More on succession and styles of address

[pengolodh_sc]

Greetings again

Here I come to bore you to tears with further thoughts on this topic.

Shaun is quite right about the special situation which concerned 
William IV and Mary II.  It is conceivable that in certain, very 
special situations, such a situation might again arise, but such a 
situation would be very special, and would, I believe, require 
setting aside the 1700 Act of Settlement.  Certainly, should such a 
situation arise, as Shaun sketched in his post, such a solution would 
legally only extend to the United Kingdom and to such nations of the 
Commonwealth which would accept having Hermione as a Queen Regnant.  

The above-mentioned Act of Settlement, introduced 1700 and originally 
named "An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown and better 
securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject", lays out the 
principles for succession, and some other principles.  For those who 
wish to read it, it can be read, among other places, here:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/2295/aos1.html

The short version is that succession rights are given to descendants 
of Electress Sophia of Hannover (1630-1714) born in wedlock. Roman 
Catholic descendants and descendants who are married to a Roman 
Catholic are excluded from succession.  Males are given precedence 
over females in the line of succession.  The first 100 persons in the 
line of succession to the British throne can be found at:
http://www.geocities.com/dagtho/succession.html

Am not certain this list is fully up to date - it was apparently last 
updated May 26th 2003, and I believe one of the Norwegian-Brazilians 
on the list has married a Roman-Catholic and herself converted since 
that date (Am thinking it was Victoria Lorentzen-Ribeiro, no. 66 on 
that list).  It can be read from the list that Princess Ragnhild, Mrs 
Lorentzen and Princess Astrid, Mrs Ferner, both daughters of the late 
King Olav V of Norway, are heirs to the British throne, despite never 
having had a right of succession to the Norwegian throne.

I will give an example on how the line of succession is built.  
Essentially, it is a question of starting at the top, assuming the 
person at the top is dead, and then work out who is the next person.  
In the case of Britian, this is how it goes for the first 20 or so:

If HM the Queen dies, HRH PRince Charles, the Prince of Wales, is the 
next person to succeed, as he is the oldest son of the Queen (1).  If 
he were already dead, his oldest son, Prince William, would be next 
in line for the throne (2).  If Prince William also should die, then 
his place goes to his younger brother, Prince Henry (3).  If Prince 
Harry is also out of the picture, then there are no more descendants 
of Charles, and one moves on to the next person in line - skipping 
HRH the Princess Royal for now (because she is a woman), we go to 
Charles' brother, the Queens second-oldest son Prince Andrew, the 
Duke of York (4).  If he hasn't made it, then one goes to his oldest 
daughter (he has no sons), HRH Princess Beatrice of York (5), and 
then on to her younger sister, HRH Princess Eugenie of York (6).  

The Duke of York has no other descendants, and the next person in 
line is HRH Prince Edward, the Earl of Wessex (7).  The Earl and 
Countess of Wessex have not yet any children, and so the next person 
is the second-oldest child and only daughter of HM the Queen, HRH the 
Princess Royal (8).  From her dissolved first marriage she has a son, 
Peter Phillips (9), and a daughter, Zara Phillips (10), who both 
stand in the line of succession.  We have now run out of children and 
grandchildren of HM the Queen.  

To proceed, we must revert to any siblings HM the Queen might have, 
or have had.  As it is, her only sibling, HRH Princess Margaret, died 
two years ago.  She had, however, two children, from her 1978 
dissolved marriage with Mr Amrstrong-Jones (made Lord Snowdon and 
Viscount Linley in 1961).  David Albert Charles, Lord Linley (11), 
himself has two children, the Hon. Charles Armstrong-Jones (12) and 
the Hon. Margarita Armstong-Jones (13).  Lord Linley's sister, Lady 
Sarah Frances Elizabeth (14), married Chatto, herself has two 
children:  Samuel Chatto (15) and Arthur Chatto (16).  

Now things start getting complicated.  We now have to move up to the 
siblings of HM the Queen's father, HM King George VI, whose older 
brother HRH the Duke of Windsor excluded himself and his descendants 
from the line of succession.  Therefore, what remains are the the 
younger brothers of King George VI.  Of these, the oldest was HRH 
Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester.  He died in 1974, however, and his 
oldest sun is now Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester (17), with a 
son, Alexander, Earl of Ulster (18), and daughters Lady Davina 
Windsor (19) and Lady Rose Windsor (20).  

After them come the living issue of the youngest brother of King 
George V, the late Prince George, Duke of Kent, whose oldest son is 
Edward, present Duke of Kent (21).  With the Kents come the further 
complication that several of them, in no particular order at all, 
either have converted to Roman Catholicism, or else are married to 
Roman Catholics, and are thus excluded from the line of succession - 
this includes the Duke of Kent's brother, Prince Michael of Kent, as 
well as the Duke of Kent's oldest son, George, Earl of St. Andrews, 
and his oldest son, Edward, Baron Downpatrick.

On how Royalty is addressed, I believe the following is accurate:

The ruling sovereign is always adressed "Your Majesty", and referred 
to as "Her (His) Majesty".  There may be an oddity exception to this 
when referring to the British Sovereigns as emperors of India prior 
to indian independence, but I am not entirely certain.

A Queen Consort, and a Queen Dowager, are adressed in the same manner.

A Prince Consort, as well as children of ruling sovereigns, living or 
dead, are normally entitled to be adressed "Your Royal Highness", and 
referred to as "His/Her Royal Highness" - in the case of male 
children, their spouses will be afforded the same accolade; in the 
case of female children of a ruling sovereign, this seems to not be 
the case, looking at the cases of the late Princess Margaret and the 
two marriages of HRH the Princess Royal.  In the case of divorce, a 
spouse granted the style of "Royal Highness" will tend to loose it, 
but not all the styles and titles associated - see the reversion 
from "HRH the Princess of Wales" to "Diana, Princess of Wales", and 
from "HRH The Duchess of York" to "Sarah, Duchess of York" for 
examples.

With the regards to granchildren of Sovereigns, they seem to be given 
the same style and accolade their fathers have.  Thus, in the case of 
the children of the late Princess Margaret and of HRH the Princess 
Royal, they are not styled "Royal Highness" (though I am given to 
understand that in the latter case, this was also ina ccordance with 
the wishes of the Princess Royal), but in the case of the children of 
Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, and of Prince George, Duke of Kent, 
they are.  The title of Prince/Princess is not carried by persons who 
are not either children or grandchildren (or spouses of such) of a 
Sovereign - the son and daughter of HRH Prince Michael of Kent will 
thus not receive the title of Prince or Princess, except if they 
happen to marry to such titles.