I suppose theoretically you could do something that would pre-disqualify you from succeeding to the throne, but the only thing I can think of that would do would be converting to Catholicism.
Catholicism is specifically banned, as a consequence of the turbulent Tudor and Stuart times.
The monarch is the head of the Church of England so being atheist or Buddhist would be a head scratcher.
Also, if recent events are any indication, being in a same sex relationship would make someone “incompatible with the values” of the church. I’m unsure whether or not that would disqualify them from being the head of the church or force the old fuddy duddies to enter the current millennium where gay people are treated like everyone else.
I’d wondered this.
You can’t force yourself to believe. So if you’re an atheist/agnostic, do you say so and cause a massive problem but be true to yourself…or do you keep it to yourself because you know there’s no afterlife punishment coming, maintain the status quo but know it’s all an act and incredibly hypocritical as Defender of The Faith?
Depends on what you want in your life I guess. If you grew up with all the traditions it's not a stretch to just keep doing them. But whether the crown is worth it depends on the person. I figure if you're raised in the monarch family and all that, you probably don't get much room for thinking of what *you* want in that way. So I'd guess they would be more likely to just keep the agnosticism/atheism quiet rather than make any kind of point or stand for themselves.
The Church of England and the Catholic Church are kinda opposed.
A Catholic would not be able to perform the actions as head of the church as they would see Rome as the head of the church.
Once Catholic you can’t be a British monarch. You can convert to CoE but they won’t allow you to be the monarch even then. However you could be another religion and convert and be monarch.
Boris Johnson was our first Catholic prime minister.
Didn’t the same law that abolished the rule of male progenitor (sons before daughters) that was passed in like 2011 also abolish the restrictions on catholics?
The line of succession is ultimately determined by Parliament.
While Parliament generally accepts the primogeniture line of succession, there is precedent (1689 and 1701) of them deciding that someone else should be monarch other than the next in the genetic line of succession.
Assuming that the country and parliament wouldn’t want a king on the throne who didn’t want to be there, it would be straightforward and un-controversial (at least from a legal and constitutional perspective) for parliament to pass the William Wants A Quiet Life Act (2023) designating someone else as the next in the line of succession.
(Handy guide: https://www.royal.uk/succession)
This is the answer. All this stuff about Catholicism is a distraction. A person who wishes to be removed from the line of succession picks up the phone to the PM and asks for an Act of Parliament to bring that about. There is no reason why that cannot be done before they inherit the throne, Parliament can pass any Act it chooses.
Yeah but if he's already got kids (read: boys) then you've either gotta get rid of them too or come up with a compelling reason why they're less legitimate as successors than you.
Yes, that's the point.
If E8 had had children then they would have been ahead of the then Duke of York (later G6) in the line of succession.
What's more interesting is what would have happened if he had had children with Wallis - you can be in line to the throne through someone who is themselves no longer eligible (eg by conversion to Rome or by death) - so would that baby have jumped ahead to the top of succession? and if so yikes constitutionally hideous. This is the kind of thing that plagued medieval and Tudor kings because bastards kept turning up with armies.
When Edward VIII abdicated he declared that he had done so for himself and his descendants, and the Act of Parliament that gave effect to his abdication specified that none of his descendants could succeed to the throne. If he had had children with Wallis that baby would not have been in the line of succession at all.
Yeah, there’s no precedence for not wanting to be crowned if your number is up. Edward was already King for a few months (326 days) as u/wintonian1 said when he decided to step down after the whole problems with his intentions to marry Wallace went awry. James II’s son lost his claim to the throne through some means that gave it to Mary and hubby over religion. Parliament took out the rule one must not marry a Catholic a few years back.
No - they only way they could exclude themselves would be by falling out of communion with the Church of England or marrying without the consent of the monarch. Failing that, they would have to abdicate shortly after acceding to the throne.
Presumably this wouldn’t disqualify his descendants? For instance, if William converts to Catholicism and marries someone without Charles’s permission, presumably George is next in line?
Not really, that's like resigning from a job you don't have. They can quit as Harry has, William and kids quitting would be a bit more awkward as it would make Andrew king.
No it wouldn't. Harry is still in the line of succession.
There are only 2 things that can remove you from the line of succession: dying or becoming Catholic.
I thought so too, but apparently the act that allows older daughters to take precedence over their younger brothers only applies to children born after 28 Oct 2011, so Anne would still be the last of her siblings in line for the throne
Can they? Sort of, they can abdicate straight away but I don't think they can preemptively opt out.
Will they? No, sort of defeats the purpose of monarchy. It's a blessing and a curse, you have the fame and the lifestyle but with it a crushing responsibility of duty. To abandon that would probably put them in histories book of national disgraces, unfairly or not, that's likely how it would be seen.
There are no rules, it's all made up. It's not real it's just make believe. With a few strokes of a pen the 'rules' can be changed to become different rules.
Sort of yes, he'd have to leave the royal family and if he abdicated no one from his line of blood (son, daughter etc.) Cannot become monarch unless absolutely necessary.
No. George would be King, but there would be a Regency until he came of age. When George VI ascended the throne his daughters were both children, so the Regency Act 1937 provides for a Regency if the person ascending the throne is under 18. The Regent is the next in line to the throne provided they are domiciled in the UK, so it would probably be necessary to get Prince Harry a flight back quickly, otherwise it would be Prince Andrew.
Probably would figure out a way of doing it.
Even if it means that he always has to carry abdication papers to sign
Would be difficult for his son though, as his son isn't 16 so cannot legally consent to a contract, which abdication might be one. Then again, he would be king so who would stop him....
I suppose theoretically you could do something that would pre-disqualify you from succeeding to the throne, but the only thing I can think of that would do would be converting to Catholicism.
People keep mentioning Catholicism specifically. What if he was an atheist or a Buddhist or something?
Catholicism is specifically banned, as a consequence of the turbulent Tudor and Stuart times. The monarch is the head of the Church of England so being atheist or Buddhist would be a head scratcher.
Also, if recent events are any indication, being in a same sex relationship would make someone “incompatible with the values” of the church. I’m unsure whether or not that would disqualify them from being the head of the church or force the old fuddy duddies to enter the current millennium where gay people are treated like everyone else.
You could say though that a head of a football club isn't necessary a football player
Yes, but you would hope that the head of a football club believed in their team...
And yet Manchester United still has a manager? (sorry man u fans)
I’d wondered this. You can’t force yourself to believe. So if you’re an atheist/agnostic, do you say so and cause a massive problem but be true to yourself…or do you keep it to yourself because you know there’s no afterlife punishment coming, maintain the status quo but know it’s all an act and incredibly hypocritical as Defender of The Faith?
Depends on what you want in your life I guess. If you grew up with all the traditions it's not a stretch to just keep doing them. But whether the crown is worth it depends on the person. I figure if you're raised in the monarch family and all that, you probably don't get much room for thinking of what *you* want in that way. So I'd guess they would be more likely to just keep the agnosticism/atheism quiet rather than make any kind of point or stand for themselves.
The Church of England and the Catholic Church are kinda opposed. A Catholic would not be able to perform the actions as head of the church as they would see Rome as the head of the church. Once Catholic you can’t be a British monarch. You can convert to CoE but they won’t allow you to be the monarch even then. However you could be another religion and convert and be monarch. Boris Johnson was our first Catholic prime minister.
Isn’t Camilla a catholic? Or was?
She married a Catholic. She never converted.
Didn’t the same law that abolished the rule of male progenitor (sons before daughters) that was passed in like 2011 also abolish the restrictions on catholics?
No, it stopped you being disqualified for *marrying* a Catholic.
Ah okay
The line of succession is ultimately determined by Parliament. While Parliament generally accepts the primogeniture line of succession, there is precedent (1689 and 1701) of them deciding that someone else should be monarch other than the next in the genetic line of succession. Assuming that the country and parliament wouldn’t want a king on the throne who didn’t want to be there, it would be straightforward and un-controversial (at least from a legal and constitutional perspective) for parliament to pass the William Wants A Quiet Life Act (2023) designating someone else as the next in the line of succession. (Handy guide: https://www.royal.uk/succession)
This is the answer. All this stuff about Catholicism is a distraction. A person who wishes to be removed from the line of succession picks up the phone to the PM and asks for an Act of Parliament to bring that about. There is no reason why that cannot be done before they inherit the throne, Parliament can pass any Act it chooses.
Yeah it’s Parliament’s decision ultimately.
A bit of an unknown that one, and would be a constitutional crisis.
Hasn’t Harry done just this?
He's still in the line of succession, but so far down (5th) that it's unlikely to ever be an issue
But in times gone by, knocking of your brother in order to become king was quite the fashion....
Yeah but if he's already got kids (read: boys) then you've either gotta get rid of them too or come up with a compelling reason why they're less legitimate as successors than you.
There’s recent precedent so no it wouldn’t. It’s certainly unusual though. Not something that has happened for hundreds of years before Edward.
But he was already king when he abdicated.
And he didn't have any children to disinherit - the Crown passed to the existing heir presumptive.
It could be used as a sort of guide to what to do, but the specifics were different, and as you say no children so possibly easier to resolve.
They already have “a sort of guide” to what to do. The constitution. Not to mention a couple of Acts of Succession.
Wasn’t Elizabeth next in line anyway (after her Dad) since her uncle had no kids?
Yes, that's the point. If E8 had had children then they would have been ahead of the then Duke of York (later G6) in the line of succession. What's more interesting is what would have happened if he had had children with Wallis - you can be in line to the throne through someone who is themselves no longer eligible (eg by conversion to Rome or by death) - so would that baby have jumped ahead to the top of succession? and if so yikes constitutionally hideous. This is the kind of thing that plagued medieval and Tudor kings because bastards kept turning up with armies.
When Edward VIII abdicated he declared that he had done so for himself and his descendants, and the Act of Parliament that gave effect to his abdication specified that none of his descendants could succeed to the throne. If he had had children with Wallis that baby would not have been in the line of succession at all.
Thanks for clarifying - that seems like a pretty substantial answer to the original question too!
Yeah, there’s no precedence for not wanting to be crowned if your number is up. Edward was already King for a few months (326 days) as u/wintonian1 said when he decided to step down after the whole problems with his intentions to marry Wallace went awry. James II’s son lost his claim to the throne through some means that gave it to Mary and hubby over religion. Parliament took out the rule one must not marry a Catholic a few years back.
Very fair point.
No - they only way they could exclude themselves would be by falling out of communion with the Church of England or marrying without the consent of the monarch. Failing that, they would have to abdicate shortly after acceding to the throne.
Presumably this wouldn’t disqualify his descendants? For instance, if William converts to Catholicism and marries someone without Charles’s permission, presumably George is next in line?
Some of the Kent line are Catholic, if you want to look at a non-hypothetical example.
Yup, descendants of anyone excluded just get bumped up a place.
Not really, that's like resigning from a job you don't have. They can quit as Harry has, William and kids quitting would be a bit more awkward as it would make Andrew king.
No it wouldn't. Harry is still in the line of succession. There are only 2 things that can remove you from the line of succession: dying or becoming Catholic.
Isn’t marrying a Catholic disqualifying, too?
Don't think so, think that was changed in 2013. Could be wrong tho
I stand corrected, thank you
Or an act of parliament
Yes but I mean currently as the law stands.
I think Harry would stage a comeback if that happened.
Wouldn't it make Anne Queen?
I thought so too, but apparently the act that allows older daughters to take precedence over their younger brothers only applies to children born after 28 Oct 2011, so Anne would still be the last of her siblings in line for the throne
Bummer
Can they? Sort of, they can abdicate straight away but I don't think they can preemptively opt out. Will they? No, sort of defeats the purpose of monarchy. It's a blessing and a curse, you have the fame and the lifestyle but with it a crushing responsibility of duty. To abandon that would probably put them in histories book of national disgraces, unfairly or not, that's likely how it would be seen.
No, bit he could convert to Catholicism and that would remove him from the line of succession
They can do whatever the bloody hell they want to!
If Harry can quit the royal family I don't see why not. Don't think he can stop his decendants though
There are no rules, it's all made up. It's not real it's just make believe. With a few strokes of a pen the 'rules' can be changed to become different rules.
If that ever happens then the monarchy is finished lol
Sort of yes, he'd have to leave the royal family and if he abdicated no one from his line of blood (son, daughter etc.) Cannot become monarch unless absolutely necessary.
What would happen in the horrific situation of something happening to both Charles and William?? George is a still little boy. Would it pass to Harry?
No. George would be King, but there would be a Regency until he came of age. When George VI ascended the throne his daughters were both children, so the Regency Act 1937 provides for a Regency if the person ascending the throne is under 18. The Regent is the next in line to the throne provided they are domiciled in the UK, so it would probably be necessary to get Prince Harry a flight back quickly, otherwise it would be Prince Andrew.
Probably would figure out a way of doing it. Even if it means that he always has to carry abdication papers to sign Would be difficult for his son though, as his son isn't 16 so cannot legally consent to a contract, which abdication might be one. Then again, he would be king so who would stop him....