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
 
  #261  
Old 10-13-2011, 02:04 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,214
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.)
__________________

__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 10-13-2011, 02:08 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,214
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.
__________________

__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 10-13-2011, 06:03 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Green Bay, United States
Posts: 500
I hope the change happens, but somehow I feel like it will take some years.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 10-13-2011, 06:13 PM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 2,734
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 10-13-2011, 06:18 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 488
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 10-13-2011, 07:30 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,262
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 10-14-2011, 02:32 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Grundisburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,555
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.
__________________
J
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 10-14-2011, 02:58 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,214
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.
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 10-14-2011, 03:41 AM
Dierna23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: -, Germany
Posts: 3,588
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 10-14-2011, 01:16 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,262
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #271  
Old 10-14-2011, 05:16 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 643
My problem is still that if you take the view that 'A preference for male children and the exclusion from the line of succession because a member of the family marries a Catholic' is discriminatory and out of step with today's society etc, you then open a can of worms regarding whether the whole idea of a monarchy is 'discriminatory and out-of-step' with the idea that the UK is striving to be a Meritocracy...and thus that a monarchy has NO place in today's society, based on inherited position and accident of birth etc etc........

Only my thoughts,

Alex
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 10-14-2011, 05:54 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,262
Monarchy is discriminatory by its very nature, but so are other institutions. I don't want to start a religious war but the Roman Catholic Church could also be called discriminatory....women cannot be priests, non-Catholics cannot become Pope, priests who wish to marry must leave the priesthood. In America they always say that anyone can grow up to become President but that really isn't true, you have to be born a US citizen, generally go to the right universities and as it stands now be able to raise in excess of a billion dollars. The world is filled with inequalities and discrimination.

JMO
Nicholas
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old 10-14-2011, 08:08 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
Monarchy is discriminatory by its very nature, but so are other institutions. I don't want to start a religious war but the Roman Catholic Church could also be called discriminatory....women cannot be priests, non-Catholics cannot become Pope, priests who wish to marry must leave the priesthood. In American they always say that anyone can grow up to become President but that really isnt true, you have to be born a US citizen, generally go to the right universities and as it stands now be able to raise in excess of a billion dollars. The world is filled with inequalities and discrimination.

JMO
Nicholas
Whike i gree that the world is full of inequalities, the Americab President is not the best example. After all, to be King you have to be born to a certain person and is limited to only a few dozen or do. To be Us President, any of the 100 million people born in the US, could conceviably overxome the other obstacles and become President.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 10-14-2011, 09:01 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by fearghas View Post
Whike i gree that the world is full of inequalities, the Americab President is not the best example. After all, to be King you have to be born to a certain person and is limited to only a few dozen or do. To be Us President, any of the 100 million people born in the US, could conceviably overxome the other obstacles and become President.
Perhaps but if you are a naturalized US citizen, no matter what else you achieve in life you are constitutionally barred from becoming President. That is discrimination and creates 2 classes of US citizens.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 10-15-2011, 08:12 PM
Daria_S's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: My own head, United States
Posts: 6,799
Her Majesty is not opposed to the idea, according to The Telegraph.

Queen backs plan to let daughter of Prince William and Kate Middleton to accede to the throne - Telegraph
__________________
"My guiding principles in life are to be honest, genuine, thoughtful and caring".
~Prince William~


I'm not obsessed with royalty...I just think intensely about it.
Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old 10-15-2011, 08:22 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,108
I'm somewhat suspect about HM "letting this be made known." The Queen doesn't voice her opinions on political matters, even if they involve her own family. Or perhaps even especially if they involve her own family.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 10-15-2011, 09:32 PM
Daria_S's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: My own head, United States
Posts: 6,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
I'm somewhat suspect about HM "letting this be made known." The Queen doesn't voice her opinions on political matters, even if they involve her own family. Or perhaps even especially if they involve her own family.
Then perhaps we're once again being misinformed by the media. Not surprising.
__________________
"My guiding principles in life are to be honest, genuine, thoughtful and caring".
~Prince William~


I'm not obsessed with royalty...I just think intensely about it.
Reply With Quote
  #278  
Old 10-15-2011, 10:55 PM
Baroness of Books's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 5,602
While the article is interesting and exciting for the changes it talks about, I guess like anything else, we have to wait for a formal announcement from the government regarding any implemented changes. But, wow! Imagine Princess Anne leapfrogging ahead of her younger brothers in the succession.......
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #279  
Old 10-15-2011, 11:26 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,319
So, what legal processes have to occur for the change to equal succession to take place?

And it would it be certain that the change was retroactive (affecting Princess Anne)?

Anyway, fascinating to think about and makes me happy it's been considered. It should be seen as a tribute to the excellent of the current monarch, who has proved that a woman is more than able to be a regent. Some of it may indeed come from being the firstborn.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #280  
Old 10-15-2011, 11:26 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,108
And/or the media could be pushing the agenda.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daria_S View Post
Then perhaps we're once again being misinformed by the media. Not surprising.
__________________

__________________
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
Succession Issues ladybelline Imperial Family of Japan 918 11-02-2013 12:14 PM
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession Elise,LadyofLancaster British Royals 912 02-04-2013 07:05 PM
Rules of Succession CrownPrinceLorenzo Royalty Past, Present, and Future 95 10-25-2012 01:55 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth birthday bourbon-parma camilla charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria danish royals engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hohenzollern infanta elena king abdullah king abdullah ii king albert ii king carl xvi gustav king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander norway picture thread pom pregnancy prince albert prince albert ii prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince frederik prince henrik prince joachim princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess haya princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess maxima queen elizabeth ii queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima fashion queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia state visit wedding willem-alexander william


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

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV 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 12:37 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]