Earlier this week the British government presented its bill to change the succession to the throne, formally called the Succession to the Crown Bill. As earlier mentioned the introduction of this bill follows agreement having been reached between the sixteen realms of which Elizabeth II is queen to introduce gender neutral succession.
This mean that the as yet unborn first child of Prince William will be heir to the throne regardless of whether it is a boy or a girl, whereas a girl would, under previous legislation, have been bypassed by a younger brother.
The bill makes this change retroactive, but only back to 28 October 2011, the date the prime ministers of the sixteen realms reached their agreement. Thus it will only affect those born after that date, which means that for instance Princess Anne and her descendants will still come after her younger brothers Prince Andrew and Prince Edward and their descendants. Lady Louise Windsor, the daughter of Prince Edward, will also still follow behind her younger brother James, Viscount Severn. I think the person closest to the throne who will actually be affected by this is the newborn grandchild of the Duke of Gloucester, Tane Lewis, who is currently ahead of his elder sister Senna in the succession, but who will cease being so when the bill is enacted.
The bill further removes the ban on people married to Catholics from succeeding to the throne. However, those who are themselves Catholic will still be barred from succeeding (as the monarch is head of the Church of England). Interestingly, this provision is made retroactive for those who have married Catholics and are still alive. The persons closest to the throne affected by this are the Earl of St Andrews (son of the Duke of Kent) and Prince Michael, who lost their succession rights when they married Catholics, but who will now regain a place in the order of succession. Several other people will also be affected by this, including for instance the three children of the late Princess Ragnhild of Norway.
Thirdly, the bill radically limits the scope of people who need the British monarch’s permission to marry. Under the Royal Marriages Act of 1772 (which will now be repealed in its entirety), all descendants of George II, except those descending from princesses who married into foreign royal houses, needed the monarch’s permission to marry in order for their marriages to be valid under British law. From the time this bill comes into force the need to obtain permission will only apply to the first six in line for the throne – i.e. currently the Prince of Wales (Prince Charles), the Duke of Cambridge (Prince William), Prince Henry, the Duke of York (Prince Andrew), Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie. Once the first child of Prince William is born next year, Princess Eugenie will be free of this obligation. Failure to comply with this rule means the loss of succession rights for the person in question and his or her descendants. Most marriages deemed void by the Royal Marriages Act will now be “legalised”.
The bill also involves amendments to several other pieces of legislation, namely the Treason Act of 1351, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement and the Regency Act of 1937. Interestingly, the bill does not make any changes to the practice whereby the Duchy of Cornwall devolves on the heir to the throne when the eldest son of the monarch. I believe this will require separate legal amendments, as does the issue of whether the title Princess of Wales may in the future be given to the heir apparent when being the monarch’s daughter.
Under current legislation the title Prince(ss) of the United Kingdom and the style Royal Highness are(by Letters Patent of 1917) limited to the children and the male-line grandchildren of the monarch. At some stage one would expect new letters patent to be issued to alter this, which will no longer make sense when the eldest child is heir regardless of its sex.
It is also interesting to observe that the bill does not limit the succession to the throne. Thus all descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover, except Catholics, will continue to be in the order of succession and the retroactive inclusion of those who have married Catholics will mean that the number of potential heirs (which already run to hundreds and hundreds of people) will actually increase.
When this bill is passed by the House of Commons and the House of Lords and come into effect Spain and Monaco will be the only European monarchies where males still take precedence over females in the succession (while Liechtenstein bars women altogether).
Sunday, 16 December 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I had been looking forward to your thoughts on this bill! :)
ReplyDeleteHowever, those who are themselves Catholic will still be barred from succeeding
Thus all descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover, except Catholics, will continue to be in the order of succession
While I am confident that you are aware that this is not the case, your phrasing could create the unfortunate impression that Catholics alone are barred from succeeding. As you know, there is an equal bar on all non-Protestant Christians and non-Christians alike.
I admittedly do not know with certitude which descendants of Electress Sophia are neither Protestant nor Catholic, but I feel certain that there must be some amongst her thousands of descendants when one takes into account the incidences of marriages with members of Orthodox royal houses and the substantial proportion of contemporary Europeans who are not religious at all.
Interestingly, the bill does not make any changes to the practice whereby the Duchy of Cornwall devolves on the heir to the throne when the eldest son of the monarch. I believe this will require separate legal amendments, as does the issue of whether the title Princess of Wales may in the future be given to the heir apparent when being the monarch’s daughter.
I agree with you concerning the Duchy of Cornwall; however, the British government is apparently of the position that the question has been settled by the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 (whereas said act, as I read it, actually further confuses the issue).
I am not sure that the change in succession will result in the equalization of the titulature of female-line and male-line descendants. Witness the Netherlands, where the children of Princesses Irene and Christina received no titles whatsoever from the crown, whereas the children of Prince Friso, who likewise married sans consent, nevertheless did.
As I understand it only Catholics are explicitly excluded from the succession. However, as the monarch must be a Protestant I suppose one might say that all non-Protestants are in fact ineligible to succeed, although not actually excluded from the line of succession.
DeleteI too am not sure if this change will result in equalisation of titles, but I see no reason why the letters patent of 1917 should continue to be in force.
However, as we have seen, the current British monarch seems to prefer ignoring letters patent and to be satisfied with simply letting it be known how her family members should be styled and titled.
Yes, you are entirely correct that only Catholics are excluded by name ("papists," in the not so decorous parlance of 18th century Protestants). But the stipulation that the monarch join in communion with the Church of England acts to bar all non-Protestants alike from the succession, at least until such time as the Church of England alters its strictures concerning Communion.
DeleteIt would therefore be advisable, as I see it, to repeal the singularly anti-Catholic exclusions, and such a repeal would incur no practical consequences as the general restriction against non-Protestants renders said exclusions legally redundant.
Under the Royal Marriages Act of 1772 (which will now be repealed in its entirety), all descendants of George II, except those descending from princesses who married into foreign royal houses, needed the monarch’s permission to marry in order for their marriages to be valid under British law. From the time this bill comes into force this will only apply to the first six in line for the throne
ReplyDeleteYou may also wish to make it clear, for the benefit of those of your readers who are unfamiliar with the bill, that "need[ing] the monarch’s permission to marry in order for their marriages to be valid under British law" will cease to apply even to the first six in line.
I thought that was clear from what I wrote further down, but I can see if I can rephrase it to make it clear from the beginning.
DeleteI raised the following anomaly of only the six top people in the Line of Succession needing consent from the Monarch for their marriage with the College of Arms: As of the date of writing, with the births of both Prince George and Princess Charlotte, Princess Beatrice no longer requires permission as she is 7th in line to the Throne. However, if no one in between has any children by the time HM The Queen passes away and Prince Charles ascends the Throne, Princess Beatrice will become 6th in line again. What if she has married in the meantime and quite legally without having to gain the Monarch's consent? Will she automatically exclude herself? Will she have to gain retroactive consent from the new Monarch? Of course, the answer from the College of Arms was that this hurdle would be dealt with as and it when it arises...
ReplyDelete