Proposal for Equal Primogeniture Succession

[HM Queen Catherine]

Originally Posted by Mirabel

I was wondering whether, in countries with equal primogeniture like Sweden, do all titles now devolve onto the eldest child? Or is that limited to the Monarchy?

In Sweden it seems only limited to the Royal Family, since the 1980 reform was made to the Swedish Act of Succession. The reform states that the eldest child of the monarch, regardless of sex, is the first in line of succession. I don't think this applies to Swedish nobility.. but then their nobility is quite different from British nobility, so I cannot say for sure just what their rules of succession are/have been.

As for other countries with equal primogeniture - Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, Denmark and now Luxembourg - they deserve closer inspection as to the structure and application of the provisions.

I know that the change applies only to the royal succession in Denmark, and like Sweden, it doesn't seem to change whatever succession is in place for the nobility.

But the King of Spain did change the succession of the Spanish nobility to equal primogeniture in 2006, but this change apparently does not apply to the royal family. It should be noted that the change is only applied when the order of succession to the Spanish title is not specified in the letters patent of the title's creation.

[wbenson]

Discussion about legislation about the Duchy of Cornwall has been further moved to the Duchy of Cornwall thread, as it appears to have no direct impact on the line of succession.

[wbenson]

Royal family: Cameron begins process to allow first born daughters to accede throne - Telegraph

David Cameron has formally begun the process that could allow a first born daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to accede to the throne.

[Diarist]

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..........

And with the UK in dire staits at the moment, I would hope that Prime Minister Cameron could find better things to do with his time.........with a rise in unemployment yet again and people's living standards continually under attack, with a National Health Service unable to cope with the demands on it and an increasing sick and poor elderly population, I think that DC has enough on his plate already..........

We've had a huge amount of Constitutional change in the last few years in the UK; we need time to first absorb all these changes.....

Just my thoughts and not meant to offend
Alex

[NGalitzine]

It could also cause problems in the Commonwealth, opening up a wider debate on the continuation of the monarchy which may not be welcome. In some of these nations, such as Australia and NZ, there is already talk of a republic and in others like Canada the monarchy survives in part because it is ignored on a day to day basis and only becomes real when the monarch or member of the family is visiting. Other than that people dont really think about it.

I think like other PMs Mr cameron talks about the monarchy to take attention away from more serious issues.
Hopefully the Cambridges first born will be a son and the discussion will be put off again.

[Anna Catherine]

While I can see the point, I don't think they should keep putting off the issue. Regardless of a change in the Constitution, certain countries are going to become republics eventually anyway. Besides that fact, I think it's an issue that has been put off long enough. They need to fix it. In America, whenever the President is visibly fixing whatever everyone has on their minds, it's the same thing. There's always a this can wait attitude. Besides that fact, just because he starts working on other things as well it doesn't mean he isn't working on the other things going on with the country. So, I think it's a good idea. I want everything to get better too, but I don't want to push pther issues off the table that are of importance too.

[NGalitzine]

Its not exacty a pressing issue, not even a necessary one to secure the succession. Not everyone in the UK will be in favor of the proposed change, some people will see no reason to change tradition to be politically correct.

[fearghas]

Originally Posted by Diarist

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

This is what I think that those in the media and chattering class in the UK who are currently argueing for equal prig. are really after. When I read articles in papers from people who have expressed in the past that they want a repub;ic, saying that the monarchy should allow equal succession for women, I think that they are being very hypocritacl and manipulative.
One thing to consider is this. IN the past two hundred years, how many of those years have we had a Queen, and how many a female Prime Minister?

[Iluvbertie]

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.

[Sunnystar]

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.

[grevinnan]

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.

[Mermaid1962]

Exactly. I'm of the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" school.

Originally Posted by NGalitzine

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.

Originally Posted by Diarist

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..........

[Mandarin_Empress]

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

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.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

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.)

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Diarist

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.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by wbenson

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.

[Osipi]

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.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

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.

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

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.)

[Duke of Marmalade]

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.

[Tiberivs]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

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.