Talk:Succession to the British throne

Edwatd VIII's successor

From a recent TV programme I think I understood that, since Edward VIII abdicated, any of George V's other sons could have succeeded as king: it didn't have to be the eldest. Had Edward VIII died on the throne without leaving children, succession would have been definitely to Prince Albert, Duke of York who was George V's second son.

Of course, Prince Albert did indeed become king but perhaps it was indeed by some political decision. Could this have been His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936? The article hints at it in saying "the Act ensured that the throne passed over to Prince Albert, Duke of York".

Does anyone have any information? Thincat 16:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As of December 1936, there was no legal provision for abdication. A law had to be passed. That law could have made anyone King - it could have invalidated the whole Act of Settlement, and put PM Baldwin on the throne as Stanley I. Or whatever. So, yeah, technically anything could have happened. Supposedly, there was some consideration of making the Duke of Kent king. But I think that's largely bogus. There was no real other option than making York king, especially since he had daughters who would otherwise be disenfranchised. john k 18:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Discuss/link to discussion of heir presumptive/heir apparent? Mjs 23:51, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

I tend to view the Line of Succession as a law by itself. So, I think that there was no legal alternative to observing the Line of Succession. СЛУЖБА (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Statute of Westminster

In the Changes section it states: "In practice the provisions of the Statute of Westminster 1931 have fallen out of use." I'm wondering how this claim can be made. The Realms remain equal in status, the Westminster Parliament remains barred from legislating on behalf of any other Realm, and the convention that no alteration to the line of succession by one Realm without the consent of all the others remains in effect. Unless I'm missing something, I think this sentence should be removed. --gbambino 22:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I am no constitutional scholar, but my understanding is that, apart from the convention implied in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, any alteration to the law on succession made by the Parliament of United Kingdom would automatically have legal effect in Australia withouth the need for formal approval by the Australian Parliament. My understanding is based on the The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, which states in Section 2 that

The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

Conversely however, any unilateral change in the line of succession to the Australian throne, e.g. to pick a person other than the Sovereign of the United Kingdom to be the King or Queen of Australia, would require IMHO an amendment to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, which could be made in turn only by means of approval in a public referendum requiring a double majority of the nationwide vote and of the votes cast in a majority of states. The situation in Canada as I see it is more confusing as the Canadian constitution, unlike the constitutions of Australia or New Zealand¹ for that matter, does not include AFAIK any explicit mention to the line of succession following a demise of the crown. So far however, the understanding of the Canadian courts has been that the preambles to Canada's Constitution Act 1867 and to the Statute of Westminster 1931 imply a line of succession to the Canadian throne that is symmetrical to that of the United Kingdom. Moreover, the courts have also ruled that any unilateral change to the line of succession in Canada would amount to a significant change in the nature of the office of the Queen and, therefore, would require the qualified constitutional amendment procedures set out in the Constitution Act 1982, namely approval by the federal Parliament as well as the Legislative Assemblies of all 10 Canadian provinces. AFAIK however, the constitutional issues involving the succession to the Canadian throne have not been examined yet by the highest court in the land, i.e. the Supreme Court of Canada, and, therefore, I do not consider this matter settled. 161.24.19.82 12:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of what you say is true, except, as I understand it from reading the ruling of Ontario Superior Court Justice Rouleau in O'Donohue v. Canada, the Act of Settlement is now a patriated part of the Canadian constitution, and any alteration to the UK's version of the Act would have no effect on the Canadian version of the Act; meaning that if the UK altered the line of succession without the same being done in Canada, the two nations would have different monarchs. Hence, as the preamble to the Statute of Westminster (which is also separately a part of the constitutions of the UK and Canada) lays out the important convention that the monarch remain the same throughout the Realms, the UK cannot change the line of succession to the British Throne without the consent of at least Canada, and vice-versa. This reliance of one on the other seemed to be demonstrated as early as 1936, when it was necessary for Canada to pass the Succession to the Throne Act, which allowed for Edward VIII to abdicate. As Ireland didn't get their parliament to permit the abdication of Edward as King of Ireland in time, Ireland ended up with a different sovereign to the other Realms for one day.

From Rouleau's ruling, which is, admittedly, not a Superior Court ruling, it seems clear that the provisions of the Statute of Westminster are still indeed in effect - all the countries under the Crown remain equal in status, no country should alter its line of succession without the consent of the 15 others, and the UK cannot pass laws on behalf of any other Realm. --gbambino 15:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The court rulings mention "Queen" and not "King" or "Sovereign"? So, do they only affect the reign of Elizabeth II?

Or what do they mention? СЛУЖБА (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• ¹ New Zealand Constitution Act 1986, Part I, Section 5(1):

The death of the Sovereign shall have the effect of transferring all the functions, duties, powers, authorities, rights, privileges, and dignities belonging to the Crown to the Sovereign's successor, as determined in accordance with the enactment of the Parliament of England intituled The Act of Settlement (12 & 13 Will 3, c 2) and any other law relating to the succession to the Throne, but shall otherwise have no effect in law for any purpose.

A Question

• When someone is struck off the line of succession for being a Catholic, does the same apply to their descendents, or are their children permitted to stay on the list (assuming that they themselves are Protestants, naturally)? This is unclear from the article. Jdcooper 01:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The married-a-Papist rule only applies to the person and not to their descendants; Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor is 23rd in line in favour of her father, who married a Catholic. It be reasonable that the same holds for descendants of persons who are themselves Catholics, though I'm not sure of an example. EdC 23:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't apply to their descendants unless they are also Catholics or marry a Catholic consort. King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands for example was removed from the line of succession to the British throne for having married Máxima Zorreguieta from Argentina (who is a Catholic), but his 3 daughters, who were baptized in the Protestant church and are still unmarried, remain in line.161.24.19.112 (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a forseeable problem, though: if somebody ever actually gets skipped for real, his or her unborn children must surely be accounted out of the succession (otherwise their place would be AHEAD of the then-incumbent). The inconsistency between this and EdC's answer above is disquieting. Ah, well. Doops | talk 06:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it impossible to be "ahead of the then-incumbent" because the Line of Succession is actually counted from the then-incumbant? СЛУЖБА (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

---

"Furthermore, an individual is not barred because his or her spouse converts to Roman Catholicism after marriage." - what if a person converts from Catholicism to Protestantism before the marriage; whould that make their spouse inneligible? And does any law state specifically that an heir has to be protestant, or just that they can't be Catholic? - Matthew238 07:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, if a person converted from Catholicism, his/her spouse is eligible. СЛУЖБА (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

When the marry-a-papist rule was enacted in 1701, it was to take into account that a "papist" is under an obligation to have his or her children baptized in the Catholic faith, and the spouse of the papist would be required to promise that they would be at the wedding ceremony. Thus, the idea of the issue inheriting the throne was considered remote.John Paul Parks (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Why English only, where's the Scots

In truth this article should begin at 1707, but since it currrently include the 'Succession to the English Throne', it should also include 'Succession to the Scottish Throne'. What's with this continous notion - England became Britain, while Scotland became exstinct. GoodDay 18:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Correction, some (but very little) Scottish material is in the article - however article still seems 'pre-dominantly' English. GoodDay 18:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, most of the article is about the theory, which isn't England-specific. But you have a point with regard to the history section, so I've reorganized and added a "stub" tag. Doops | talk 19:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The other thing that bothers me is the ordering -- James of Scotland in this article is known as "James I & VI" whereas I was brought up knowing him as "James VI & I". Doubtless a lot of that is simply national bias -- but in this case, the national bias towards "James VI & I" has more merit than "James I & VI" given that James was James VI well before he was James I. The same would go, by continuation, with his son James VII and II. Unless there is an overwhelming number of contemporary sources authorised by the King naming himself James I&VI I would argue that the numbers should be swapped. Plus, the current Scottish section is rubbish. In the English section we get a potted history of the English crown. In the Scottish section we get a brief comment about Mary, Queen of Scots being succeeded by James. I don't know the history -- which is why I'm here in the first place -- so I can't correct matters. I, and doubtless others, would definitely appreciate someone versed in the history of the Scottish monarchies putting the same type of potted history as the English get here.92.74.16.126 (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Descendants of Egbert

"Upon the death of Beorhtric who had forced him into exile, Egbert returned to Wessex and took the throne. Overtaking Mercia as the dominant power in Britain, Egbert militarily expanded his realm to include Kent, Sussex, Surrey, some Mercian territory, and briefly all of Mercia; this gained him the title Bretwalda, or "ruler of Britain". Egbert's heirs have ruled England almost exclusively ever since; in the years since there have been only eight monarchs of the country who were not his descendants: the four consecutive Danish kings, and the first four Normans beginning with William the Conqueror."

The last sentence is not correct. The four Danish kings were not descendants of Egbert, it is true, nor was William the Conqueror, but his sons William II and Henry I were, as was his grandson Stephen. This is because the Conqueror's wife Matilda of Flanders was a distant descendant of Alfred the Great, through his daughter Elfrida who married Baldwin II, Count of Flanders. Alfred in turn was a grandson of Egbert.

It is debatable though whether the number of non-descended Kings should be reduced to five or six. Harold II had no certainly known descent from Egbert. There was a claim that his paternal line was from Ethelred I, Alfred's elder brother and immediate predecessor. Ethelred certainly had male children, passed over in the succession as they were minors and the kingdom was at war, but it may never be known with certainty whether this ancestry of the House of Godwin was fact or a convenient fiction. In view of the doubt, I propose to change the relevant portion of the sentence to "only five, or possibly six, monarchs of the country who were not his descendants: the four consecutive Danish kings, William the Conqueror, and arguably Harold II." I will do this tomorrow unless someone protests first.

86.165.100.95 (talk) 09:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I did, but the wording was as follows: "in the years since there have been only five, or possibly six, monarchs of the country who were not his descendants: the four Danish kings, William the Conqueror, and arguably Harold II, whose claimed patrilineal descent, referred to below, is not universally accepted as true." I left out "consecutive" before the Danish kings, since they weren't, Sweyn being followed by the restored Ethelred II and then by Edmund II before Canute, and added the explanation for Harold II as the descent is referred to elsewhere in the article, which should not appear to be arguing with itself.

86.165.100.95 (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Such changes are better made from a user account with at least basic information about yourself, and not from an anonymous IP... СЛУЖБА (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The Queen is a great-grandmother

Shouldn't the list be updated with Queen Elizabeth became a great--grandmother ? Ronbarak (talk) == Britain's Queen Elizabeth became a great--grandmother for the first time with the birth of a daughter to the Queen's oldest grandson. Peter Phillips, the son of Princess Anne, and his wife Autumn became the parents of a daughter born Wednesday at Gloucestershire Royal Hospital. Ronbarak (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Read more: http://www.allheadlinenews.com/briefs/articles/90029167?First%20great-grandchild%20for%20Queen%20Elizabeth%20born%20to%20grandson%20Peter%20Phillips#ixzz19dBve156

Line of succession to the British throne

I suggest adding the beginning of the line of succession to the British throne to this article, maybe the first 10, 20 or 40 individuals. It's obviously relevant for this topic, and a good "summary" of the complete 3,000-people list "Line of succession to the British throne". --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Done.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

On the news of the Duchess of Cambridge's pregnancy: This clause is in the previously given reference that a wikipedian used to place the unborn child into the line of succession, "it is submitted that Princess Elizabeth would be entitled to succeed to the Throne on the demise of His Present Majesty, but that a posthumous son would be entitled to succeed to the Throne on his birth in her place." Therefore while an unborn child has entitlements, (s)he is not in line to succeed until birth. Please also take note of the article and discussion at Line of succession to the British throne. The discussion there shows thorough consideration of today's news. JGray (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It is premature to add the unborn child to the line of succession. Although an unborn child has inheritance rights, and the need to complete gestation will not eliminate those rights, he or she must be born alive to inherit. While we certainly hope that will be the case, it has not yet occurred.John Paul Parks (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree, and with revision as of 15:29, 4 December 2012 ".. prefer to have nothing rather than speculation". Qexigator (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Statistical tables

In accordance with a discussion on the Line of succession talk page, I have moved the section "Statistical tables" to this page. Its content largely refers to history, rather than the current line. There are some parts of this section which some editors (myself included) may think could be removed as unsourced trivia. I leave this decision to others. Noel S McFerran (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Charles and William

Is Prince William #2 in line no matter what? I was under the impression that if Charles were to pass away before Queen Elizabeth, then Andrew would become Prince of Wales (with his children next in line) and Charles's sons would drop down a few spots. Is that correct? Funnyhat (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That's completely incorrect. If (heavens forfend) Prince Charles were to pass away before Her Majesty, Prince William would be first in line (heir-apparent) and the Queen would probably make William the new Prince of Wales. Prince Andrew (and his daughters) can't "leapfrog" Charles and his sons — the line of succession works through additions (births) and subtractions (deaths) and that is it. ✝DBD 00:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a common misconception. Charles has already established his lineage in William and Harry (and their assumed future progeny). If Charles and all of his descendants died or somehow became ineligible before the Queen died, only then would Andrew become heir apparent. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Minimum age?

Something that I'd like to know, that I don't believe is covered in the article, is what is the minimum age for succession to the throne? Let's say, as a purely hypothetical example, that the queen had her son Charles, and then died the next day - does 1-day-old Charles become king? Nzseries1 (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Others may know better but I don't think there's a minimum age. A one day old ruler would need a regent, though. Regency Acts#Regency in the case of the minority of the Sovereign looks relevant. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The minimum age is conception. Seriously. See posthumous birth. ✝DBD 16:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

What law are you refering to? СЛУЖБА (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Mary, Queen of Scots was six days old when she succeeded her father to the Scottish throne.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Charles would've become King, even via caesarian section, if his mother would've died while carrying him. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If she had been queen then. DrKiernan (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, otherwise - he would've become King George VI's heir presumptive. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Charles and William (B)

Is it possible for the crown to bypass Charles allowing William to ascend to the throne?Ajpacella (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. But it would take an Act of Parliament to amend the existing law, and that would involve not just the UK parliament and people, but the parliaments and people of the 15 other Commonwealth realms. Unless Charles himself suddenly renounced the throne he's been patiently waiting in line for for the past 62 years, there is no reason in the world why such an act would ever be considered. "We like William more than Charles" is not a reason.

However, Charles would become ineligible if he were to convert to Catholicism, or married a Catholic (which assumes Camilla has first died or been divorced from him). -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Presumably Camilla converting to Catholicism would also count? Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Become a papist or marry one. Being married to a convert doesn't count. I'm sure there was a recent example... ✝DBD 23:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Lots of news today

Lots of news today as David Cameron announced unanimous agreement among the 16 realms to change the rules of succession.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Should there be a section, or a chart, tracking the progress of the approval process through the various realms? Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 11:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) I've inserted a paragraph in the introduction and the main text, referring to today's announcement - [1]. I've done it that way partly through sheer laziness, but mainly in the expectation that the section in the main article text will be expanded by other editors with more interest in the subject than me. The paragraph in the introduction sets out the essential information. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to duplicate here what's already better covered at Act of Settlement 1701#Recent debate, especially given that the British line of succession isn't the only one affected. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? You don't think a major proposed change to the succession to the British throne should be discussed in the article Succession to the British throne? john k (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: There's no need to duplicate here the details about these proposed changes - especially those related to the countries that are not Britain - that are already covered at the more appropriate Act of Settlement 1701#Amendment proposals. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI: There's also discussion of this at Talk:Line of succession to the British throne. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The edits made in the last few hours by User:Miesianiacal, to split the discussion between articles on the various different countries, make the job of the reader in accessing information on what is happening now much more difficult. Do we now need a separate article on, say, Reform of the Act of Settlement in the Commonwealth realms? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

By insisting on inserting material here that's already repeated elsewhere, it's you, actually, who's split the coverage, which could confuse the reader. Proposed amendments to the lines of succession have been included at Act of Settlement 1701 for years; that is an entirely appropriate place to do so, given that the law is part of the constitution of each Commonwealth realm, whereas this article is specific to the UK. If the section at Act of Settlement 1701 becomes too long to remain a section of an article, it can then be broken off into its own page, as is Wikipedia practice.

I'll add: you keep restoring the repetition as though it was anyone whoo objects that needs to seek consensus to remove it. In fact, as the person adding new content, it's you who needs to seek consensus to put it in again after it's been reverted. WP:BRD. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The thing is the reforms will require the amendment of multiple pieces of legislation, not just the Act of Settlement, so putting the details in the broader article make sense. Also, the average reader is more likely to seek out his article than Act of Settlement. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

In fact, for evidence of that look at Jimbo. When he wanted to say something about the topic he went to this talk page, not to the one for Act of Settlement. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) It's a shame you didn't seek agreement to the way forward here first. The changes have been described as, fundamentally, changes to the succession of the British monarch. You may not think that is correct, but that is how they have been described. They were announced by the British PM, for example. Readers would likely come to this article looking for more information - see the first contributor in this thread for one notable example. I am not favouring any single approach as to how we do this, but the interests of the readers should come first, and we should agree collectively how the information is best presented for them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't need to seek agreement here on the way forward; you did. You should've discussed when reverted the first time. But, regardless, that point has come and gone now.

Whether or not these changes have an effect on the succession to the British throne isn't in question, by me or anyone else, so far as I can tell. What's at issue here is discussing in an article that's specific to the United Kingdom the details of legal changes in Canada and Australia and Jamaica and etc. that will fundamentally affect the respective lines of succession to the Canadian and Australian and Jamaican and etc. thrones. If readers come here with the mistaken preconception that it's only the British succession that's being altered, they should be directed from here to whatever neutral loacation it is that the material's been placed, rather than have erroneous beleifs reinforced. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that, so let's move on. So, where should that neutral location be - a new article, or the article on the Act of Succession? It seems to be suggested that multiple pieces of legislation will be required, so a freestanding new article seems to be the best way to go. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Problem is there is no terminology that I'm aware of. There's no such thing as the "Commonwealth Throne" and if we make up a term like "Thrones of the Commonwealth realms" few people will have any idea of what's being talked about. Like it or not, even in most Commonwealth countries the throne in question is known as the British throne. Under the Statute of Westminster the changes require the consent of all the "dominions" so it is appropriate to discuss that process here in detail. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Just because a mistake is common doesn't make it any less of a mistake. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to impart the facts, not aid in reinforcing misconceptions. And, besides, I at first didn't think so, but looking now at how quickly the section at Act of Settlement 1701 is growing, the volume of material relating to this subject is likely to soon require what Ghmyrtle suggested: an offshoot article of its own, anyway. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Any suggestions for a title? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"Proposed amendments to royal succession in the Commonwealth realms"? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with that - the changes aren't specific to the Act of Settlement. --LJ Holden 19:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

So.... is someone who knows the background going to start a new article? It can be renamed, presumably, when a formal report with recommendations is produced. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's mostly a matter of just shifting what's at Act of Settlement 1701#Amendment proposals and Succession to the British throne#Reforms initiated in 2011 to a new page. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Mies' suggestion - 'Proposed amendments to royal succession in the Commonwealth realms', is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I've now started a new article at 2011 proposals to change the rules of royal succession in the Commonwealth realms. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Victoria vs Cumberland?

There's a question whose answer I thought to find here but did not. From pages related to the matter, it is stated and implied that Princess Alexandrina Victoria, daughter of the duke of Kent (future Queen Victoria), was heir presumptive to King William IV, being apparently higher in the line of succession than her other uncle the Duke of Cumberland (and for that matter any younger sons of George III).

What is not clear is how the issue of a person who never reigned, and never was heir, having predeceased two persons who were higher than him in the order of succession, can herself be counted higher in said order than people who are her elders and were actually in the order before she was even born. --Svartalf (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Her father's death didn't remove her from the line, she simply "inherited" his position. For an example of the same situation, you only need to look as far back as the aforementioned George III, who inherited the throne from his grandfather George II, as his father Frederick, Prince of Wales, had already died. George II still had 3 living children, but the line to George III (through the Prince of Wales) was senior; just as the line to Victoria (through her father) was senior to the line of her living uncles.--LarryJeff (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Meaning that even at this time, the principle of male primogeniture was abandoned, since the line descended to a female rather than going to the eldest male... So what's the recent hoopla about any child of Prince william becoming thirdin line even if female, we have instances of female being heirs in preference to males already? --Svartalf (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Male primogeniture was not abandoned; had it been, the crown would have passed to Victoria's aunt Charlotte in 1820, since she was Victoria's father's older sister. Victoria herself had no brothers to bring male primogeniture onto play. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Two different principles of dynastic inheritance are being confused here. Primogeniture does not simply give the crown to the late monarch's "firstborn" (although that's the literal meaning of "primogeniture"): In the West, primogeniture has long included the concepts of preference for males over females and the principle of "substitution" -- which treats descendants as the representatives of their ancestors and sends the crown down to new generations of descendants (to the late monarch's children, and their children, etc., for as long as any are alive) rather than laterally according to agnatic seniority. The UK and Commonwealth Realms never practiced absolute primogeniture (the eldest child of the monarch, regardless of gender), nor Salic primogeniture (females excluded), nor even semi-Salic primogeniture (closest-related female inherits only upon death of the last male of the dynasty). Rather, the Commonwealth Realms practice "male-preference primogeniture". Male-preference primogeniture accords the throne first to the sons of the dynasty's founder, in order of seniority of birth. Next comes their sisters, also in order of seniority of birth, if none of their brothers left issue. However the principle of "substitution" is applied ad infinitum. That means that if a dynast (a son or daughter of the founding monarch) dies leaving legitimate direct descendants, each of them is entitled to inherit the throne as if he or she were the deceased ancestor -- "substituting" as claimant to the ancestor's right of succession. So if the king dies having had three sons, the eldest son inherits the throne. But if the eldest then dies without descendants and the second son has already died, instead of the throne going to the third son, it must go to the "substitute" of the second son -- who is determined, if there are multiple descendants, in order of gender (male before female) and then in order of seniority (older before younger). If the old King's grandson has also died, the throne may go to a great-grandson (Louis XV France, 1715), i.e. to the grandson's "substitute". When you combine primogeniture, male preference and the principle of substitution you get "male-preference primogeniture" which was practiced, in addition to the UK, in Greece, Monaco, Portugal and Spain. France, Italy (House of Savoy) and the Balkan kingdoms practiced Salic primogeniture. Most of Germany, Luxembourg and Russia practiced semi-Salic primogeniture. Islamic nations tend to prefer the principle of proximity of blood to substitution, and therefore practice agnatic seniority. FactStraight (talk)

"common law"

Succession to the British throne is governed both by common law and statute. Under common law the crown is inherited by male-preference cognatic primogeniture.

The article never mentions common law again. Is it still relevant? Is it relied on to resolve questions not explicitly addressed by the Act of Settlement? —Tamfang (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is still relevant. It determines the line of descent of the crown in the same way as inheritance of landed property generally, except as modified by statute. The linked article states "This was the most common primogeniture practiced in Western European feudalism. Male-preferred primogeniture is currently practised in ...the sixteen Commonwealth Realms". This could be reworded (OR!) as "This currently underlies the law of inheritance in...". To say more than is already in the article would probably be redundant. Qexigator (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

European royals

The European royals listed in the new section "Members of European dynasties in remoter lines of succession" are copied from the section recently added to Line of succession to the British throne. Of the two articles, the main article seems to be the better place for this, and if agreed, the section could be removed from LoS. Qexigator (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal now done.[2] -- Qexigator (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"Under common law the crown is inherited by male-preference cognatic primogeniture."

Surely this line needs to be amended because of the new law coming into force? 101090ABC (talk) 10:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

It will be updated when the new law is in force. Qexigator (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

It's already received Royal Assent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_Crown_Act_2013), surely it is in force? 101090ABC (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not until Lord President of the Council says that it is. That most likely won't happen until all realms pass all the necessary laws. Surtsicna (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Even before the new law, was it "common law" ?? Wasn't it in an act somewhere ? Eregli bob (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is common law. The Act of Settlement simply says that the crown devolves on the heirs of the body of Sophia of Hanover. According to common law, that means male-preferance primogeniture. Surtsicna (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

First 20?

Before the birth of Prince George, this article listed the first 20 people in the line of succession. Since his birth, it now lists the first 21 people. It seems like it would make more sense to keep the list at 20 and simply remove people at the bottom as more are added higher up. Tad Lincoln (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

1-15 happens to be the number of those who are curently descendants of the present queen.[3] If that expands to 20 or more, the rationale would be to include them all, and after a future demise, to list only such as are descendants of the then reigning monarch. But the paragraph under the list refers to the persons now in the nearest collateral line as "numbered 16–21". Is it enough to let that stand without more, relying on the topline "Further information: [[Line of succession to the British throne]", which lists collaterals, to the 49th? --Qexigator (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Why are there two seemingly identical articles? Succession to the British throne and Line of succession to the British throne? they are about the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talk • contribs) 20:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Carl XVI Gustaf

Should it be mentioned that King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden descends both from Prince Arthur, duke of Connaught (on his father's side) and Prince Leopold, duke of Albany (on his mother's side) ? 161.24.19.112 (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)