brown
2005-01-06 03:08:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.com
Let us assume a fictional King Henry with two sons, James and Edward.
When Henry dies, James, as the elder son, rightly assumes the throne.
Later he abdicates (unmarried and without issue) and his brother Edward
is crowned. James, the former-King later has a son, George. My
question is: Where, if anywhere, would George fall in the line of
succession to the thrown?
James could not abdicate unilaterally; see the FAQ. It would have to
be done as Edward VIII did, by requesting legislation. As was done
with Edward VIII, the legislation would undoubtedly amend the
succession to exclude James and his issue from the throne.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...