I recently came across this list of people in the line of succession to the British throne. People have taken the trouble to list the first 800 or so people in line, taking care (according to the Act of Settlement of 1701) to skip over anyone who is Catholic, is married to a Catholic, or was at one point married to a Catholic. (Query, for anyone who knows: This is weird.... I assume that if you renounce Catholicism you're back in the line of succession? What if you marry a Catholic but your spouse then renounces Catholicism? Are you back in line, or is removal from the line of succession permanent? Would someone who had divorced a Catholic have to get their ex-spouse to renounce Catholicism to get back in line?)
Point 1 is that what would rock is if Prince William started dating a Catholic. Constitutional crisis! (The Catholic prohibition is sitting there, but it's apparently never been used, and as matters stand today, the prohibition won't be used anytime soon, since the first disqualified person doesn't show up in the list until the 20s.) Of course these British constitutional statutes are just statutes, but (1) it's an important statute, (2) under the Statute of Westminster of 1931, this may require the assent of all the Dominions, and (3) they'd probably have to do some rethinking of this whole King-as-head-of-the-Church-of-England idea.
Point 2 is that the King of Norway is 60th in line of succession. Now 60th is pretty far down, but Norway has been trying to take over England since the year 787! Is there a political thriller plot in there somewhere: The Lindisfarne Legacy? (Note that apparently in V for Vendetta, there's a reference to a "Queen Zara," apparently implying that Zara Phillips, who's now 11th in line, was the most senior Family member to survive a 1980s nuclear war. For Norway-like plots involving currently non-functioning thrones, the heir to the Romanian throne is at #82, the heir to the Serbian throne is at #89, and one pretender to the Russian throne is at #107.)
UPDATE: I know what you're thinking: Isn't "The Lindisfarne Legacy" a course at St. John's College in Durham, England? Not the same thing. You're also thinking: Didn't the Vikings already rule over England from 1016 to 1042, during the reigns of Cnut and Harthacnut? It's tricky to draw these sorts of distinctions, but Cnut is generally thought of as a Dane, not a Norwegian. The Queen of Denmark doesn't come into the British succession until #209.
So keep this in mind, you jokers: If the Norwegians make a play for the crown again, Mel might have a new Anglophobic movie to make.
These things can turn bad.
What is interesting is that this restriction doesn't apply to Governors General, who act generally in Her Majesty's capacity in overseas nations she governs, such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Canada in the twentieth century alternated French and English Governors General, so I imagine that at least one of the French ones (perhaps even the present Governor General, Her Excellency Michaelle Jean) has been Catholic.
See:
8(2) Halsbury's Laws of England par 39, states: "a person who is a Roman Catholic or marries a Roman Catholic, is excluded from inheriting, possessing or enjoying the Crown [...]".
see here
It is a matter of statutory interpretation though, so it's currently an open debate. The last person excluded from succession because they married a catholic was Ragnhild Lorentzen of Norway who married a Catholic in 2003.
see here
The highest person excluded because of the Acts of Settlement is the Earl of St. Andrews, George Windsor. He would be 23st in line of succession (Ragnhild would be 71st). see here
It's all very silly and pretty antiquated, but fascinating nonetheless.
Why? He can date them he just can't marry them.
Boys just want to have fun? Don't they.
Actually, I understand that it takes more than merely signing into a hotel as married, at least here in CO, but common law marriage has always scared me, for that reason.
Or, another scenerio, heir meets a Catholic of the opposite sex, and they go somewhere like CO with common law marriage. Maybe they sign in as married, maybe not. But then later, the Catholic sents a photoshopped picture of them having a marriage ceremony to the heir and asks for $1 million to keep it secret. $10,000? At some point, I would think it might just pay the heir or his/her family to make this go away. And, interestingly to me, a wedding picture would be a lot more damage than a picture showing the heir engaging in sex, regardless of the sex of the partner (and maybe even species).
Anyone seen this movie?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0274166/plotsummary
It's actually pretty funny
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0274166/plotsummary
It's actually pretty funny
Yeah, that was the first movie I thought of also.
But, no, it's not funny.
The current justification for the law is the status of the King/Queen as head of the Anglican Church and Defender of the Faith.
It may come as a surprise, but I find the first of these to have some validity: The head of a denomination should belong to that denomination, and so should his/her spouse. Otherwise, the Head's commitment to the religion starts looking shakey.
The continued use of the term "Defender of the Faith" rankles, however, since it was given to Henry VIII by Pope Leo X. That makes it a bit tough to swallow that he and his successors have kept using the title.
One often hears criticism of the royal headship of the Anglicans on the basis of the rancid behavior of the Windsors in recent generations. Charles will presumably be the head of the English church, despite all the People Magazine behavior. But as a Catholic, I would have to defend the right of very flawed people to embody a faith. Many popes have been very poor Christians, beginning with the first of them, at times.
presidential line of succession
Of course, if it sooner or later comes down to fate, I guess that Prince William might as well be the one, in the eyes of many Catholic girls.
Remember when you drink to the king to hold a saucer of water under the table so you are drinking to the King Over the Water!
Actually, England did have a (Roman) Catholic head of the (English) Catholic Church--the same James II. It didn't work out very well (grin) which occasioned the limits on succession.
And it faced another crisis when the future George IV married an RC while on the continent. George III had the marriage annulled (which also didn't turn out very well).
But England had a long run of non-English monarchs. James I, from Scotland. Then three native-born kings, then William and Mary (William being from the Netherlands), then George I and I think II (one or both of whom barely spoke English).
I saw one American televised program on the British monarch (perhaps the marriage of Charles to Dianna?) where the talking head expressed admiration for their so-many centuries of "unbroken monarchy" or something like that. I chuckled -- it's only unbroken if you don't count, oh, monarchs killed off by their successors, or their subjects, or run into exile. And forget about Cromwell.
Right now, succession by a Jewish, Mormon, Buddhist or Muslim person is fine. It's just the papists who are cut out.
Another odd tidbit: Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the second, is a descendant of Mohammad (through marriages from the Spanish monarchy), and therefore many muslims end their daily prayers wishing her (and her cohort of codescendants) well.
Is this true? Do you have a source for that?
He went from Norway to Constantinople via Russia; led armies from Constantinople to Syria, to Algeria, and to Sicily; went back to Norway and became king; and finally died fighting in England.
He probably deserves as much credit for Guillaume le Bâtard's victory as Hastings as William himself.
The fear that King James II would do just that was one of the original motivating factors behind the revolt against him.
In 1701, the English population of Mormons was rather low (grin). Basically, Englishmen were Rome, England, or other protestant. The last had been pretty vigorously cracked down on under the Tudors, but by the early 1700s were grudgingly tolerated (I forget when the Toleration Act was passed, but it was around there). James II had tried to reach out to the misc. protestants, without much success. So, in the context of the time, the limitation to RCs was logical.
Some of the statutes and battles of the time are a bit amusing. They'd pass statutes requiring that everyone attend Church oF England services. The other protestants would do so, then go off to their own, or attend official services just a few times a year. So they passed Occasional Conformity Acts to penalize that.
Another amusing thing: Church of England clergy have "apostolic succession" (basically, their pedigree, which means official status -- a bishop must trace his "ancestors" as it were back to an apostle) under Roman Catholic law. All their original bishops started out as Roman Catholic, and thus had the ability to consecrate more bishops under RC canon law. They could be ordered not to do so, but even so, their actions were valid if undertaken. For this reason the RC church has always worried about a bishop going over the hill, in a way it didn't worry about a priest (who cannot ordain new priests).
When I was a kid, and Roman Catholicism was stricter, the instructions were that if you were dying, get an RC priest. If you can't, get an Episcopalian, since any sacraments they administer are valid.
Oh, and for other trivia, Camilla's ex-husband is Catholic, and Charles' stepchildren (one or both of whom may or may not be Charles' biological children) are both Catholic.
cathy :-)
It illustrated, I thought, the power of juries in days when trials were often before multiple judges. The first judge essentially ordered the jury to find them guility -- seditious libel consisted of any ordinary person meddling in the government, which was none of his business. The second judge instructed them that it could not be libel, since they had only spoken to the king himself, and you could not libel the king, to the king. The two judges then got into an argument before the jury. Apparently at the time, judges' instructions were more like advice, with the jury then hashing out the law based on which judge seemed more authoritative.
Keep in mind that the succession is valid, but not licit, under cannon law. Best not to stray far from RC clergy if you plan on dying any time soon.
But an Orthodox priest can do the job in a pinch. He just probably won't *want* to, if he finds you're a papist.
Those lucky Englishmen will be able to top off their dinners of lutefisk and melted butter with with a nice sheet of lefse slathered with more butter, "sprinkled" with sugar to a depth of a centimeter or so, and rolled up like a big fat cigar. Uffdah!
Also, no more tea in the UK -- they can drink coffee like the rest of us -- preferably after it has simmered in the pot long enough so that a spoon stands in the cup with no support.
And the "faith" to be defended will, of course, be Lutheran.
Personally, I'd like to make them wear horned helmets, too, but real Vikings didn't actually do that, so I'll stick with lutefisk, lefse, Luther, and lots of coffee. It's all good for cardiovascular health!
I didn't have a good source handy when you asked for a citation on Elizabeth II's descent from MOhammad, however, I have found a good one from alt.talk.royalty (forgive the long paste)
Except that the Queen is also the titular head of the Church of Scotland which is Prebyterian and not Anlgican.
You were sadly misinformed. Pope Leo XIII, after investigating the historical operation of Anglican ordinations, declared their orders invalid in Apostolicae Curae in 1896.
Having recently moved to Fargo from the UK, I must say I am enjoying such delicacies, Uffdah Tacos in particular.
The only way you'll stop us drinking tea is when you pry the teapots from our cold, dead hands!
As Nigel Powers (played by Michael Caine) so aptly said in “Goldmember,” “There's only two things I hate in this world: people who are intolerant of other people's cultures--and the Dutch.”
In the late 90s, Charles was trying to get that particular rule overturned and to make the King/Queen of Engliand no longer the head of the Church. I think he's had to put that idea on hold until HRH Mom kicks it.
Sadly, I knew Dave Hardy when he and I were very, very young. :-(
Not sure why he is so scary, but anyone else find it odd that the Sec. Treas is #5? We aren't a state controlled economy; why is that position ahead of Sec. Defense? And, anyway, aren't most of these positions in the line-up pretty lame? I mean, the Sec of Housing and Urban Development? The Sec of Education? These are who we choose to succeed the president?
Well, I guess we're not expecting the top 3 to all get knocked off, but a well planned terror attck that takes them out at once (no chance to hide the successors) could do it.
At least defense is constitutional.
"If we were in that kind of catastrophe, perhaps, if anything, we might want the National Security Advisor and Secretary of Defense to stay in their positions, doing what they (hopefully) do best?"
And let Roger Rabbit be president?
As to your second point, what follows is mostly speculation. It seems that when the President and others die, we want the sort of politician who would make a good President. It's not obvious that we want someone who's all into military stuff, even though in that circumstance we're probably under attack; while there would be the advantage of experience, there would also be the disadvantage that the Secretary of Defense or the National Security Advisor might be too closely associated with a trigger-happy, pro-military strategy, and it might be good to have someone who isn't wedded to a particular strategy. It might be good to have, say, State and Defense duking it out and having a President who can listen to their views and then decide.
(Of course, under the current system, sometimes the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense will be President. But this isn't an argument for never letting them be President; it's just an argument for not giving them an inherent leg up because of their subject area.)
Now who's a good politician to replace the President? The high-ranking Congressional officers at #3 and #4 qualify that way; and Cabinet members are probably the closest you can come otherwise within the Executive Branch. Now, it's true that cabinet members are often narrowly focused on their own subject areas and don't have all-around experience (is that what you mean by "Roger Rabbit"?); but it's not clear who else you would get within the Executive Branch.
Perhaps that's an argument for going further down into the Legislative Branch and bringing in high-ranking members on Senate or House committees; but that increases the chance that you'd have a President of a different party than the rest of the Executive Branch.
2. At least Sec. State; Defense and Nat. Security Advirsor know about an important area - a crucial area if such a terror attack were to occur, killing the Pres, VP and any others in line before them. Obviously in such a circumstance, national security and defense would become top priority quickly. Having the Sec. of Education take over would be like handing the presidency to a randomly chosen lottery winner. There is little likelyhood that the person could handle the crisis -- even with good advisors.
Outside of the show, it's worth keeping in mind that the various secretaries are in charge of very large portions of the federal government, and thus have more relevant experience to leading the country than a random guy on the street.
If memory serves, QE2 is directly descended from the James' of Scotland. A daughter was married to a something etc. ending up in the German chain leading to QE2.
Take over UK. Ha!
Mark Humphrys's pretty convincing arguments, Sasha is also a descendant of Mohammed, as is every living human of European descent, and perhaps almost every living human. (Of course, by Humphrys's arguments, Mohammed is not unique in this respect; millions of other people alive in his time would also be such a common ancestor.)
(BTW, this year is the centennial of another Henrik's death.)
The president pro tem is not a high ranking officer of the Senate in any meaningful sense. It is usually (always?) occupied by the longest serving senator in the majority party.
It would make more sense for the #4 spot to go to the Senate Majority Leader. For that matter, it would make more sense for the House Majority Leader to be in there somewhere too; perhaps the Whips as well. My guess is that the House Majority Whip has more of a mandate to run the government from representatives of a majority of the people than the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs.
If that is the goal, you shouldn't have the Speaker or President Pro Tem at all. But if you do, and you have them before the cabinet, why then rush back to the cabinet before going to any of the other principal leaders of Congress? The priority really makes no sense.
BTW, where is the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence? Aren't those both cabinet ranks? What about U.N. Ambassador and U.S. Trade Rep?
You'd have to ask Pres. Truman (as Wiki notes, the last revision of the succession was signed into law in 1947, adding the Speaker and President pro tem back in. Between 1886 and 1947, the cabinet was the only line of succession, and before 1886 the President pro tem and the Speaker were the only ones in sucession)
Homeland Security wasn't added to the succession when it was created. There is legislation pending to do so. (Currently, the succession runs in order that the departments were created, but Homeland Security, if passed, will get added after the AG and before SecInterior).
The others you mention may be considered "cabinet-level", meaning they can attend cabinet meetings, but they are not officially part of the Cabinet.
Hmmm. My memory of that era is not what it once was ... but wasn't the last attempt by a Norwegian monarch to assert his claim to what, at the time, passed for the English throne, more like 1066? The collapse of the North Sea Kingdom after the death of King Canute left claimants scattered about, and the issue reached crisis proportion with the death of Edward the Confessor. One of the claimants, Harald of Norway, with an assist from the treasonous Earl Tostig, gave it a shot at Stamford Bridge but lost to Harold Godwinson, who had been elected King by those Saxon earls who happened to be around when needed. Of course the deaths of Harald and Tostig didn't take the pressure off for long, as William the Bastard landed at Pevensey a few days later, leading to the development of modern taxation.
Something like that, anyway.
(This is even setting aside a broader theory, under which you can consider the Normans themselves Norwegian, in which case the unsuccessful Norwegian attempt in 1066 was followed by a successful Norwegian invasion later the same year, and it was Norwegians in England for centuries onward! Note: The Stuarts had Norman blood; William III (of Orange) had Stuart blood; not sure about the Hanoverians.)
Yes. I went to my outhouse reading, The World Almanac
House of Hanover:
Hence through son/daughter/grandson etc. to QE2.
Also, in some states the governor just appoints a Member of Congress and that person votes for a Speaker.
Actually, that was decided well before Mary died. In the same year William and Mary were crowned (1689), the Bill of Rights established that if Mary died, William would continue to rule. Mary died five years later.