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
 
  #241  
Old 10-12-2011, 09:28 PM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 260
That might not be the worst thing in the world. The son could move to Australia and then there'd be no need for Australia to become a republic at all.
__________________

  #242  
Old 10-12-2011, 09:40 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 2,125
They are very smart in starting the process now rather than wait. If the firstborn for William and Catherine is a girl the discussions will take on a very different dynamic if the succession issue has not been addressed.
__________________

  #243  
Old 10-12-2011, 10:20 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,606
Exactly. I'm of the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
It could also cause problems in the Commonwealth, opening up a wider debate on the continuation of the monarchy which may not be welcome.
And then there's the obvious question of how equal should equality be? Let alone class distinction, should people be allowed to be wealthy by birth? Or should one's estate upon death go to the government so that the money can be divided equally among everyone? Just think, if a Canadian worth about $30,000,000 died, and it would be equally divided, that would be a dollar for everyone in Canada. The fact is, people aren't born equal. Some are more intelligent than others. Some are more attractive than others. Some are more healthy than others. People will never be entirely equal, and life will never be entirely fair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diarist View Post
The trouble with tinkering about with the Constitution is that it raises issues of equality, which carried to the logical conclusion, makes one question whether there should be a monarchy anyway..........
  #244  
Old 10-12-2011, 11:38 PM
Mandarin_Empress's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Madison, United States
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
The fact is, people aren't born equal. Some are more intelligent than others. Some are more attractive than others. Some are more healthy than others. People will never be entirely equal, and life will never be entirely fair.
I agree--of course, everyone is born with different personality traits, physical traits, and family circumstances. That's unavoidable. Shouldn't everyone have the same rights and opportunities, though, such as basic human rights, equal education and career opportunities, and equal justice under the law?

That said, I can see how bringing this issue to the forefront in the UK and Commonwealth nations can spark a debate about a whole host of thorny issues, which may include whether younger children or even extended family should have equal rights to inherit the throne (not to mention how that individual should be chosen), the irrelevance in modern times of the original underpinnings of monarchy, and the ultimate question of whether it should exist at all. It is a needed debate, whether it's welcome or not.

At a time when many other, more important issues are demanding immediate attention, I think this debate should happen at a different time for the UK public and government. Equal primogeniture is far from a pressing issue, and affects only the royal family (or perhaps also the aristocracy), so it shouldn't really be a matter of concern for the gov't. at this time. Basic human rights should be addressed first.

Of course, that doesn't mean royal enthusiasts can't debate it here--I just mean that it should not be a matter for national debate quite yet.
  #245  
Old 10-12-2011, 11:59 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
This could even see a situation where the thrones separate - e.g. if the legislation hasn't passed in say Australia at the time that William, Charles and the Queen die and William has a daughter and then a son (I know hard to imagine but so many things do happen that are hard to imagine) then the daughter would inherit Britain but the son Australia.
Presumably each country could include in its legislation a clause stating that it doesn't go into effect until the other relevant countries pass similar laws. (Or at least an option for it to be deferred and then brought into force later by an order in council.)
  #246  
Old 10-13-2011, 01:34 AM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 5,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diarist View Post
The trouble with tinkering about with the Constitution is that it raises issues of equality, which carried to the logical conclusion, makes one question whether there should be a monarchy anyway..........Alex
Well, not only have they started the process of equal primogeniture but also removing the Roman Catholic penalty but, if they manage to pull it off on the basis of equality all of the Aristocracy will have to be prepared to take the next hit.

I mean that if it's OK for Andrew to be the Duke of York, why is it not OK for Beatrice to be his heir and become "Duchess of York" in her own right? The ramifications of such a change are mind boggling but if they don't include them there may bes a case for the European Human Rights Court

I do however agree with removing the consequent loss of succession rights on marrying a Roman Catholic.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
  #247  
Old 10-13-2011, 02:37 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
Presumably each country could include in its legislation a clause stating that it doesn't go into effect until the other relevant countries pass similar laws. (Or at least an option for it to be deferred and then brought into force later by an order in council.)

As each of the countries is completely independent of each other and only share a Head of State each one has to pass it using their own legal requirements regardless of what happens in any of the others. Orders in Council only apply in the UK and have no bearing in each of the other nations so an Order in Council in Britain won't change the law in Australia, unless the Australian government passes the same order - the same with ordinary legislation.

Each of the 16 nations of which the Queen is Queen is totally independent of each other and each has to pass this legislation independently of the others.
  #248  
Old 10-13-2011, 02:58 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,830
Actually I think in a way with Parliament addressing these issues now may go a ways towards making the monarchy more relevant in this day and age. It puts forward the idea that with equal primogeniture, the monarchy (and the aristocracy) is no longer accepting of an archaic and outdated way of thinking that the female gender is less acceptable than the male gender. I think it would be retaining such a way of thinking that would endanger the monarchy and class structure that would serve as more of a cause for republicanism.

Since 1838, the monarchy has had three very long standing, respected and much beloved females as icons of what the monarchy stands for. Queen Victoria, Queen Elizabeth, Queen Consort and Queen Mother and Queen Elizabeth II. As an American, I'd really be hard pressed to sit down and name the list of Prime Ministers that have headed Parliament but I would wager that most people world wide would at least be able to name one - Margaret Thatcher.

Another point of view. If equal primogeniture was to be passed and enacted in 2012, I would think that it would really be such a wonderful tribute to HM who after dedicated and devoted service for 60 years as Queen to be remembered in the history books as the Queen who was on the throne when this was passed.

As far as the Roman Catholic aspect. I don't really believe that I've ever heard anyone in this day and age express the opinion that a RC in the line of succession would be a bad thing. As I believe I've read somewhere elsewhere on the board, it was primarily enacted to prevent the Stuarts from claiming the throne and also noted that if/when William does become King, it will be the first time in centuries that the Stuart bloodline will once again be a monarch.
  #249  
Old 10-13-2011, 03:07 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
As each of the countries is completely independent of each other and only share a Head of State each one has to pass it using their own legal requirements regardless of what happens in any of the others.
What I'm saying is that each country could independently include a clause in its own legislation saying that the legislation isn't effectual until similar legislation goes into effect in other countries. (It's how legislation that gives effect to treaties often works, so it's not a totally alien concept. If two countries agree to reduce import tariffs, both countries' changes to the relevant tax codes will hinge on the other country's enactment of its end of the deal.)

They wouldn't have to do it that way, of course, and ultimately I think this is going to involve a lot of cat-herding, but theoretically avoiding a split should be easy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Orders in Council only apply in the UK and have no bearing in each of the other nations so an Order in Council in Britain won't change the law in Australia, unless the Australian government passes the same order - the same with ordinary legislation.
That's what I had in mind. (By order in council I meant an order from each relevant privy or executive council. Sorry for the confusion.)
  #250  
Old 10-13-2011, 03:13 AM
Duke of Marmalade's Avatar
Majesty
TRF Author
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Posts: 9,644
Its an issue that cannot be surpressed for longer, it has to come through to make the institution at least look modern.
Britain is a country that has had great Queens, however, its does come with a sacrifice as women are those who have to give birth and raise a family at the same time when ruling a country, in most cases. Its an impossible task and while I dont want to go into detail, we can easily see the deficits in the life of QEII as a mother.

The modern generation might not be prepared for such sacrifices or unable to handle this kind of pressure with a media scrutiny a million times stronger than during QEII's time as a working mother. Plus, women destined to rule have to find a husband who will have to put up with the special male consort/family man role that is very demaning in its own right and needs a suitable personality in a time where divorce has become an option.

However, I dont think there is a choice about the firstborn being heir or heiress to the throne, it only follows the logic of modern time.
  #251  
Old 10-13-2011, 06:20 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: ., Israel
Posts: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Of course this isn't just a British matter anyway and will also need legislation in the other 16 realms (it may even need a referendum in some of them).

This could even see a situation where the thrones separate - e.g. if the legislation hasn't passed in say Australia at the time that William, Charles and the Queen die and William has a daughter and then a son (I know hard to imagine but so many things do happen that are hard to imagine) then the daughter would inherit Britain but the son Australia.
It's actually isn't legally possible, the Westminster Act determine that any future change to the line of succession should be approved by all commonwealth realms. Either all of them change the succession or none at all.
  #252  
Old 10-13-2011, 02:04 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,279
The Statute of Westminster isn't irrevocable. There's no reason why a country that so desired couldn't simply repeal that part of it in order to make such a change. (In countries like the United Kingdom and New Zealand that operate under the principles of parliamentary supremacy, no change in the law can be legally impossible.)

Harper backs British PM's plan to modernize royal succession - The Globe and Mail

Stephen Harper has informed British Prime Minister David Cameron that Canada will support his plan to modernize the royal succession – as long it doesn’t get in the way of fixing the economy.
  #253  
Old 10-13-2011, 06:03 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Green Bay, United States
Posts: 555
I hope the change happens, but somehow I feel like it will take some years.
  #254  
Old 10-13-2011, 06:13 PM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 3,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
The Statute of Westminster isn't irrevocable. There's no reason why a country that so desired couldn't simply repeal that part of it in order to make such a change. (In countries like the United Kingdom and New Zealand that operate under the principles of parliamentary supremacy, no change in the law can be legally impossible.)
I think that the Commonwealth unanimousness(?) relates to the dissolution of the Monarchy, not succession.
  #255  
Old 10-13-2011, 06:18 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 552
I think if this issue is put off on the basis of there being other, more pressing things that need to be dealt with then change will never happen. But by that argument then every government should only deal with the single most important, immediate issue of the day. Education reform is important but it will need to wait because we need to figure out what to do about healthcare. Wait, though, let's put healthcare on hold; the economy's horrible so let's focus on that. Hang on, hang on, the Middle East is blowing up AGAIN, we'll need to come back to the economy... and so on and so forth.

Additionally, different people have different thoughts on what's important. I don't agree with those who think this is a trivial matter or that it's about being politically correct. I think symbols are important and I think advancing and reinforcing the idea that women are not inherently inferior to men is important.

I also don't understand why people think the end of the monarchy is the natural end point of making changes that bring the institution more in line with modern society. If Henry VIII were to come back to life today he'd find many aspects of the British monarchy changed to the point of being completely alien, (I imagine he would be horrified :) ). And yet the institution has survived and I doubt that even the most stalwart traditionalists would advocate a return to a Tudor style monarchy.
  #256  
Old 10-13-2011, 07:30 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,287
Well in Canada the chnage may be more difficult that the Prime Ministers thinks, if a change in succession law is interpretted as a change to the office of the Queen which may well be the case.
In the case of an amendment related to the Office of the Queen, the use of either official language (subject to section 43), the amending formula, or the composition of the Supreme Court, the amendment must be adopted by unanimous consent of all the provinces in accordance with section 41.

Constitutional change is very difficult in Canada because of the need for provincial approval. It is virtually impossible to get all 10 provinces to agree on anything.
  #257  
Old 10-14-2011, 02:32 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,130
I can't see how the proposals can be so difficult to navigate through and I certainly do not think a change in who becomes monarch first - male or female - should be related to constitutional change (abolishing the monarchy and becoming a republic I would agree is constitutional, but not equal primogeniture). It is already established that by law a female may, under certain circumstances, become a monarch. Is it not simply a case of expanding slightly on such circumstances.
I also fail to see how a debate on this matter could possibly have a detrimental affect on fixing economies.
__________________
JACK
  #258  
Old 10-14-2011, 02:58 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacknch View Post
I also fail to see how a debate on this matter could possibly have a detrimental affect on fixing economies.
There's a possibility, it's not settled but it's a possibility, that enacting the change in Canada would require the use of the most strict formula for amending the Constitution (the unanimous agreement of Parliament and all ten provincial legislatures). Canadian politicians are extremely gun-shy about such things, as the last two attempts to "re-open the Constitution" failed after monopolizing political attention for quite some time, and the failures were a factor in the decimation of the governing party at the next election (worse than decimation, actually; they went from 151 seats to 2).

While this change wouldn't be nearly as controversial as the comparably much more major changes proposed 20 years ago, there's always a fear that a province or two might hold things up in order to extract some prized goody from the federal government.
  #259  
Old 10-14-2011, 03:41 AM
Dierna23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: -, Germany
Posts: 3,589
Sure, there might be more important things at the moment, but I personally can't wait to see this change happen. At last. A preference for male children and the exclusion from the line of succession because a member of the family marries a Catholic - all of this is terribly discriminatory and old-fashioned, such things shouldn't have a place in any society of the 21th century.
  #260  
Old 10-14-2011, 01:16 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dierna23 View Post
Sure, there might be more important things at the moment, but I personally can't wait to see this change happen. At last. A preference for male children and the exclusion from the line of succession because a member of the family marries a Catholic - all of this is terribly discriminatory and old-fashioned, such things shouldn't have a place in any society of the 21th century.
Discriminatory perhaps, but that discrimination applies to the very few people in the line of succession not to the society as a whole. Even barring Catholics from the succession does not impact on the Catholic marriage partner marrying a member of the BRF as they themselves are not dynasts, it only impacts on their non-Catholic marriage partner who is still free to marry who they wish if they are willing to give up their right to the succession. The proposed changes will still require Protestant succession, Catholics will still not be able to be the monarch.
__________________

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
Rules of Succession CrownPrinceLorenzo Royalty Past, Present, and Future 102 07-06-2015 04:44 PM
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession Elise,LadyofLancaster British Royals 942 03-09-2015 10:32 PM
Succession Issues ladybelline Imperial Family of Japan 921 11-03-2014 01:22 AM




Popular Tags
australia best outfit camilla carl philip chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events death duchess of cornwall fashion fashion poll felipe vi funeral germany hereditary grand duchess stéphanie infanta leonor king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king philippe king willem-alexander letizia maxima nobility official visit picture of the week president gauck president hollande prince carl philip prince charles prince daniel prince of wales princess ariane princess beatrice princess charlene princess leonore princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary style princess mette-marit queen elizabeth ii queen fabiola queen letizia queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima fashion queen maxima style queen rania queen silvia queen sonja royal fashion sayn sofia hellqvist spanish royals state visit sweden the hague united states of america victoria wedding willem-alexander


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:38 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]