The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #181  
Old 04-17-2011, 05:02 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
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.
__________________

__________________
  #182  
Old 04-17-2011, 05:40 PM
Lenora's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Riga, Latvia
Posts: 2,135
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.
__________________

__________________
  #183  
Old 04-17-2011, 05:41 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,039
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.
__________________
  #184  
Old 04-17-2011, 05:48 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
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.
__________________
  #185  
Old 04-17-2011, 05:56 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,039
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.
__________________
  #186  
Old 04-17-2011, 06:01 PM
Lenora's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Riga, Latvia
Posts: 2,135
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.
__________________
  #187  
Old 04-17-2011, 06:56 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,039
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.
__________________
  #188  
Old 04-17-2011, 07:09 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 176
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.
__________________
  #189  
Old 04-17-2011, 07:34 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,919
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.
__________________
  #190  
Old 04-17-2011, 07:42 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,919
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.
__________________
  #191  
Old 04-17-2011, 09:09 PM
Anna Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: U.C., United States
Posts: 325
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.
__________________
  #192  
Old 04-17-2011, 09:45 PM
MRSJ's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 1,843
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
__________________
  #193  
Old 04-17-2011, 09:50 PM
MRSJ's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 1,843
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
__________________
  #194  
Old 04-17-2011, 10:05 PM
Anna Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: U.C., United States
Posts: 325
Yeah she'll be a princess, but she takes the title of her husband, correct? She will still be HRH, but not HRH Princess Beatrice of York, but whatever her husband's title will be. It's like Princess Alexandra. She was HRH Princess Alexandra of Kent, but became HRH Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Mrs. Angus Ogilvy when she married because that was her husband's title.
__________________
  #195  
Old 04-17-2011, 10:24 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anna Catherine View Post
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.

It is possible for the Queen to issue a new set of LPs recreating the title Duke of York allowing for female descendents to have equal rights with male ones.

It is also possible to change the LPs by an Act of Parliament and if Parliament is to change the primogeniture laws for the monarch then they could also (and frankly should do so in my opinion) change the inheritance remainders to other titles as well.

Beatrice will only lose her title if laws are passed to strip her of the title or the monarch of the day issues new LPs restricting the HRH Prince/Princess title to fewer people than those who qualify today.

She will always be HRH Princess Beatrice, even after her marriage. Princess Margaret, Princess Anne, and Princess Alexandra didn't cease to be Princesses when they married (and Alexandra like Beatrice is a male line granddaughter of a monarch).

Quote:
Originally Posted by MRSJ View Post
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

Yes - all of the 16 nations that have the Queen as their Queen will have to enact the same legislation otherwise the situation could arise where one person inherits Britain and another one becomes King of one or more of the other realms.

We share a Head of State but we all have an equal say in decisions like this and Britain simply can't change the laws without our Parliaments also passing those laws.
__________________
  #196  
Old 04-17-2011, 10:33 PM
Anna Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: U.C., United States
Posts: 325
I know she won't lose her HRH. I used Princess Alexandra as an example of what her title will be after marriage. I phrased what I was saying wrong. My bad..
__________________
  #197  
Old 04-17-2011, 11:16 PM
MRSJ's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 1,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anna Catherine
I know she won't lose her HRH. I used Princess Alexandra as an example of what her title will be after marriage. I phrased what I was saying wrong. My bad..
I get what you are getting at..... she becomes Mrs X but she doesn't lose her Princess style or HRH just the York part....before it just seemed you were saying she'll lose all styles/titles/status.....all clear now
__________________
  #198  
Old 04-18-2011, 02:22 AM
Esmerelda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn
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.
It took the Swedes two years to pass it through. They didn't have 16 countries sharing the same head of state or our current economic problems. They only did it after Prince Carl Philip was born, as the Republicans were hoping that King Carl Gustaf wouldn't have a son and refusing to pass the legislation would have meant the end of the monarchy.

I think our politicians will similarly ignore the issue until it becomes a problem and hope that William either has a son first or only daughters.
__________________
  #199  
Old 04-18-2011, 04:36 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,259
David Cameron warns: 'Change to royal succession laws could take years' | Mail Online

David Cameron has warned that it could take years to change a law giving male heirs priority in the Royal line of succession.

'This has been discussed before and everyone in the front line of politics agrees that this does need to change and there are conversations ongoing,' Mr Cameron told the Murnaghan show on Sky News today.

'But it clearly does take some time because the Queen is not just Queen of the United Kingdom, but many other countries around the world and so changes have to be changes that all countries take on board and put in place.'

New Zealand supports changes to Royal succession rules - Telegraph

New Zealand has pledged its support for a change to the rules of Royal succession which would clear the way for a first-born girl to succeed to the throne.
__________________
  #200  
Old 04-19-2011, 07:56 AM
Duchess of Darwin's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
It is possible for the Queen to issue a new set of LPs recreating the title Duke of York allowing for female descendents to have equal rights with male ones.

It is also possible to change the LPs by an Act of Parliament and if Parliament is to change the primogeniture laws for the monarch then they could also (and frankly should do so in my opinion) change the inheritance remainders to other titles as well.

Beatrice will only lose her title if laws are passed to strip her of the title or the monarch of the day issues new LPs restricting the HRH Prince/Princess title to fewer people than those who qualify today.

She will always be HRH Princess Beatrice, even after her marriage. Princess Margaret, Princess Anne, and Princess Alexandra didn't cease to be Princesses when they married (and Alexandra like Beatrice is a male line granddaughter of a monarch).
Very true. I doubt Beatrice will be stripped of her HRH, given she received her Coat of Arms, and Standard at the same age some people thought she would become Lady Beatrice Windsor.

As for her inheritence of the Dukedom of York, the loophole that she was born before the reforms, could be used (which would make my blood boil. Who would be forced to step aside for her? ) but there is no reason why she couldn't inherit York, provided Harry doesn't become an Earl, in order to receive it (something I really don't want to happen, much as I adore him*) Can anyone tell me why she can't anyway?

I have heard about the historical example of Princess Alexandra, Duchess of Fife. She was The Duchess of Fife in her own right, and her Son was able to receive the courtesy title of The Earl of Macduff. He predeceased her, but the Dukedom was able to go to her Famale line Nephew (the current Duke of Fife) when she herself died.

Am I unaware of a big change that happened? (this was post 1917) If so it would be great if the constitution could be ammended to allow Female inheritence again.

*No, not in that way
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread


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 941 02-24-2015 06:31 PM
Succession Issues ladybelline Imperial Family of Japan 921 11-03-2014 02:22 AM
Rules of Succession CrownPrinceLorenzo Royalty Past, Present, and Future 95 10-25-2012 01:55 PM




Popular Tags
belgium brussels carl philip charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events death duchess of cambridge fashion grand duchess maria teresa hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit ottoman poland president gauck president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris princess aimee princess ariane princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess haya princess madeleine princess mary princess mary fashion princess mette-marit princess of asturias queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia queen sonja royal royal fashion sofia hellqvist spain state visit stockholm sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:38 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2015
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]