The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #181  
Old 04-17-2011, 07:48 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
I am most definitely in favour of equal primogeniture for the monarchy, and the sooner the better. Like, next week. If it is wrapped up in a package with all the other aspects of inheritance of property and titles, it will get put on the back burner and nothing will happen, because such legislation would involve a review of the whole system. I think the issues can, and should be, severed.

Why?

Surely inheritance to any title should be equal - why should Beatrice be able to become Queen but not inherit her father's title?

It is sheer sexism at its worst and unless you fix the entire system then there is no point in fixing one part of it.

It could even lead to a situation whereby the Edinburgh title passes to William's son - the second born child while the eldest child gets the throne (if William has a girl and a boy and then he and Charles die before Philip).
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 04-17-2011, 08:04 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 2,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I have no real problem with equal primogeniture for the monarchy so long as it is extended to all titles e.g. Beatrice be able to inherit York.

All in the one piece of legislation - for all inheritiances the family must divide everything equally between all children and the eldest child, regardless of gender inherits any title.
But if the property is equally divided, then those great estates would cease to be by the third generation! Soon there'd be nothing worth inheriting for anyone; that's why male primogeniture came about originally.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 04-17-2011, 08:38 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
But if the property is equally divided, then those great estates would cease to be by the third generation! Soon there'd be nothing worth inheriting for anyone; that's why male primogeniture came about originally.
And is there a need for those great estates to be in the hands on one person rather than be in a trust to provide an equal income for all of the children?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 04-17-2011, 09:05 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 2,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
And is there a need for those great estates to be in the hands on one person rather than be in a trust to provide an equal income for all of the children?
Yes, because much of the money generated goes to maintain the estate itself. Those stately homes are hugely expensive to run, not to mention all the death duties, etc. If the income is equally divided, it can't be done.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 04-17-2011, 10:39 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,625
The reason I say that the male primogeniture issue can, and should, be severed, is to enable the anachronistic sexism inherent in the present system of inheritance of the monarchy to cease immediately. I believe it is a relatively straightforward issue and can, (and should, IMO), be severed, as, I understand, was the case in Sweden. If that particularly thorny issue is resolved, the rest can be dealt with at leisure.

The issues relating to inheritance of peerages involves consideration of more fundamental issues and the situation is also inextricably linked to property law generally, and it will take time to tease out all the strands and devise a new regime.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 04-17-2011, 04:06 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,234
Royal succession rules unlikely to change soon

David Cameron has played down the prospect of an imminent change in the rules of royal succession amid concerns that constitutional tinkering could spark a fresh campaign in Australia for it to become a republic.
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 04-17-2011, 04:39 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Las Vegas, United States
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
David Cameron has played down the prospect of an imminent change in the rules of royal succession amid concerns that constitutional tinkering could spark a fresh campaign in Australia for it to become a republic.
There are a number of items about the British monarchy that seem to come up repeatedly. The prohibition against Catholic monarchs, the relationship with the Anglican church, the title of "Prince of Wales", the male preference in the laws of succession, not addressing adoption, the fact that the monarch is still called "Defender of the Faith" even though that title was bestowed by a pope.

I think David Cameron is correct. Let them have a baby first. If it's a girl there will be overwhelming support to changing the law. It will be much easier. I disagree with the people who think it should be passed before there is a real person involved.

If you do it in the abstract then you will get all kinds of collateral discussions about the nature of monarchy, and why the former colonies still have a monarch. Once a real baby is involved, it will be much easier.

The real issue, I think is that if you change the rules for the monarch, then the rules governing all the peerages will be challenged.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 04-17-2011, 05:02 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,158
Clegg is right to state that waiting until a child is born is probably best. Look at Sweden-- Victoria was born first, then supplanted by her younger brother who at birth was styled the Crown Prince, then an act of the Swedish parliament made her the heir and Crown Princess. If anyone has hurt feelings, it is probably Victoria's brother and maybe her father (he reportedly was not happy about changing the line of succession). However, that monarchy is still standing.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 04-17-2011, 05:40 PM
Lenora's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 2,056
I'll try to express here my point of view upon this item.Apparently,in our egalitarian days,there is no justification for old primogeniture.From other side,there are still such relics as the lost of place if marrying a Catholic and the line to the throne instead of the election of the next monarch to be.So,the monarchy loses its traditional charm through some innovations.From one side,that's necessary and history has proved itself that some women rulers were much more successfull then their male sovereigns.Even though here I would remain the same,for example we do not know the exact number of children the royal couple is planning,if they have 2 daughters and decide not to have any more children or the wife can't bear more children I'm very welcome to this idea,as example the case of HM QEII who had no younger brothers,but if then appears a boy I would say that he should be a heir,we should not imply all the modernism in monarchy laws.
But an interesting incident may happen here.I know that under a Canadian law the first child is heir,even it is a girl.So if William and Kate have firstly a girl and then a boy,could she become the Queen of Canada under Canadian law and the boy the king of the UK under British law?Nothing apparently wrong,but it could split the Crown.Or maybe we see some new reforms as surprises.
Finally,I think neither Nick Clegg nor other should put the royals under pressure,so it;s better to leave the royal family to make the choice by themselves,apparently the old arrangements suit them just fine.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 04-17-2011, 05:41 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,625
I suppose the wait and see approach does make sense in this case, human nature being what it is, but I hope fears about what we might be doing here in our country are not keeping Mr Cameron awake at night.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 04-17-2011, 05:48 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenora View Post
Finally,I think neither Nick Clegg nor other should put the royals under pressure,so it;s better to leave the royal family to make the choice by themselves,apparently the old arrangements suit them just fine.
But Lenora, my dear, I don't think the royal family has a say in the succession. It was established by an Act of Parliament and the royals are subject to it, just as any citizen is subject to the laws of one's country.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 04-17-2011, 05:56 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenora View Post
Finally,I think neither Nick Clegg nor other should put the royals under pressure,so it;s better to leave the royal family to make the choice by themselves,apparently the old arrangements suit them just fine.

It's not up to the RF, it's up to the people, through their elected representatives. The Monarch does not actually rule Britain.

I bet it suited HM just fine to not pay tax.

The times they have a'changed, and the RF has to change to keep up otherwise they will be perceived as being an irrelevant anachronism, and that would not end well for them. They are on a high at the moment with William and Kate's popularity and the forthcoming wedding, but I have a suspicon that this well educated, modern, young couple might well consider it's time to end this sexist discrimination.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 04-17-2011, 06:01 PM
Lenora's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 2,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
It's not up to the RF, it's up to the people, through their elected representatives. The Monarch does not actually rule Britain.

I bet it suited HM just fine to not pay tax.

They are on a high at the moment with William and Kate's popularity and the forthcoming wedding, but I have a suspicon that this well educated, modern, young couple might well consider it's time to end this sexist discrimination.
Sorry ,it's up to them and these reforms are welcome ,but I don't think Britain (either England or Scotland) had ever a real sexist discrimination(with exception of Henry VIII).Russian monarchs,for example,had serious problems with it and when Catherine II ruled herself and reformed the old system,there were many obstacles and popular disapproval.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 04-17-2011, 06:56 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,625
Perhaps our definitions vary. I can't think of any discrimination more sexist than that which requires a firstborn female to be displaced from No. 1 position in the succession order merely because of the fact she is female.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 04-17-2011, 07:09 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
Perhaps our definitions vary. I can't think of any discrimination more sexist than that which requires a firstborn female to be displaced from No. 1 position in the succession order merely because of the fact she is female.
That's assuming she WANT the position in the first place. From what I've heard, royals close to the throne tend to be thankful they didn't get to sit on the throne. The Queen, as a young girl, was praying for a little brother so she wouldn't have to become Queen. I don't know about Prince Charles though, but he once commented he didn't mind waiting as long as he has, saying becoming a King would really restrict him--so my impression is he is prepared to be called to service as the King, but isn't in any hurry.

So in one sense, I do agree it's sexist, but it's not like people are eager to take the job. But I could be mistaken though. Don't get me wrong--I'm all for equal primogeniture, but I'm just pointing out that female royals might not be as eager to do away with it.

I have no idea what they really think, just pointing it out for consideration.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 04-17-2011, 07:34 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,424
This issue was discussed in 1982 when Diana was pregnant with William and I am sure if he had been a girl and then Harry a boy then the law would already have been changed.

As it is a wait and see approach suits everyone better as any debate about the monarchy could raise a whole series of issues that the royals themselves would like to see not debated e.g. why should it be the eldest child anyway - why not elect from one of the children or from some greater extent of the family.

As for comments about those close to the throne not wanting it and happy not to be the heir that would appear to be the general view. Edward VII thought his older sister would be Queen until he was about 8 or so and then was very upset to find out that he would have that role. George V made some comment about 'not being trained for it', George VI made the same comment (of course both were second sons and in George VI's case really until the moment it happened expected that it wouldn't come to him), Princess Margaret's comment to Elizabeth when their father became King was 'poor you'. Princess Anne has said at some point in the past - I think in 1982 - that if they did change the law then she didn't want it to change her position or that of her children.

I do think though that if they are going to do away with sex discrimination for one title then they have to do it for all titles - including the fact that girls can't pass on HRH but boys can - another example of sex discrimination within the royal family. It is built on that idea.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 04-17-2011, 07:42 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by pacomartin View Post
There are a number of items about the British monarchy that seem to come up repeatedly. The prohibition against Catholic monarchs, the relationship with the Anglican church, the title of "Prince of Wales", the male preference in the laws of succession, not addressing adoption, the fact that the monarch is still called "Defender of the Faith" even though that title was bestowed by a pope.
The title Defender of the Faith was initially given by a pope in 1521 but it was also removed by a pope when Henry broke with Rome.

It was then reissued as an Act of Parliament in 1544. The current designation then is an Act of the English Parliament not the original title given by Pope Leo X.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 04-17-2011, 09:09 PM
Anna Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: U.C., United States
Posts: 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchess of Darwin View Post
Agreed. I am hoping that by the time of Andrew's passing, the rules will have been changed to allow Beatrice to become The Duchess of York. It wouldn't be retrospective, given that the Dukedom hasn't been promised to anyone else. This is the twenty first century now
From what I know and I could be wrong, the laws usually don't change what is but what will be. For example, Princess Beatrice wouldn't become The Duchess of York, but a future firstborn daughter, say if Harry was hypothetically created The Duke of York, could become The Duchess of York. Although, Beatrice will lose that title upon marriage anyway and her status so it'd be pointless. Plus, it is a little retrospective if you think about it, not really, but kind of.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 04-17-2011, 09:45 PM
MRSJ's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 1,844
I didn't realize that all 16 commonwealths under the Queen (sorry if I'm using term incorrectly) had to agree to law changes, otherwise one would recognize first born son as heir and another just first born.....interesting
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 04-17-2011, 09:50 PM
MRSJ's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 1,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anna Catherine

. Although, Beatrice will lose that title upon marriage anyway and her status so it'd be pointless. Plus, it is a little retrospective if you think about it, not really, but kind of.
She will still be a Princess if married and she will remain an HRH unless the future monoarch removes it.....so I believe she keeps her status and title....her husband just can't take a title from her
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession Elise,LadyofLancaster British Royals 926 04-15-2014 11:41 PM
Succession Issues ladybelline Imperial Family of Japan 918 11-02-2013 12:14 PM
Rules of Succession CrownPrinceLorenzo Royalty Past, Present, and Future 95 10-25-2012 01:55 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta sofia jordan kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman picture of the month pieter van vollenhoven pom president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding william winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:06 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]