(British) Throne Succession Oddness

Two scenarios here:

1) The senior heir to Sophia of Hanover (Alice) is Catholic, so someone from a younger line (Bob) inherits the throne. Then Alice converts away from Catholicism/has a non-Catholic child. Does Bob have to give up the throne immediately? If not, has Alice's line forever lost its claim by way of happening to have no non-Catholics alive at a certain time?

2) The senior heir to George VI happens to be a direct descendant of Edward VIII. According to the His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936,
His Majesty, His issue, if any, and the descendants of that issue, shall not after His Majesty’s abdication have any right, title or interest in or to the succession to the Throne, and section one of the M1Act of Settlement shall be construed accordingly.
Does the legislation here bar all claims, or only claims via Edward VIII? The latter would make more sense, but I'm having trouble reading the act that way.
 
Well, it's literally impossible for the second case, so I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it. I would however guess it only bars claims via Edward VIII (and if the issue looked like it'd arise, they'd have changed it double quick unless there was a very good reason not to).
For the first, since conversion to Catholicism or marriage to a Catholic IIRC bars you descendants from the throne automatically as well, I would think the answer is no.
 
Once you have Catholic cooties, you're out for good. The relevant text of the Act of Settlement is:
And it was thereby further enacted That all and every Person and Persons that then were or afterwards should be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or should professe the Popish Religion or marry a Papist should be excluded and are by that Act made for ever incapable to inherit possess or enjoy the Crown and Government of this Realm and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same or to have use or exercise any regall Power Authority or Jurisdiction within the same And in all and every such Case and Cases the People of these Realms shall be and are thereby absolved of their Allegiance [emphasis mine]
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3/12-13/2/section/I#commentary-c950563
 
Once you have Catholic cooties, you're out for good. The relevant text of the Act of Settlement is:
And it was thereby further enacted That all and every Person and Persons that then were or afterwards should be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or should professe the Popish Religion or marry a Papist should be excluded and are by that Act made for ever incapable to inherit possess or enjoy the Crown and Government of this Realm and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same or to have use or exercise any regall Power Authority or Jurisdiction within the same And in all and every such Case and Cases the People of these Realms shall be and are thereby absolved of their Allegiance [emphasis mine]
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3/12-13/2/section/I#commentary-c950563
Thanks! Though I'm still not sure how the law applies to descendants of Catholics. Does "as if naturally dead" imply "any kids would be nonexistent, hence ineligible to succeed"? If so, how would this apply to people who had already been born at the time of the reconciliation/Communion/velc.?
 
Thanks! Though I'm still not sure how the law applies to descendants of Catholics. Does "as if naturally dead" imply "any kids would be nonexistent, hence ineligible to succeed"? If so, how would this apply to people who had already been born at the time of the reconciliation/Communion/velc.?

According to royal.gov.uk, the kids are in the line of succession so long as they themselves are raised in the Church of England and stay in communion with it:
Two examples of members of the current Royal family being removed from the line of succession are that of The Earl of St. Andrews and HRH Prince Michael of Kent, who both lost the right of succession to the throne through marriage to Roman Catholics. Any children of these marriages remain in the succession provided that they are in communion with the Church of England.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/historyofth...andtheactofsettlement/theactofsettlement.aspx
 
According to royal.gov.uk, the kids are in the line of succession so long as they themselves are raised in the Church of England and stay in communion with it:
Two examples of members of the current Royal family being removed from the line of succession are that of The Earl of St. Andrews and HRH Prince Michael of Kent, who both lost the right of succession to the throne through marriage to Roman Catholics. Any children of these marriages remain in the succession provided that they are in communion with the Church of England.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/historyofth...andtheactofsettlement/theactofsettlement.aspx
So does that mean that a genealogically senior but Catholicky branch could nab the throne back from an incumbent monarch by having a kid and raising him/her Anglican?
 
"Direct descendant" means children, grandchildren, etc. Edward VIII and George VI were brothers. George VI's heir, Elizabeth II, is Edward's niece, not a direct descendant. The act bars any claims from any children Edward may have sired.
 
So does that mean that a genealogically senior but Catholicky branch could nab the throne back from an incumbent monarch by having a kid and raising him/her Anglican?

I don't think so.

For ordinary noble titles, the way it works is that once you have the title, it's yours for life (or until you abdicate it or are deposed from it). Then it passes to your descendants. If your line is exhausted, it then pops back up the tree to the last holder of the title with surviving direct heirs and proceeds from him. (source)

Assuming the crown works the same way, a hypothetical Protestant descendant of a senior Catholic line would only get the throne if the entire branch of the current royal line died off and the crown popped all the way back to the parents of the Catholic line. For example, if Queen Elizabeth II had a Catholic brother who had been bypassed whose grandson had been raised CoE, that grandson would only inherit if Elizabeth's entire line died off so we would have to go back to George VI to find a past monarch with living heirs.
 
"Direct descendant" means children, grandchildren, etc. Edward VIII and George VI were brothers. George VI's heir, Elizabeth II, is Edward's niece, not a direct descendant. The act bars any claims from any children Edward may have sired.
I think he was referring to say, if a direct descendant of George married one of Edward, would their children be ineligible?
 

Asami

Banned
I think he was referring to say, if a direct descendant of George married one of Edward, would their children be ineligible?

I think that would raise an entire quandary set of problems -- that's incest, which I don't think England really approves as much as the Habsburgs did.
 
I think that would raise an entire quandary set of problems -- that's incest, which I don't think England really approves as much as the Habsburgs did.

Naah. Even if it was George's son marrying Edward's daughter that would only be first cousins, which doesn't count as incest (in English law, anyway) and has happened plenty of times - forex Vicky and Albert. By the time you're getting to grand children, you're talking second cousins and I'm not sure that counts as incest anywhere, and by the time you get to great grandchildren you're talking 3rd cousins and I doubt anybody would even notice by that point if it wasn't for the quirk about descendants of Edward being barred from the throne. And I suspect if it had ever come to that the law would simply be interpreted to mean that descendants of Edward were only barred by virtue of their descent from Edward, and other line of descent they could claim would still be fine.
 
Two scenarios here:

1) The senior heir to Sophia of Hanover (Alice) is Catholic, so someone from a younger line (Bob) inherits the throne. Then Alice converts away from Catholicism/has a non-Catholic child. Does Bob have to give up the throne immediately? If not, has Alice's line forever lost its claim by way of happening to have no non-Catholics alive at a certain time?

I dunno, I guess this depends on what frames of reference Alice and Bob are in. I can assume that they are both inertial, right?
 
I once considered the question of what would the British line of succession look like had they started out not from Sophia, but from whatever common ancestor she had with the previous dynasty, with same rules otherwise (of course, initially, the first fifty-odd people in the succession are excluded as Catholic, so it goes to OTL George I anyway).
I think I got mired up in genealogy. Might consider it again, actually.

On the OP's actual question, I guess that, if it ever came up in practice, there'd be an Act of Parliament sorting it out one way or the other; which one would probably depend on the specific people involved (though it almost certainly won't involve forcing the throne from the current monarch - only matters of further succession).
In absence of such, I'd say that a living incumbent holder would still serve until their death, but once they die it goes back to the earlier line (if there's still an available heir in there). That could get ugly if there are multiple occasionally-excluded lines, however (as it probably would be in the case above).
 
I don't think so.

For ordinary noble titles, the way it works is that once you have the title, it's yours for life (or until you abdicate it or are deposed from it). Then it passes to your descendants. If your line is exhausted, it then pops back up the tree to the last holder of the title with surviving direct heirs and proceeds from him. (source)

Assuming the crown works the same way, a hypothetical Protestant descendant of a senior Catholic line would only get the throne if the entire branch of the current royal line died off and the crown popped all the way back to the parents of the Catholic line. For example, if Queen Elizabeth II had a Catholic brother who had been bypassed whose grandson had been raised CoE, that grandson would only inherit if Elizabeth's entire line died off so we would have to go back to George VI to find a past monarch with living heirs.

That sounds about right, the grandson would be readded in behind the current line.
Of course there'd also be parliamentary act to confirm it.
 
That sounds about right, the grandson would be readded in behind the current line.
Of course there'd also be parliamentary act to confirm it.

After a good reading of definitions of "heirs of the body", your answer is, in fact, most probably correct.
Correct as for the parliamentary act as well (though, depending on the circumstances, the actual Parliament might rule differently).
 
Top