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
 
  #281  
Old 10-16-2011, 01:02 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 2,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
I haven't seen anything that says that it would alter it beyond the Queen's descendants. The first three places in the line of succession are the same if that change is made. (And any change that would remove William from his place would probably also depose the Queen, so it's really not probable at all.)
Thanks. In a moment of confusion I reversed the birth order of Anne and Charles.
__________________

  #282  
Old 10-16-2011, 01:25 PM
Molly2101's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baroness of Books View Post
So the line of succession, if enacted and retroactive, would be the Prince of Wales and his children (which would not have changed), then Princess Anne, Peter Phillips and his family, Zara and any future children of her marriage, Prince Andrew and family, Prince Edward and his family. I can imagine Peter having a bit of a shock knowing he's thisclose to the succession if there is a law implemented, and Mike Tindall as well. And I wouldn't think in this modern age that there would be naysayers, either, other than those grey suits who want to uphold tradition but they'd be wise to go along with the times.
I can't imagine Peter would be that shocked as he knows that even if this law is changed, the possibilty of him becoming King is very small. The same can be said for the current order as I am sure Andrew and Edward are quite happy with the lineup as they know they will never become King.

Out of the entire family, if we could choose a Monarch, my choice would be Anne (she'd be just like her mother, a no-nonsense kinda gal) or Edward (Mainly because Sophie would make an awesome Queen), however I think out of all of them the only person who really WANTS to be Monarch is Charles.
__________________

__________________
"I am yours, you are mine, of that be sure. You are locked in my heart, the little key is lost and now you must stay there forever."
Written by Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine in the diary of her fiance, Tsarevich Nicholas.
  #283  
Old 10-16-2011, 02:26 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: central valley, United States
Posts: 495
Does anyone have a link to the actual language proposed by Cameron or is it just a 'topic' to be discussed? Many articles state that it would start with children born to William and Catherine with the first born becoming the future monarch, irrespective of gender. Others seem to believe it would apply to the Queen's children, moving Anne ahead of Andrew and Edward.
Seems to me that starting w/ Charles and his descendants would be easiest since he had no daughters and his children haven't had children yet, thus no changes.
Starting w/ William and Catherine could leave Harry and his future children under the old rules, should something cause William and Catherine to not have heirs.
Starting with the descendants of the Queen my take on the changes:
Anne (from 10 to 4)
Peter (from 11 to 5)
Peter's daughter (from 12 to 6)
Zara (from 13 to 7)
Andrew (from 4 to 8)
Beatrice (from 5 to 9)
Eugenie (from 6 to 10)
Edward (from 7 to 11)
Edward's daughter (from 9 to 12)
Edward's son (from 8 to 13)
  #284  
Old 10-16-2011, 02:33 PM
Grandduchess24's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Cambridge, United States
Posts: 1,318
I think it's a good idea but how can we be sure that their first born will be a girl and their second a boy? It would be nice though to see Kate give birth to a princess, I am sure William would like a little girl because of not having a sister,but Harry on the other hand gets a sister , a sister-in-law.
__________________
" An ugly baby is a very nasty object, and the prettiest is frightful when undressed."
- Queen Victoria
  #285  
Old 10-16-2011, 02:46 PM
Baroness of Books's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 5,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molly2101 View Post
I can't imagine Peter would be that shocked as he knows that even if this law is changed, the possibilty of him becoming King is very small. The same can be said for the current order as I am sure Andrew and Edward are quite happy with the lineup as they know they will never become King.

Out of the entire family, if we could choose a Monarch, my choice would be Anne (she'd be just like her mother, a no-nonsense kinda gal) or Edward (Mainly because Sophie would make an awesome Queen), however I think out of all of them the only person who really WANTS to be Monarch is Charles.
The possibility of Peter Phillips, or anyone else in the royal family other than the expected heirs, becoming sovereign would be most unlikely, that's true. However, I think that just being moved up nearer to the throne would be a bit of a jolt to the system for anyone, IMHO. Peter's position would be fifth in line to the succession, for example, a radical difference from his current one. I know that dramatic change would make me pause, but who can say how anyone would feel under those circumstances?

And Anne would definitely make an extremely competent ruler; there's something about her that makes me think of Elizabeth I.
  #286  
Old 10-16-2011, 04:10 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,165
If the change was to move Anne and her line above that of Andrew then there would be a very big change - who would be eligible to be the 4th CoS - from Andrew to Anne and Peter would then have to be prepared to take on that responsibility as well (something he hasn't really ever been prepared to do as it was always assumed that he would never have to serve in that capacity) while Beatrice would have been prepared to do it.
  #287  
Old 10-16-2011, 04:16 PM
Baroness of Books's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 5,772
Do you think the government would take such drastic changes and shuffling around of the line of succession within the royal family into consideration and just change primogeniture with William's and Kate's children? That is, of course, if they are considering the latter scenario only.
  #288  
Old 10-16-2011, 05:59 PM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Jose, CA, United States
Posts: 256
From what I've read from non-tabloid sources the changes would not affect the relative positions of anyone currently alive but would begin with children born after some date in the very near future. So, no Anne and her family leapfrogging over her brothers and their children. They could even put that date at Jan. 1, 2000 and only really affect Louise and James Wessex (and possibly Savannah depending on if her new sibling is a brother or a sister.) Beyond the descendents of George VI it's really only academic anyway.
  #289  
Old 10-16-2011, 06:51 PM
Baroness of Books's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 5,772
Establishing a date for equal primogeniture for the future generation rather than the current one might be a neat solution, but it's all speculation anyway (which makes it the fun part) until the law is approved and passed. It would be exciting to see British history in the making if this does get implemented.
  #290  
Old 10-16-2011, 09:39 PM
Sherlock221B's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 174
IMHO this should not be addressed right now. It should be put on hold until after William becomes king. Ask yourselves if this change is to affect the succession to the throne, should it affect other titles received through male primogeniture? Some good examples relating to the current monarch would be the Earl of Wessex's children, Louise and James. Louise is oldest...should she inherit her father's earldom or dukedom, if he becomes Duke of Edinburgh, when he passes away? Should Princess Beatrice inherit her father's dukedom after he passes away and become the new Duchess of York? If William and Catherine do have a daughter first, once William is king will she be the Princess Royal or the Princess of Wales? Will she be the Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay? What happens if she marries a heir to a foreign royal throne? Does she and her descendents lose their places in the line of succession?
  #291  
Old 10-16-2011, 10:51 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock221B View Post
IMHO this should not be addressed right now. It should be put on hold until after William becomes king. Ask yourselves if this change is to affect the succession to the throne, should it affect other titles received through male primogeniture? Some good examples relating to the current monarch would be the Earl of Wessex's children, Louise and James. Louise is oldest...should she inherit her father's earldom or dukedom, if he becomes Duke of Edinburgh, when he passes away? Should Princess Beatrice inherit her father's dukedom after he passes away and become the new Duchess of York? If William and Catherine do have a daughter first, once William is king will she be the Princess Royal or the Princess of Wales? Will she be the Countess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay? What happens if she marries a heir to a foreign royal throne? Does she and her descendents lose their places in the line of succession?
I believe this is completely separate from the rest of the peer system. That is, the rest of the Peers will continued to be governed under whatever letter patent each title is granted under. For example, the Duke of York will continue to be passed down via the male line of the Duke of York. Ditto for Earl of Wessex. The only thing that would be changed is who ascend to the Throne, although of course they can use this opportunity to review the peer system and who knows what else (hence can of worms....)

Personally while I agree completely with the principle of equal primogeniture, I think the practical effect will be to cause more trouble than it's worth--in other words, open a can of worms. After all the monarch doesn't have any real power, and it's not like folks are demanding to sit on the throne anyway. There have been many many cases where past princes/princesses have approached this with great trepidations. It was said that Princess Margaret said "Poor you" to Princess Elizabeth (the future Queen Elizabeth II) once they learned she would be heir presumptive, and that Princess Elizabeth prayed for a brother. I think there was a past King who had an older sister (can't quite find the right one, so maybe a urban legend) and was very upset when he learned that she wouldn't be next, but he would be.

So basically, while I do agree with the principle, I'm just not sure it's worth the risk of unintended consequences, but I hope to be wrong though if they do go thorough with it.
  #292  
Old 10-17-2011, 12:32 AM
Sherlock221B's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal_Eagle View Post
...the rest of the Peers will continued to be governed under whatever letter patent each title is granted under. For example, the Duke of York will continue to be passed down via the male line of the Duke of York. Ditto for Earl of Wessex. The only thing that would be changed is who ascend to the Throne, although of course they can use this opportunity to review the peer system and who knows what else (hence can of worms....)
Would it be fair to address equal primogeniture only in regards to who ascends the throne and not in regards to other titles of the peerage granted through male primogeniture especially those involving the BRF? If the eldest son of the monarch becomes the Prince of Wales and the Prince of Wales becomes the next monarch...with equal primogeniture will there still be a Prince of Wales if the eldest son is not the eldest child? IMHO this topic is way too complex than to be centered around just "who ascends to the Throne"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal_Eagle View Post
Personally while I agree completely with the principle of equal primogeniture, I think the practical effect will be to cause more trouble than it's worth--in other words, open a can of worms.
I am in complete agreement with your statement...I also feel that it will be more troublesome than beneficiary. What would be the advantage, in terms of governing, of going through such a change especially if it's only applied to who ascend to the throne?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal_Eagle View Post
After all the monarch doesn't have any real power, and it's not like folks are demanding to sit on the throne anyway. There have been many many cases where past princes/princesses have approached this with great trepidations. It was said that Princess Margaret said "Poor you" to Princess Elizabeth (the future Queen Elizabeth II) once they learned she would be heir presumptive, and that Princess Elizabeth prayed for a brother. I think there was a past King who had an older sister (can't quite find the right one, so maybe a urban legend) and was very upset when he learned that she wouldn't be next, but he would be.

So basically, while I do agree with the principle, I'm just not sure it's worth the risk of unintended consequences, but I hope to be wrong though if they do go thorough with it.
IMHO I see no practical usage of applying equal primogeniture to the monarchy at this time, especially since the heir and the second in line are pretty much already determined. Waiting until William becomes king would be the best time to address equal primogeniture in regards to the throne. However, in the mean time the "water can be tested" by applying equal primogeniture to lesser peerage titles.
  #293  
Old 10-17-2011, 02:33 AM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock221B View Post
IMHO I see no practical usage of applying equal primogeniture to the monarchy at this time, especially since the heir and the second in line are pretty much already determined. Waiting until William becomes king would be the best time to address equal primogeniture in regards to the throne. However, in the mean time the "water can be tested" by applying equal primogeniture to lesser peerage titles.
And by the time William becomes King he will, hopefully, have at least a child or two who are fully grown with children of their own. Tell me, how would it be right or fair, should William & Kate's eldest child be a girl followed by a son, to change the rules of succession to apply equal primogeniture when said son would have been raised as William's heir?

Do it now. If you want to apply it only to children born going forward or to children of the Queen's grandchildren, so be it. But waiting on something like this is ridiculous if the support exists within the Commonwealth realms currently. It might be messy but waiting on it until further down the line is not going to eliminate any of the challenges that will be faced in changing it now. And, in fact, it could be a great deal more challenging, especially if the republican sentiment in nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada grows to the point of those citizens deciding "why bother" with the monarchy at all. With the Queen as popular as she is and entering her Diamond Jubilee year, there won't be a better time to make this change than in the near-to-immediate future, before William & Kate's first child comes along.
  #294  
Old 10-17-2011, 03:46 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock221B View Post
However, in the mean time the "water can be tested" by applying equal primogeniture to lesser peerage titles.
I'm not sure the means by which a country's head of state is chosen can really be "tested" by applying the same changes to titles that are increasingly amounting to merely a fancy last name (if removal of all hereditary peers from the House of Lords doesn't happen in this Parliament, it will probably happen in the next one). Being a hereditary peer isn't anything like being the monarch, either in responsibility or social status. There's no reason why a change in the succession for one should necessitate (or preclude, or need to be preceded by) the other. They're just completely different things today and I don't see why they wouldn't be dealt with as the separate issues they are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraS3514 View Post
From what I've read from non-tabloid sources the changes would not affect the relative positions of anyone currently alive but would begin with children born after some date in the very near future.
That's what the original articles say, but the most recent article in the (non-tabloid) Telegraph says otherwise. But we won't know until it's clarified by the powers that be or legislation is put down for us to read.
  #295  
Old 10-17-2011, 04:34 AM
Duke of Marmalade's Avatar
Majesty
TRF Author
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Posts: 9,306
It has to be done before William has children, very simple.
  #296  
Old 10-17-2011, 05:30 AM
Dierna23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: -, Germany
Posts: 3,587
Exactly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
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.
True of course, but it still reflects, no? I mean, I've read it so many times at this forum that royals should be an "example" for their people. Such old-fashioned rules aren't exemplary, IMHO. I don't think everything has to be over-modern, political correct etc. to be exemplary, but these two things are simply too medieval for my taste.

As to the topic regarding Catholics: I've never said I want a Catholic King or Queen for England. It's clear that the monarch of England can only be Protestant and that's fine. I'd just say that IF a member of the BRF can marry a Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim or whatever and WON'T lose the place in the line of succession, then he/she shouldn't lose this place for marrying a Catholic either. I know the "rule" comes from a time where marrying Muslims or Hindus was out of question anyway, but... In this day and age such a rule is definitely discriminatory. Monarchy is much about traditions and I have nothing against the fact that members of the BRF should stay Anglican to be in the line of succession, and that they should raise their children, if they want to have them in the line of succesion, Anglican, but my oh my, let them marry Catholics without fearing this "punishment". It simply leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diarist View Post
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

I'm optimistic here (one could probably call it naive, too ). Other monarchies, like Sweden or Norway, have overcome this issue successfully as well, so why should it damage the fundament of the British monarchy? Sure, England isn't Norway or Sweden (and I LOVE the British way of life, btw ), but I can only think that most people would appreciate such changes. It won't be the last change for the British monarchy IMO anyway.
  #297  
Old 10-17-2011, 07:58 AM
Sherlock221B's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 174
Has male primogeniture prevented women from becoming monarchs?
  #298  
Old 10-17-2011, 09:13 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock221B View Post
Has male primogeniture prevented women from becoming monarchs?
Actually yes, IF the rule exists back then. It looks like Princess Victoria,, daughter of Queen Victoria, was the oldest child, but the next child was a boy, who would eventually become King Edward VII. So I think this may have been the one I was thinking of earlier in this thread--that he was very disappointed he has to become King rather than his sister, Victoria. But that was way back in the 19th/early 20th century though, when attitudes were much more different from today's.
  #299  
Old 10-17-2011, 10:39 AM
Sherlock221B's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal_Eagle View Post
Actually yes, IF the rule exists back then. It looks like Princess Victoria,, daughter of Queen Victoria, was the oldest child, but the next child was a boy, who would eventually become King Edward VII. So I think this may have been the one I was thinking of earlier in this thread--that he was very disappointed he has to become King rather than his sister, Victoria. But that was way back in the 19th/early 20th century though, when attitudes were much more different from today's.
Princess Victoria married the German emperor Frederick III before her mother passed away. Wouldn't equal primogeniture have merged the two crowns if she became queen...would the same happen under equal primogeniture today? Lets say the eldest child of William and Catherine would be a daughter if she were to marry the eldest child of Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden if the child is a son, both children would be heirs to their individual countries thrones...so William and Catherine's daughter would be Queen of UK and Queen consort of Sweden? Too complicated...primogeniture should be left alone for now.

IMHO attention should be focused on the topic of succession and Catholicism.
  #300  
Old 10-17-2011, 11:01 AM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal_Eagle View Post
Actually yes, IF the rule exists back then. It looks like Princess Victoria,, daughter of Queen Victoria, was the oldest child, but the next child was a boy, who would eventually become King Edward VII. So I think this may have been the one I was thinking of earlier in this thread--that he was very disappointed he has to become King rather than his sister, Victoria. But that was way back in the 19th/early 20th century though, when attitudes were much more different from today's.
It would have prevented Elizabeth I from becoming Queen had her younger brother been healthy enough. Same with Elizabeth I's older sister, Mary.

I believe someone has also noted... Frederick, Prince of Wales' (son of George II) eldest child was Princess Augusta. She would have advanced to the throne had equal primogeniture existed.

Furthermore, George III had one daughter who was older than the Duke of Kent (Queen Victoria's father) who would have been ahead of Victoria for many years - though since she she had no children and died before her oldest brother (George IV) the actual line of succession to Victoria would not have been altered.

Interestingly enough, Elizabeth Stuart, daughter of James VI & I and mother of Sophia, Electress of Hanover, would have been Elizabeth II of England had equal primogeniture existed in the 17th century instead of her younger brother becoming Charles I.
__________________

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 96 03-25-2015 09:36 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 02:22 AM




Popular Tags
abdication belgium best outfit brussels carl philip crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events death fashion fashion poll funeral germany hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg maxima nobility official visit ottoman picture of the week poland president hollande president komorowski prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince henrik princess alexia (2005 -) princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess madeleine princess mary princess mette-marit princess of asturias queen fabiola queen letizia queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sonja royal royal fashion sofia hellqvist spain state visit stockholm sweden the hague visit wedding willem-alexander



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:56 PM.

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]