To Top

5 curious things about the line of succession to the British throne

Many changes are taking place in the line of succession to the British throne in the coming months. Not only did Prince George’s arrival make everyone below move down a place, but the Succession to the Crown Act will change many people’s place, and indeed in some people’s case their presence, in the line of succession.

Here are five things you may not know about the line of succession to the British throne.

1. ‘Where does it end?’

origin_6858125984The line of succession to the British throne is calculated from descendants of Electress Sophia of Hanover (this provision was set out in the 1701 Act of Settlement). This means the line of succession is limited (i.e. not everyone is in it), but because of the number of generations there have been since Electress Sophia’s time, there are over 5,750 people from all over the world in the line of succession to the British throne.

The full line of succession has been calculated by someone, but hasn’t been updated since 2011 and also doesn’t include Prince George. Click here to see that.

The last person in the line of succession is Karin Vogel from Germany, who is approximately 5,754th in line to the throne.

2. Regency

medium_5375098012In the United Kingdom, if the reigning Monarch is incapacitated or is too young to reign alone, then the first person in the line of succession (if they themselves are not incapacitated) is appointed regent.

Also, if the Monarch is temporarily absent from the country or temporarily incapacitated, the Monarch’s spouse and the first four adults in line to the throne form the Counsellors of State, who act collectively as Monarch. At the moment, these are The Duke of Edinburgh, The Prince of Wales, Prince William, Prince Harry and Prince Andrew.

Special provisions were made in a 1953 regency act that should The Queen die (at the time Prince Charles was a child), the Duke of Edinburgh would act as regent.

Should Elizabeth II become incapacitated, Prince Charles would become Prince Regent.

3. The Right to Marry

Wedding of Prince William and Catherine MiddletonAs it stands, the Royal Marriages Act 1772 states that no descendant of George II can marry without the reigning Monarch’s consent. If a descendant of George II does not seek or have the consent of the Monarch to marry, their marriage is void (i.e. it’s as if they never married).

Because there have since been many descendants of George II, there are estimated to be possibly hundreds of married couples in the United Kingdom whose marriages are actually void.

Fortunately, the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 will change this. When it is brought into effect, only the first six in line to the throne will need the Monarch’s permission to marry. If they marry without consent, they will be excluded from the line of succession, but won’t have their marriages voided.

The act is retrospective and states that marriages of descendants of George II are ‘unvoided’ if they were not one of the six in line to the throne who now are required to seek the Monarch’s consent to marry, in order to keep their place in line to the throne.

4. Male Preference

large_8754547707The British line of succession is one of the few in Europe which still operates a male preference line of succession. The system is called ‘male preference primogeniture’ and it means that females may only succeed to the throne if they have no brothers. The primogeniture part means that the eldest child succeeds.

Under the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, when the laws are effected, the British throne’s male preference will change to ‘absolute primogeniture’, which means that the eldest child succeeds, regardless of gender. This, however, only applies retrospectively to people born after 28th October 2011, so it won’t affect the current immediate line of succession.

The nearest people in proximity to the throne who will be affected by this are the 26th and 27th in line to the throne: Tāne Lewis (male) and Senna Lewis (female) respectively would have their places reversed because Tāne was born after 28 October 2011 and therefore loses his position of Male Preference over his older sister.

5. Renouncing the Right

EdwardVIII_1483627cThere is no way that one can ‘renounce’ their right in the line of succession. Theoretically, the only way this could be done prior to the Succession to the Crown Act being introduced is to convert to Catholicism or marry a Catholic.

Once the Succession to the Crown Act has been introduced, one could also marry without the Monarch’s consent if in the first 6 in line and become excluded.

Once reigning, a Monarch can, however, abdicate from the throne ‘renouncing’ their right to be King or Queen. This was the case with King Edward VIII who abdicated in 1936 to marry twice-divorced American lover Wallis Simpson (as head of the Church of England, the King wasn’t allowed to marry Simpson because she was divorced).

photo credits: Mikepaws, University Hospitals Birmingham, Defence Images & bobchin1941 via photopin cc

  • Will_Bower

    Long ago, I created a Google Alert for any articles mentioning Sophia, Electress of Hanover. You might be surprised by how ~rarely~ I receive any alerts. Thank you, Royal Central, for being one of the few outlets that gives her her proper due!

    • Keldon McFarland

      Why did you want a Google Alert for Sophia, Electress of Hanover?
      (That would be a good name for one of those “ironic” English punk rock bands, though.)

      • Will_Bower

        Well… It could be poetically stated, Keldon, that Sophia of Hanover was the ultimate victor of the real-world’s then Game of Thrones — as the Succession all flows to, through, and from her.

        …so I like to read news stories about her whenever they pop up.

  • Loopy

    Hi can you find a proper official website where I can find where I am in line to the throne.

    • Upharsin

      If you are a descendent of Sophia, Electress of Hanover, yes; follow the link in the article to the full List of Succession. If you’re not a descendent of Sophia, then no, because you’re not in the line to throne at all.

      • Ariadne

        What if someone is a descendant of Edward IV or one of the others?

        • Upharsin

          Nope – only those descendants of Sophia who are neither Roman Catholic nor married to RCs count in the List of Succession. Sorry!

  • David Dance

    Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the name of our country, The united kingdom is just the name of our political system we have.

  • Harrison Thomas LaTour

    Terra salica was a legal term used in the Salian code. It referred to land that could be passed on to male heirs alone, and could not be sold or otherwise disposed. In other words, it was not alienable. This tradition was practiced by other peoples, and was done to give prolonged stability to the family.

    Patrilineality (or agnatic kinship) is a system in which one belongs to one’s father’s lineage.[1] It generally involves the inheritance of property, names or titles.

  • Harrison Thomas LaTour

    Legal History of the Holy Roman Empire: Germanic Legal Codes, Salic Law, Vehmic Court, Early Germanic Law, Law of Thelberht, Danish Code

  • Sassy Countess

    Interesting how a monarch cannot marry a divorce because of being the head of the British Church, but Henry VIII, the man who created it, divorced many times and remarried. Also, Camilla is divorced, and Charles (also a divorce) married her. Does that mean that he cannot rule?

    • @RoyalCenEditor

      Royals who are divorced or marry divorcees do not lose their position in the line of succession.

      • Sassy Countess

        Thank you, then what does this mean, please? “as head of the Church of England, the King wasn’t allowed to marry Simpson because she was divorced” Can you tell me the correlation?

        • DuchessJewels

          Yes, I don’t understand. If King Edward VIII had to step down, how can Prince Charles rule?

          • Tom

            The rules were different in 1936.

            Since 2002, the Church of England has allowed divorced people to remarry in certain situations. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury was willing to bless the marriage of Charles to Camilla.

          • StarLightRose

            They also had to have permission from Queen Elizabeth II, to be able to get married. The first 6 people, in-line for the Throne, have to have the Monarchs permission, to get married. Since Prince David (King Edward VIII) parents didn’t approve of Wallis Simpson, they never would have given him permission to marry her. When he became King of England, Parliament disapproved of his wanting to marry Wallis, and since he didn’t want to rule England, as he said, “Without the woman I love”, he decided to abdicate.

            Even if he had remained King, and hadn’t married Wallis, and had never had any children, Elizabeth would have still have wound up being Queen, after Edward passed away, in 1972. If he had remained King, and had gotten married and had Children, then his oldest child, if he only had Female children, would have succeeded to the Throne, but if he had a daughter and a son, the son would have succeeded to the Throne, even if the daughter was born first. Now, it doesn’t matter, ’cause anyone born first, after October 28, 2011 will be next in-line. Like if Princess Charlotte had been born before Prince George, then the line of Succession would be like this; Charles, William, Charlotte, George, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie…and so on!

          • Kenneth C Stalsworth

            Mrs. Simpson was not known to George V. He was dead long before the relationship became well known. Queen Mary did know about her but only made her feelings known after her husband was dead. She really wasn’t the real reason for the abdication, she was just the “fall guy”. The Prime Minister, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and much of the Royal Household had major misgivings about Edward VIII and his style of kingship. They all conspired behind the scenes to create the crisis that caused the abdication. It is truly a very interesting and fascinating story.

        • Will Green

          Edward VIII was king,therefore head of the Church. Charles is still heir apparent, so since he married a divorcee before becoming king, it won’t matter, as he wasn’t head of the Church when the marriage occurred.

          • Arthur Rusdell-Wilson

            The Church of England is a very different church now from what it was then.

      • Greenman

        Also for those who do not accept Charles’ divorce remember his first wife, Diana, is dead making him a widower. Also Henry VIII waited until each previous wife was dead before remarrying.
        Supposedly Camilla won’t reign as Queen, she will remain Duchess of Cornwall.

        • Arianne

          I thought Henry wed Anne while Catherine of Aragon was still alive?

          • StarLightRose

            He did, but since his marriage to Catherine of Aragon was annulled, it was like they had never been married, so he was allowed to marry Anne Boleyn.

          • Kenneth C Stalsworth

            Clarence House released a statement when Charles and Camilla married that she would be known as Princess Consort when he assumes the throne. They are still sticking to this line. No believes that will be the case. There isn’t a title Queen Consort specifically. She will be HM Queen Camilla. I also believe that she will make a very good one at that. She has gotten a bad rap unfortunately.

        • jovan66102

          Not true of Henry. He married Anne Boleyn on 25 January 1533. Queen Catharine did not die until 7 January 1536. He married Anne of Cleves in 1540 and divorced her the same year. He married Catherine Howard later that same year and Anne of Cleves lived until 1557, outliving Henry and King Edward.

          • Tom

            Henry did not divorce either Catherine of Aragon or Anne of Cleves. Both were annulments.

            An annulment is different from a divorce, because the marriage is cancelled retroactively. It’s as if the marriage had never taken place. Legally speaking, Catherine of Aragon became Henry VIII’s mistress for 24 years, and Mary was a bastard born out of wedlock.

            Anne Boleyn suffered the same fate, in addition to being executed. Elizabeth then became a bastard as well. It was only in 1543 that Parliament passed legislation restoring Mary and Elizabeth to the succession.

          • Joshua Gonzales

            So I guess it should be “Annulled, Beheaded, Died, Annulled, Beheaded, Survived” 😛

        • Andrew

          Camilla will be queen, simply because she will be married to the king. No laws have been passed to prevent her from being queen. She is also the current Princess of Wales, though she decided to use her title of Duchess of Cornwall over Princess of Wales.

          • Bill

            I had read Camilla will be known as the Princess Consort…. don’t know if that is true… we will have to wait and see….

          • StarLightRose

            Actually, Camilla will be known as “Queen Consort” if/when Charles becomes King.

          • ssjs_2000

            If that were true, Prince Phillip would be the King, instead he is Prince Consort

        • Hairball

          Catherine of Aragon wasn’t dead. Anne of Cleves either. And hopefully Camilla will be Queen but they said, when they got married, that she would be Princess Consort when Charles became King.

          • StarLightRose

            No, actually, if/when Charles becomes King, then Camilla will be known as “Queen Consort”!

            “By law, Camilla will automatically take the title of “Her Majesty The Queen” as soon as Prince Charles becomes King. The proposed title of Princess Consort has never been used in Britain before and has little precedent elsewhere in the world.
            An act of parliament would be required to reduce Camilla’s title from Queen to Princess Consort and many warn such a move could create a dangerous precedent for future use.”

        • Arthur Rusdell-Wilson

          Henry VIII married Ann Boleyn when Katharine of Aragon was still living. He married Catherine Howard whilst Ann of Cleves was still living, (Though Catherine did not last long before the chop.) One must remember that there was no divorce then in the modern sense. Both Henry’s divorces were in fact declarations of nullity.

        • Randy Claywell

          Divorce is an absolute legal action. Divorces are neither accepted nor not accepted. By law they are.

    • Barbara Delprete

      The funny things is that Harry VIII created the Anglican Church just because he wanted to divorce. And now the head of this church cannot marry a divorced person????

      • Hamilton Jones

        Henry VIII did niot create the Anglican Church.

        • BJN

          Oh? Then who did?

    • Hamilton Jones

      Henry VIII did not create the British Church.

    • £ance

      I think that the word is divorcée, not divorce.

      • Sassy Countess

        Haha! You are right! Great catch. :)

  • robert

    They should also emphasize that the Succession is an Act of Parliament and that the Queen herself cannot change it. I get tired of responding to ninnies saying that they wish the Queen would bypass Charles and give the throne to William. She can’t! (Besides, it would be a bad idea, and the Queen does not have bad ideas.)

    • Nancy

      LOL…I get a big kick out of reading some of the questions on another site. If they would do a little research instead of clogging up the board with the repetitive questions, it would be better.

    • David Higgins

      She could if she outlives Charles.

      • YoKasta Martinez

        She wouldn’t have to if she outlives Charles. Prince William automatically moves up to become heir apparent.

    • Nicholas Roach


  • Leo of London

    I really love all your stuff on here. thank you for the time and effort it takes to make such great web site

  • George Knighton

    The last paragraph of the article seems to leave it to the reader to assume that a sovereign an abdicate, personally and more or less unilaterally. This is, of course, not true.

    It takes all three parts of the legislature, Commons, Lords and Sovereign, to pass an Act declaring that there has been a Demise of the Crown, or otherwise somehow altering the succession.

  • Monica Gray

    Am I right in thinking that Kate is the Duchess of Cambridge and not a Princess? The Americans seem to think she is a Princess.

    • BJN

      Yes, she is a princess. Pay no attention to American newspapers. My paper reported the death of the de jure King of France and said he was not a prince. Hopeless.

  • Roz Jennings

    Would Camilla become Queen when Charles becomes King. As she is a divorcee does this disqualify her?

  • Terry Trent

    I am good then…

More in Insight

Royal Central is the web's most popular source for the latest news and information on the British Royal Family and the Monarchies of Europe.

Subscribe via Email

To receive the latest Royal Central posts straight to your email inbox, enter your email address below and press subscribe.

Join 997 other subscribers

Copyright © 2016 Royal Central, all rights reserved.