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.

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

The history nerd in me wants to point out that they tried this in Russia when Tsar Alexander I died without children, and his next oldest brother definitely didn’t want the job. It led to the Decembrist revolt.

@Serenster

The Decembrist revolt was 200 years ago - I think you can relax

The Windsors will go quietly when the time comes

I think that there should be no dukedoms or further enoblement of the royal line beyond the second in line.

Dukedoms etc should be granted on a lifetime basis to those who've been appointed by process in recognition of and in service to a particular cause. It was done previously, it's an aberration that we no longer reward exceptional individuals (OK, sometimes the reward was based on "Henry VIII wants to marry you so now you're the Marquess of Pembroke", but there is at least a basis for non-royals being ennobled).

A royal could theoretically earn the title, but would be subject to the same process. It would be an ambassadorial role with minimum commitments and a generous budget for pomp and circumstance.

If you're going to keep a monarchy, at least make the grace and favour somewhat attainable.

Are you serious? The King/ Queen is the head of the Church of England - why should they accept a Catholic? That's like asking why a Jewish person can't be pope....

Didn’t the UK go through a whole period where everyone had to convert from Catholicism to Protestantism, and then from Protestantism back to Catholicism over and over again for a while?!

@PrincessTigger

Like ping pong!
Henry 8- catholic and then Protestant
Edward- Protestant
Mary- catholic
Elizabeth- Protestant
James- Protestant
Charles1- sort of Protestant
Charles 2- a bit of both!
James- catholic
William and Mary- Protestant

( a brief potted and very simplistic history!)

.....and whatsoever king shall reign, I'll still be the Vicar of Bray, Sir.

I'm not sure it's bigoted to say that a Catholic can't be head of the Church of England. In a similar vein the Catholic Church discriminates against practicing Muslims when appointing its clergy.

People saying we have to accept whatever the line of successsion is seem to not know that the divine right of kings ended over 300 years ago, and at least since the Glorious Revolution put William of Orange on the throne instead of the rightful heir, parliament has been calling the shots on who succeeds.

Yeah a few monarchs have been removed against their wishes! Removing unsuitable people from the line of succession would be a more upfront way of doing it.

James II didn't impose Catholicism on the population though. Once Mary died it swung between "Protestant country and Catholics were violently oppressed" and "Protestant country but they took a very slightly more live and let live approach to Catholics".

In their defence the Pope had excommunicated the entire country and ordered all the Catholics in England to overthrow Elizabeth, and there had been a serious Catholic plot to assassinate the king and blow up half of London, which would strain a lot of people's tolerance.

Charles 2- a bit of both!

True, and he married a Catholic, but he kept his Catholic leanings very private, until on his deathbed, when his brother facilitated his formal conversion.

My point was that the King (or Queen) when being crowned is anointed with holy oil by the Archbishop, and accepts the title of 'defender of the faith' and supreme governor of the Church of England. It is a religious ceremony among other things.
Ok, so the title 'Defender of the Faith' was originally given to Henry 8th by the Pope, but kept on after that.

I just think it would be a ridiculous situation whereby the figurehead of a religion is actually of another faith. Also the suggestion by that poster that it was somehow 'bigotry' is extreme.

spanieleyes · Yesterday 19:43
Like ping pong!
Henry 8- catholic and then Protestant

You would have been in trouble if you'd told Henry 8 he wasn't a Catholic. He was to the end of his life - tho' he acknowledged the man in the Vatican only as Bishop of Rome.
The formular was - opposite of catholic is heretic; opposite of protestant is papist. Therefore if you are neither a heretic nor a papist - you are both catholic & protestant.
Neat eh? Still works

I just think it would be a ridiculous situation whereby the figurehead of a religion is actually of another faith. Also the suggestion by that poster that it was somehow 'bigotry' is extreme.

True enough, but I suppose that one might question whether an established religion is a good idea in the first place.

Yes, he considered himself a devout Catholic all his life.

Just not a Roman Catholic!

In terms of doctrine, Anglicanism isn't very different from Catholicism. Some Anglicans even refer to themselves as 'Anglo-Catholics'.

Also, despite the well known little rhyme, Henry never divorced any of his wives either.

That would be some pretty horrific accident if we lost the 7 people ahead of Andrew in the line.

Quite a lot of people would have to die before we have to worry about Harry or Andrew on the throne.

In that eventuality I think the nation would become a republic pretty quickly.

I really wouldn't worry about this.

That’s the point though - they get the privilege afforded to stand-ins even though it would be impossible for them to now do the job. Rather than risk the whole system collapsing because a stand-in sucks, remove the bad subs.

If the choice were Andrew or Harry or a republic, then it's a no brainier for me.

That’s the point though - they get the privilege afforded to stand-ins even though it would be impossible for them to now do the job. Rather than risk the whole system collapsing because a stand-in sucks, remove the bad subs.

Interestingly the rushed through request for legislation to remove Andrew and Harold as Counsellors of State appears to have stalled.

Anne and Edward have got the green light though so the nation can rest easy...

Anne and Edward have got the green light though so the nation can rest easy...

Oops.

It's actually Beatrice.

So much more reassuring 🤐

Harry becoming King isn’t beyond the realms of possibility though - at the risk of being morbid about a family, as the Wales’ children are all young and still at the age to do family holidays, it’s possible an accident could wipe them out together - a plane crash or car crash etc. William has been seen driving with his dcs in the back of the car. Obviously the older the kids get the less likely they are to all travel together. Sadly could happen.

Andrew though requires 2 nuclear families to be wiped out and that’s less likely.

I think you cannot support a hereditary monarchy and then get judgemental abut who ends up in the line of succession. The whole point is that one family and their heirs have that privilege and that is that.

The Monarch is the head of the Church of England, which is Protestant.

Catholics and Protestants have had some pretty major disagreements throughout history and continue to do so in Northern Ireland.

So it would be a bit weird if the head of a Protestant Church could be a Catholic.