Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE NEWS of an impending Royal arrival in the United Kingdom has thrown the country’s somewhat complicated succession laws back into the spotlight.
The laws governing who gets to be the monarch, and when, go back to the 17th century – while the throne itself, barring the 11-year interruption of Oliver and Richard Cromwell, has existed since the year 927.
The forthcoming royal birth has, however, caused some confusion among some – which is understandable, given the complexity of the line of succession as it currently stands, and plans to change it.
So – how does it all work?
What it all boils down to is the principle of ‘male-preference cognatic primogeniture’.
So what’s that? Promogeniture, in layman’s terms, means that the first-born child is the one which inherits a particular position – whether that’s as the owner of land, or the holder of a title, or in this case the position of being a head of state.
Cognatic refers to a mode of family descent including both male and female links. In this case, it is used to mean someone who descends from both a mother and a father. Of course, everyone has both a mother and father, but the theory is simple: the intent is to imply that the child cannot be illegitimate.
In order to be included, therefore, the child must be born to married parents.
The idea behind this is to ensure that a young prince’s infidelities, leading to the potential conception of a son or daughter outside of a marriage, cannot interrupt the line of succession. Imagine the ruckus that might ensue if a king was to learn that he had an older half-brother, whose entitlement to the throne meant that everything that king had done – like signing Bills into law – was legally void…
Male-preference is pretty straightforward: it means men take precedence over women.
That’s the long and the short of it. There are other criteria for being included – for example, the heir must be a Protestant, in communion with the Church of England, and cannot be married to a Roman Catholic – but largely it’s down to the family bloodlines.
It’s often claimed that, despite the current monarch being female, a woman cannot be heir to the throne.
This, to put it simply, is not true: women are perfectly entitled to be an heir to the throne – they just get bumped down the list if they have any brothers, irrespective of whether those brothers are older or younger than them.
This means that under the current law, it doesn’t matter whether William and Kate’s child is male or female: it will be the third in line to the throne, jumping ahead of William’s brother Prince Harry.
This was the case when the youngest of the Queen’s four children, Prince Edward (the Earl of Wessex) had his first child. His daughter Louise was born in 2003, and was the 8th in line to the throne when she was born.
When her younger brother James arrived in 2007, she got bumped down a notch: James precedes Louise in the order of succession, simply because he is male. If the crown were to fall to James and he was to die without children, only then would Louise become queen. (And that’s assuming Edward and his wife Sophie don’t have any more children in the meantime.)
What all of this means is that if a King dies, the throne goes to their oldest son. If they don’t a son, it goes to their oldest daughter.
If they don’t have any children at all, it goes to their next eldest male sibling (who, presumably, was the second-eldest son of the previous monarch) – or, if they did not have any brothers, to their eldest sister, and so on.
If a deceased monarch doesn’t have any siblings or children, the crown goes back up a generation – to their uncles and aunts (again, with those uncles having been the children of another previous monarch).
This all means that nobody can ever be knocked off the list (unless they renounce their Protestant faith or marry a Catholic, of course). They can only be pushed down the list.
Queen Elizabeth II, for example, only had one sister – Margaret – and no brothers. (This is why she inherited the throne when her father, George VI, died. George’s two daughters were entitled to the throne before his two younger brothers could get there.)
Margaret died in 2002, but her two children and four grandchildren are the closest in line to the sitting Queen – so if the current Queen had never had any children of their own, the throne would fall to them.
If the Queen was an only child and had never married, the next in line would be her cousin Richard, the Duke of Gloucester. Richard’s father Henry, and the Queen’s father King George VI, were brothers.
The current system has antique origins – the idea of male children being preferred to female ones stems, in part, from the ages where a king had a significant role as a military leader, and needed to be prepared to lead troops into battle against a rival kingdom or realm.
Last year, the heads of the 16 countries over which Queen Elizabeth is head of state (the Commonwealth) met in Perth, Australia, and agreed to change their respective laws so that male primogeniture had ended.
This means that (assuming the laws have been changed by the time William and Kate’s child arrives) even if the first-born is a girl, and later has a younger brother, she will remain ahead of him in the line of succession.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Basically as long as the child is not “tainted” in any way by Roman Catholicism then it will get the throne. What a medieval bunch of charlatans.
I believe post renascence charlatans would be more accurate since the Protestant reformation didn’t occur until it was in full swing.
Technically the head of the monarchy is also the head of the Church of England. Kinda hard to have a head of a church be someone who doesn’t follow that religion, no? It’d be like the Pope being Muslim. Wouldn’t really work now would it?
Irony or what. If they had those succession laws sorted in time there would have been no Henry VIII bumping off all those wives looking for a son. And no church of england. Would they all still be Catholics? Would there have been no troubles up the north? Oh dear, best not go there.
I heard the Pope has to be Catholic. That’s a bit unfair don’t you think?
Zoe. Even if the child is a Protestant if their partner is a Catholic they are automatically disqualified. It is pure and utter bigotry from a medieval circus.
Robin, They could always try the C Of E way, the clergy there don’t even have to believe in God. In fact it’s often an obstacle to advancement to do so.
Any chance the journal could ease up on the Windsor pieces please?
If you don’t like them don’t read them. That’s how it works I’ve been told.
Agree Rob – this is, by my count, the 5th article on the subject in the Journal/Daily Edge today(so far). A little bit OTT to say the least, eh Gavan?
The next article says it’s a boy and they’re calling him Kong.
Can’t wait!
OH MY GOD, SOMEBODY IS HAVING A BABY SOMEWHERE, SOMETIME (yes I know I’m shouting :)
Hope the child is ok when born,don’t care how much he/she inherits.
so if she is pregnant with boy/girl twins and has a section who decides which is born first and becomes heir!?
the old Welsh kings used to say the second twin born was the eldest , first in last out so to speak.
Whichever comes out first. It’s up to the surgeon!
Anyone know what the position would be if an heir was born disabled or with down syndrome?
Well, old Big Ears does talk to the trees. Doesn’t seem to have done his chances any harm.
In the event that the heir to the throne has a mental disability they can still assume the throne but a Regent is appointed to act as Ruler. The heir would still be King or Queen Regnant but would have no powers of authority as all of that would be passed to the Regent and the Privy Council. The Regent would rule until the mentally disabled monarch died and then the next heir would assume the throne.
If for example william and kates child was mentally disabled and it was their only child then that child would assume the throne whenever William died as King, Harry would then be the heir. More than likely Kate as the former Queen Consort would become Regent until that child as monarch died. Harry would then be King and Kate would resume her title of Dowager Queen Consort.
Bit messy but there you are!
There would be a Regent. Being incapacitated doesn’t stop you from being the monarch. George III went mad and they just transferred effective power a ring down. These days there’s no real power to worry about.
And not a flying f*ck was given on that day.
Thank the Lord for that! I did constantly wonder
Here is an interesting addition to the above. Under the current law where the male jumps ahead of his older female sibling, there is only one scenario where a female can become princess of Wales in her own right (ie not because she was married to the prince of Wales)
So it goes like this; the prince of Wales fathers a girl. So she is now third in line until she has a younger brother. So if her father takes the throne she becomes next in line until her father has a male heir, then she gets skipped over. But let’s say the father dies before taking up the throne and before fathering a male heir, then and only then can a woman become princess of Wales as her father is unable to father any more children. She will eventually take the throne once her grandparent monarch expires. This has never happened in the entire history of the throne but I thought you should all know!
The thing no one mentions: if it turned out that Tom Parker-Bowles was actually gathered by Big Ears, then he’s now a legitimate child. He’s older than William and that would make him second in line, rather than William.
I’d buy the Daily Express the day that came out.
*fathered
Stoopid autocorrect.
“he’s now a legitimate child”, No. He’d still have been born outside wedlock.
Doesn’t matter. Illegitimate children become legitimate if the parents marry.
I’m not sure that’s the case, Emily. Even if a child was to become ‘legitimate’, its status at its birth – when its slot into the line of succession is assigned – would surely be the governing factor.
Well the Legitimacy Acts of 1926 and 1959 did this for inheritance, and the title is inherited. OTOH the succession can’t be changed without the consent of all Crown Parliaments, which was why Dev was able to use the abdication crisis to create the Irish Constitution. So it’s not very clear.
I suppose this might be handy to know if Ireland ever decided to revive their own monarchy.
Are you looking for a job?
Somehow don’t think I’d be eligible.
I am descended from royalty, obviously, but not Irish royalty.
Hmmm a bit like the Labour Party !!
Will this be another Royal pain in the referendum?
You are incorrect in your last paragraph when you say “(assuming the laws have been changed by the time William and Kate’s child arrives)”.
Even if the laws haven’t been formally passed by the time William and Kate’s child arrives it has been agreed in principal that they will apply to this child. So if they have a girl she will be the next in line after William and can not be supplanted by a later male child.
The rules are also being modernised to remove the ban on marrying a Catholic although the monarch himself/herself must remain a member of the Church of England.
Wow!
All this talk about lines of succession lately reminds me of a documentary I seen last year about britains rightful monarch.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain’s_Real_Monarch#section_1
Sure aren’t they all descended from Mel Gibson
Pure 3rd rate TV. Based on nothing but flimsy evidence and wild assumptions.
Quick hypothetical question i know they are bringing in new rules in regards to succession but also rules regarding same sex titles, what if William was gay and he married a man. could he then be crowned king and would his spouse be also king? co-king, king consort or prince consort? and no need for ridiculous queen remarks please!
David – A hypothetical question can only get a hypothetical answer, but I’d imagine the monarch’s dual role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would mean a gay marriage would be non-existent for the purposes of succession.
In that case, from a monarchical point of view, William would die an unmarried bachelor and Harry would be next in line.
As regards title, his spouse would certainly not be co-King – to describe them as such would imply they have equal power, when this is not the case – and I’d imagine the answer is ‘Prince Consort’. It is intended that Camilla will be referred to as ‘Princess consort’ if/when Charles takes the throne, even though she is as much a Queen Consort as the current Queen’s own mother (simply known as ‘Queen Elizabeth’) was.
it would be very interesting to see if it actually happened. usually the princes stay princes when marrying a queen but the women get promoted to queen from princess when marrying a king. Camilla is a law onto her own as they dont want to ruin Diana’s memory thats why shes not called princess of wales even though she holds that title.
Did i read correctly that a royal wont have to ask permission to marry someone. be very interesting to see if a royal was gay and married as you know they exist but its all under wraps.
What if the line falls completely?
There will always be a line of succession even if it eventually goes to people outside the windsor dynasty.
have your say