Michelle Henke's Succession Rank Change

taylorandrian wrote:Michelle Henke's Succession Rank Change: In the novel "Uncompromising Honor," Michelle Henke's succession rank is referred to as third in line to the throne, a change from her previous designation as fifth in line. The change is mentioned by the Detweilers and a group investigating the existence of the "Other Guys" in Old Chicago on Earth.

It is unclear if two individuals in the line have passed away as a result of the Yawata Strike, as this information is not explicitly stated. It is possible that the change in Michelle Henke's rank is due to other factors such as promotions, resignations, or changes in the rules of succession. Without further information, it is impossible to determine the exact reason for the change.

I think we've discussed this in the past and think the Detweilers were wrong. This is a slip-up in RFC's part, most likely, but in-universe we can blame the Detweilers having somehow bad information and/or poor interpretation of Manticore Succession Law.

Her position in the succession line has nothing to do with her military rank. As far as we understand on Manticore law, the succession is a simple primogeniture rule, so the heir to the throne is Elizabeth's son, Crown Prince Roger, followed by her daughter Princess Joanna, then her brother, formerly Crown Prince Michael, now Duke of Serisburg. Her aunt and Mike's mother, Caitrin Winton-Henke, would have been next, before Mike herself.

Though there is a special rule in the Constitution: the monarch must be married to a commoner. So what happens to their position in the line of succession if they marry a noble? Caitrin Henke married a noble who either was or later became Earl Gold Peak, so maybe she got removed from the line. It doesn't look like it, because when we meet Mike, she's introduced as being in line for the throne after her older brother and her mother. However, once Edward Henke died and she became a widow, she would have got reinstated, as the precedent of Queen Elizabeth II's accession showed (she was a widow of a noble). Princess Joanna could have removed herself by marrying a noble too, but given that the story shortly prior to UH described Crown Prince Roger's marriage to Rivka Rosenfeld and Joanna is necessarily younger, it's unlikely (though not impossible).

I agree that this is explainable on the assumption that the Detweilers are mistaken, but their error would be more along the lines of not taking proper account of the changes in the line: at one point, Mike would have been fourth in line after Michael, her mother and her brother. Her brother's death would move her up to third, if it happened when Michael was still officially heir. She would be bumped to 5th once Roger and Joanna entered the succession, which does _not_ happen at birth. Not, in fact, until their fitness for the job has been verified sometime around age 14 or 15, something the D's may have forgotten, or not seen confirmed.

RFC has confirmed that the constitutional requirement to marry a commoner applies only to the person currently designated as heir, and only as long as they are not potentially superseded by a living child [I think - he wasn't really clear on when the requirement lapses]. Someone who isn't subject to this but later becomes heir because of the death[s] of the intervening parties would inherit the Crown regardless of who they had married.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

taylorandrian wrote:Michelle Henke's Succession Rank Change: In the novel "Uncompromising Honor," Michelle Henke's succession rank is referred to as third in line to the throne, a change from her previous designation as fifth in line. The change is mentioned by the Detweilers and a group investigating the existence of the "Other Guys" in Old Chicago on Earth.

It is unclear if two individuals in the line have passed away as a result of the Yawata Strike, as this information is not explicitly stated. It is possible that the change in Michelle Henke's rank is due to other factors such as promotions, resignations, or changes in the rules of succession. Without further information, it is impossible to determine the exact reason for the change.

I think we've discussed this in the past and think the Detweilers were wrong. This is a slip-up in RFC's part, most likely, but in-universe we can blame the Detweilers having somehow bad information and/or poor interpretation of Manticore Succession Law.

Her position in the succession line has nothing to do with her military rank. As far as we understand on Manticore law, the succession is a simple primogeniture rule, so the heir to the throne is Elizabeth's son, Crown Prince Roger, followed by her daughter Princess Joanna, then her brother, formerly Crown Prince Michael, now Duke of Serisburg. Her aunt and Mike's mother, Caitrin Winton-Henke, would have been next, before Mike herself.

Though there is a special rule in the Constitution: the monarch must be married to a commoner. So what happens to their position in the line of succession if they marry a noble? Caitrin Henke married a noble who either was or later became Earl Gold Peak, so maybe she got removed from the line. It doesn't look like it, because when we meet Mike, she's introduced as being in line for the throne after her older brother and her mother. However, once Edward Henke died and she became a widow, she would have got reinstated, as the precedent of Queen Elizabeth II's accession showed (she was a widow of a noble). Princess Joanna could have removed herself by marrying a noble too, but given that the story shortly prior to UH described Crown Prince Roger's marriage to Rivka Rosenfeld and Joanna is necessarily younger, it's unlikely (though not impossible).

The marriage rule is explicitly said, (in The Universe of Honor Harrington essay) to only apply to the crown prince or princess. So if you are already married to a noble or an off-worlder when some disaster makes you the heir or the monarch I'm 99% sure that this is just fine.

I think because of Elizabeth II, the rule was clarified that the First in line had to marry a Commoner. Elizabeth was second or third in line when she married her husband. And was third on line in line when her older brother died, then second in line when her brother became king. What that did to Heirs Presumptive (e.g., younger siblings before their older siblings married and had children) is not clear.

Fox2! wrote:I think because of Elizabeth II, the rule was clarified that the First in line had to marry a Commoner. Elizabeth was second or third in line when she married her husband. And was third on line in line when her older brother died, then second in line when her brother became king. What that did to Heirs Presumptive (e.g., younger siblings before their older siblings married and had children) is not clear.

Here's what RFC said on 11-Jan-2014 in "weird speculation vis a vi Travis Long (EARC SPOILERS)"

runsforcelery wrote:Caitrin could have married Gold Peak before Roger married. She delayed her wedding so that Angelique could have the support of her best friend at her own wedding. The heir to the throne is required to marry a commoner; there have been references in the books to the fact that individuals who were not the heir at the time of their marriage and married someone from the nobility is not required to divorce his/her current spouse and marry again. The Constitution accepts that there will/may be occasions upon which the heir dies without producing an heir of his/her own with a commoner spouse but does not require someone who isn't heir to defer his/her marriage until the heir marries "just in case."

So the younger siblings are presumably included in that "someone who isn't heir" -- and thus they's also not be required to defer their marriage until their older sibling, the heir, had a kid (or two).


But what I'm wondering is whether that Constitution restriction is also written such that it applies to the King or Queen; should their either assume the throne before marriage, like Elizabeth III did (being only 15 when her father was assassinated), or if they remarry, like Michael I did (after his first wife died towards the tail end of the Manticore Plague).

Actually we don't know much about Mary Winton-Engelsman, his 2nd wife, so I guess we don't know 100% that she was a commoner. Though that seems likely.

Still, even if not a constitution requirement I suspect most members of the House of Winton are smart enough to realize its a good idea to also follow the spirit of the law and apply it to both Crown and Heir. (And specifically avoid rules lawyering like deliberately postponing marriage until you're crowned just so you can marry the nobel of your choice)

Jonathan_S wrote:So the younger siblings are presumably included in that "someone who isn't heir" -- and thus they's also not be required to defer their marriage until their older sibling, the heir, had a kid (or two).

Though it probably includes the heir's apparent heir too. In the case of a long-lived monarch (and with prolong it's going to be very common), the second and third generation after the heir will need to abide by the rule too. For example, if this rule applied in the United Kingdom, then both Prince Charles and Prince William would have been required to marry commoners (Kate Middleton was not a noble, but Lady Diana Spencer was).

Incidentally, a weird similar rule existed in France: the king or his heir could not marry a subject of theirs (I don't know if it was a written law or just custom). That's why all the Queens of France were foreigners.

But what I'm wondering is whether that Constitution restriction is also written such that it applies to the King or Queen; should their either assume the throne before marriage, like Elizabeth III did (being only 15 when her father was assassinated), or if they remarry, like Michael I did (after his first wife died towards the tail end of the Manticore Plague).

Actually we don't know much about Mary Winton-Engelsman, his 2nd wife, so I guess we don't know 100% that she was a commoner. Though that seems likely.

Most likely, such a loophole is so obvious it would have been plugged before the Constitution was ratified. My question, though, is if a widowed heir is allowed to marry a noble before accession.

Michael's marriage is morganatic, so Caitrine will always be his heir, then followed by Michelle.

Fox2! wrote:Michael's marriage is morganatic, so Caitrine will always be his heir, then followed by Michelle.

It's true that Princess Ruth is not in the line to the throne because she's adopted, not a "child of the blood" of Prince Michael. But Michael himself is in line and, as you said, so should Caitrin be. That means Michelle can't be third.

Fox2! wrote:Michael's marriage is morganatic, so Caitrine will always be his heir, then followed by Michelle.

Morganatic?! IMHO, that is a concept not found in the Star Kingdom. That was a feature of "more noble than thou" dynasties in Central and Eastern Europe. Thus any of Michael and Judith's children (Ruth doesn't count since she is Michael's step daughter) will before Caitrin in the succession.

Robert_A_Woodward wrote:

Fox2! wrote:Michael's marriage is morganatic, so Caitrine will always be his heir, then followed by Michelle.

Morganatic?! IMHO, that is a concept not found in the Star Kingdom. That was a feature of "more noble than thou" dynasties in Central and Eastern Europe. Thus any of Michael and Judith's children (Ruth doesn't count since she is Michael's step daughter) will before Caitrin in the succession.

Is Judith ever addressed/referred to as the Duchess Serisberg?