The Line of Succession

[PrincessTigger]

I think the Succession to the Crown Act needs to be updated so that a) members can request their removal from the line, and b) anyone on the line who has become so compromised they could never actually do the job if called upon can be removed by MPs. If there were a series of terrible accidents, Andrew for example could never seriously become King.

I think the removal of primogeniture also needs to be applied retrospectively not just Charlotte onwards.

No matter how unlikely it is that they should be called upon, I think it’s ridiculous that they still get the perks of being in the line of succession while destroying their own credibility to actually do that role. Perhaps we’d have gotten better behaviour from certain Dukes of York if they’d known there was a chance to lose their place.

I agree with you about Andrew . Whilst I am sure he would love to be King there is absolutely no way he would be accepted . I am sure the RF knows that . I do not think he would ever ask to be removed from the LOS but I am a bit surprised that Harry hasn’t asked to be removed given his feelings about the RF.

I don’t think Harry wants to be removed but I do think he’s someone who is far too compromised. His children or the Wales children may one day though.

It does concern me, though not a huge royalist so not exactly losing any sleep, that were William and fam wiped out in a plane crash, on Charles' death the crown would go to Harry>Archie>Lilibet or failing that, Andrew>Beatrice>Sienna.

Anti-monarchists must be delighted as either option would surely mean the end of the RF.

I agree OP. It makes sense but I don't think either Andrew or Harry would give up their place in line of succession voluntarily. You'd think their behaviour alone would mean they can be stripped of titles. But it seems they can engage in many dodgy dealings and/or slagging off monarchy but still remain.

We're not supposed to say that as it is unfair to Meghan. I've been told so by many posters.

You can quit the line of succession - or at least you definitely can abdicate once you succeed. So you could voluntarily quit the use of all titles and make it known that (even if you cannot quit the succession, which I'm not sure about) your first act as monarch will be your own abdication.

There is no mechanism to remove people (other than murder, disappearance or war between factions, all of which are consigned to the history books). And I think that's right. The core of all monarchies is the hereditary principle. So we're stuck with who we've got. And I hope the Wales do start having split travel arrangements for that reason, as the main "spares" (Harry and Andrew) have both quit or been sidelined from royal life) and their DC have been brought up with no expectation of ever actually succeeding, and are not remotely prepared for the role (ditto H & A - what is expected and taught to the heir is very different to their siblings)

I think though if you make it clear that you would abdicate if you became king or queen, the succession act should be updated to remove you completely… otherwise there isn’t much point unless you’re looking to beat the record for shortest reign!

It requires an Act of Parliament to remove someone from the line of succession, but there is one way that a person can do it voluntarily before succeeding to the throne: become a Roman Catholic.

How come the royal family arent bigots but they are allowed to reject roman catholics???

What do you mean about applying primogeniture retrospectively, OP? How far back, exactly? I wonder who’d be next in line if we have to trace the royal line down from, say, 1066? Mind you, there would still be battles, murders, the odd commonwealth and bloodless revolution so maybe we’d still have ended up with Charles.

Harry would never step out of the line of succession. That’s what I don’t get about the “republicans” on here - the biggest lovers of the titles are the hallowed Harry and Meghan!

The RF don’t have any actual say. They are just a figurehead. So Andrew being king bothers me less than Boris being PM, or Trump being president. Luckily, it’s highly unlikely.

Anyway isn’t Harry before him in the line? He’d be alright. I’m sure he’d pick it up again…

I think the removal of primogeniture also needs to be applied retrospectively

Why?

It would make no difference whatsoever.

As the firstborn child of the Queen, Charles was always going to outrank his siblings, male or female. He only has sons so no issue there. And William's eldest is also a boy.

The only person affected would be Princess Anne, who is 17th in line, behind her younger brothers and their children. But even if she were to be retrospectively elevated above them, she'd still be pretty distant from the throne so it would make no practical difference at all.

Act of Settlement, 1701

https://www.royal.uk/act-settlement

In itself a distillation of the country's long suspicion and visceral fear of Catholicism due largely to the persecutions of Mary I.

1701??

Bloody ridiculous.

Yes, current line of succession is:

Prince of Wales
Prince George of Wales
Princess Charlotte of Wales
Prince Louis of Wales
The Duke of Sussex
Prince Archie of Sussex
Princess Lilibet of Sussex
The Duke of York
Princess Beatrice of York
Miss Siena Mapelli Mozzi
Princess Eugenie of York
Master August Brooksbank
Master Ernest Brooksbank
The Duke of Edinburgh
The Earl of Wessex
Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor
The Princess Royal
(then Peter Phillips and his DC, then Zara Tindall and her DC)

As long as you don't have a tragedy, which leads to something horrible meaning all the Waleses die, then it's really unlikely that the Duke of Sussex would ever be king. And I don't think he's had any preparation for the formal, constitutional and diplomatic duties, let alone what is needed to steer the Duchy of Lancaster and all the other estates and property owned by the monarch (yes, they have staff, but also they need to understand the workings and set the direction. And appoint good staff). The Wales line have been working on this kind of prep for years. Coming at it from no prior experience would be hard. And I'm really not sure the Duke of Sussex would find it remotely congenial

No it doesn’t undo previous monarchs, just everyone alive, so it would bump up Anne & family and Lady Louise would go down overall but up in relation to her brother.

Harry should be removed I think, he couldn’t be king now.

Do you know anything about English history? anything at all?

You can't start fiddling about with the line of succession or the whole house of cards will begin to wobble. The concept itself just becomes open to compromise.

The thing is, there have been spectacularly awful monarchs throughout the last millennium that make Andrew or Harry's controversies pale in comparison.

You want a royal family, you accept potentially shitty people as your head of state.

How come the royal family arent bigots but they are allowed to reject roman catholics???

It's better than it was, though. The law used to be that a person lost their place by marrying a Roman Catholic. Prince Michael of Kent got booted off when he married his wife, but be was reinstated when the law changed.

The laws on this were decided and passed by Parliament, and I don't see how they indicate anything about attitudes of current Royals

How come the royal family arent bigots but they are allowed to reject roman catholics???

The Act of Succession was passed by Parliament and the RF had to abide by it. On the instructions of Parliament. So who are the bigots here?

What do you mean about applying primogeniture retrospectively, OP? How far back, exactly? I wonder who’d be next in line if we have to trace the royal line down from, say, 1066?

I assume she means just for living royals.

But it would make no difference unless there were a lot of young deaths. Charles is older than Anne, so unless William and all his children, and Harry and both his children die, without any of the children having children of their own, it wouldn't change anything. So they could change it or leave it, realistically no one would notice either way. I doubt Anne's children would decide to become working royals because of it or anything like that.

I theoretically agree with removing people (eg Andrew) but who decides? What is deemed acceptable and unacceptable behaviour? I think the majority of people would agree about Andrew, but that wouldn't be the case for everyone going forward. Would MPs get to choose what is and isn't acceptable? I doubt I'd agree with half of them on what is moral behaviour..

I'm a republican so would abolish the whole thing. But if we're keeping it, I don't think MPs should be deciding on it in that way.

I think it should be decided by MPs where someone has become so compromised that they could never actually do the job. People like Andrew, Harry, and some more minor royals (like the Duke of Kent) could never do the job now, so what is the point of affording them a lifetime of privileges that go with being a back-up, when they could never actually do the job?

Someone like Andrew where people say it’s ok because it’s so unlikely. But he gets all of the privilege and access because he is on the list of stand-ins, yet he doesn’t actually have to behave as if one day he might have to stand in? It makes no sense.

Plus if MPs could get rid of them it might motivate them all to behave themselves.

Harry would never step out of the line of succession. That’s what I don’t get about the “republicans” on here - the biggest lovers of the titles are the hallowed Harry and Meghan!

Not all republicans... 😏

You want a royal family, you accept potentially shitty people as your head of state.

Quite.

I've always pointed out that but for an accident of birth order (or indeed Charles dying pre-children in 'that' Alpine avalanche) we'd have had Andrew parking his lying, lardy arse on the throne in May and that's before we get into the now king's extensive glad-handing with Sir James Savile among others.

But all cool with the royalists 😎