The woman we know in history as Queen Maud of Norway, for instance, never renounced her British succession rights (something which I don't believe is even allowed). However, as of 1896, when she married her first cousin (Prince Carl of Denmark, second son of the future King Frederik VIII), the then-Princess Maud of Wales was subject to the 1772 Royal Marriages Act. As it was, Queen Victoria would have been the reigning British monarch to grant consent to the union, which did not involve a Catholic.
Put all these facts together, and one has that Maud remained in line to the British throne -- and even transmitted succession rights to her own descendants (not subject to the 1772 RMA, thanks to the Farran exemption). As such, it would technically have been possible for her to inherit the said throne. Ditto for her son, King Olaf V of Norway.
My question is: would the NORWEGIAN constitution have allowed such a thing, in the hypothetical scenario whereby the country's queen consort or king succeeded as the sovereign or another country?
Holding multiple thrones simultaneously has not been entirely unheard of, in European royal history -- England or elsewhere. But each case is different: this is not like, say, the mutually exclusive royal successions of France and Spain (as established by the great powers in 1700, as a resolution to the War of the Spanish Succession).
732
Message Thread
« Back to index