Proposal for Equal Primogeniture Succession

[Jacknch]

I have to agree with what has been said here - if complete equality were ever put in place to create a full balance, I cannot imagine any royal princess finding a husband willing to take her title. "Prince Margaret" springs to mind and the marriage would doubtless have ended in divorce much earlier! Further, had Diana, Princess of Wales re-married would her new husband have become - for the sake of argument - Dodi, Prince of Wales? How many people with the same title can you have?!

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by Jacknch

Further, had Diana, Princess of Wales re-married would her new husband have become - for the sake of argument - Dodi, Prince of Wales? How many people with the same title can you have?!

Even if full equality in title sharing was to happen, it would not apply in that case, as Diana did not possess the title in her own right.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by Kotroman

I do not think that Salic law, which is applied to all the current dukedoms and most earldoms, would survive if equal primogeniture is introduced in succession to the crown

Do you have any basis for that thought? So far the only stories on this matter have been about changing one succession and one succession only. Nothing has been said (officially) about amending any letters patent of any peers in any Act of Parliament at all.

[Lady Ann]

Originally Posted by Jacknch

I have to agree with what has been said here - if complete equality were ever put in place to create a full balance, I cannot imagine any royal princess finding a husband willing to take her title. "Prince Margaret" springs to mind and the marriage would doubtless have ended in divorce much earlier! Further, had Diana, Princess of Wales re-married would her new husband have become - for the sake of argument - Dodi, Prince of Wales? How many people with the same title can you have?!

I thought if Diana remarried she would have lost the Princess of Wales title? Does anyone know if this is correct... I sure who ever she would have remarried would not want to be so and so prince of wales or that it would have ever been permitted

[Kotroman]

Originally Posted by wbenson

Do you have any basis for that thought? So far the only stories on this matter have been about changing one succession and one succession only. Nothing has been said (officially) about amending any letters patent of any peers in any Act of Parliament at all.

Isn't it obvious? If they succeed in introducing equal primogeniture in succession to the crown, they would soon request change in succession to the peerage titles. I am aware that succession to a title is determined when the title is created, but that would be hard to explain to those groups who find Salic law discriminating.

As for Diana, she lost her title in 1996 when she got divorced. She was styled "Diana, Princess of Wales" as a divorced woman, but she didn't hold the title of Princess of Wales. Had she remarried, she wouldn't have been styled "Diana, Princess of Wales" because she wouldn't be a divorced woman anymore. So, Dodi certainly wouldn't have been "Dodi, Prince of Wales" because he was never an ex-wife of the Prince of Wales

[morhange]

I keep reading that this has already happened. Not that it's 100% accurate, but while playing Trivial Pursuit, one of the cards says "Which country amended its laws in 1990 to create equal succession for females and males?" and I said Belgium, but the answer was Great Britain! Was there some kind of law in 1990 that did something to alter succession? It was already open to women, as apparent from Victoria, and it isn't like Luxembourg or in Imperial Russia where women can only rule when all the males are gone.

[Kotroman]

In that case, Trivial Pursuit was wrong. Succession law has not changed since the time of William the Conqueror. That's why it is not so easy to change it.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by Kotroman

Isn't it obvious?

Not in the slightest.

Originally Posted by Kotroman

If they succeed in introducing equal primogeniture in succession to the crown, they would soon request change in succession to the peerage titles.

I see no reason to believe that without some kind of evidence.

Originally Posted by Kotroman

Succession law has not changed since the time of William the Conqueror. That's why it is not so easy to change it.

It is just as easy to change old succession as it is to change new succession. It takes the same thing: An Act of Parliament as well as consent (in unknown form right now) from the other realms. There is no different percentage of MPs required to approve it.

[Kotroman]

I see no reason to believe that without some kind of evidence.

I didn't ask you to believe me and I haven't claimed anything. I just expressed my point of view. I simply don't believe that those who now want the equal primogeniture to be introduced in succession to the Crown wouldn't ask for establishment of equal primogeniture in succession to the peerage titles. I just don't believe that a person who thinks that male-preferance primogeniture (which actually allows women to succeed) is discriminating doesn't think the same about Salic law.

It is just as easy to change old succession as it is to change new succession. It takes the same thing: An Act of Parliament as well as consent (in unknown form right now) from the other realms. There is no different percentage of MPs required to approve it.

I meant to say that it is hard to decide to change a 900 years old law. Had it been established 10 years ago, it wouldn't be so hard to change it.

[Jacknch]

Re my Diana, Princess of Wales query, I assumed that if there was absolute equality, she wouldn't have had to take her new husband's title and that he could have taken her [divorced] title instead. But I see that if she did not hold the title in her own right then I think my question is answered! Thanks everyone!

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by Kotroman

I didn't ask you to believe me and I haven't claimed anything.

You did claim something. You claimed that it was obvious that success in changing succession to the crown will directly lead to people wanting peerages to change.

Originally Posted by Kotroman

I simply don't believe that those who now want the equal primogeniture to be introduced in succession to the Crown wouldn't ask for establishment of equal primogeniture in succession to the peerage titles. I just don't believe that a person who thinks that male-preferance primogeniture (which actually allows women to succeed) is discriminating doesn't think the same about Salic law.

Well, it is discriminating. That is a fact. What people differ on is whether such discrimination is wrong. I think succession to the Crown should change. I do not think succession to peerages should change (although if it happened, I wouldn't stand in the way of it), as for nearly all hereditary peers, they gain little or no formal power from their office. I suppose I'm a fiction, though, as you don't seem to believe I exist.

[Kotroman]

Originally Posted by wbenson

You did claim something. You claimed that it was obvious that success in changing succession to the crown will directly lead to people wanting peerages to change.

In that case, I did claim something and you haven't done anything to prove I am wrong.

Originally Posted by wbenson

Well, it is discriminating. That is a fact. What people differ on is whether such discrimination is wrong. I think succession to the Crown should change. I do not think succession to peerages should change (although if it happened, I wouldn't stand in the way of it), as for nearly all hereditary peers, they gain little or no formal power from their office.

It is also a fact that the whole concept of monarchy is discriminating against people who weren't lucky enough to be born as royals. It is also discriminating that men who marry princesses don't automtically become princes, while women who marry princes automatically become princesses. It is also discriminating that The Queen's husband isn't King, while her daughter-in-law will be Queen. These "discriminations" against women (whose place in the line of succession is behind all their brothers) and the "discriminations" against men (who don't enjoy their wife's title) are perfectly balanced.

Originally Posted by wbenson

I suppose I'm a fiction, though, as you don't seem to believe I exist.

How could I be sure you exist? How can we all be sure that we exist?

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by Kotroman

In that case, I did claim something and you haven't done anything to prove I am wrong.

Because it can only be tested by changing succession. If you're up for that, so am I.

Originally Posted by Kotroman

These "discriminations" against women (whose place in the line of succession is behind all their brothers) and the "discriminations" against men (who don't enjoy their wife's title) are perfectly balanced.

Not really. There is no legal benefit to enjoying someone's title. There is a legal benefit to becoming sovereign.

[Kotroman]

Originally Posted by wbenson

Because it can only be tested by changing succession. If you're up for that, so am I.

I can assume something before the change is made (if it's ever made) and I have explained why I assume so.

Originally Posted by wbenson

Not really. There is no legal benefit to enjoying someone's title. There is a legal benefit to becoming sovereign.

There is a legal benefit to enjoying someone's titles, style, and rank. A woman married to a prince is a princess - therefore, she is not a commoner and enjoys all the courtesy and legal benefits of being royal (this doesn't directly refer to the United Kingdom, but to royalty in general). Timothy doesn't enjoy any of those benefits, does he?

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by Kotroman

A woman married to a prince is a princess - therefore, she is not a commoner and enjoys all the courtesy and legal benefits of being royal (this doesn't directly refer to the United Kingdom, but to royalty in general). Timothy doesn't enjoy any of those benefits, does he?

There are no legal benefits to being royal. There are a few legal responsibilities regarding getting permission to marry, but that's just about it. For example, Princess Anne's situation as far as the law is concerned is the same as if she was plain old Mrs. Anne Laurence. The same is not true for a sovereign. She is a commoner as far as the law is concerned, as she is neither the sovereign nor a peer*.

*And there is no legal benefit to being a peer in all cases, anymore.

[wymanda]

I'm not in agreeance with making it retroactive.
Apply it to the next generation, ie the children of William, Harry etc.
I know it was made retroactive in Sweden & Norway but those involved, ie Victoria, Carl-Phillipe, Martha-Louise & Haakon were only small children. The Queens children are all middle aged & have all given good service in their current roles

[AuroraB]

Originally Posted by wymanda

I'm not in agreeance with making it retroactive.
Apply it to the next generation, ie the children of William, Harry etc.
I know it was made retroactive in Sweden & Norway but those involved, ie Victoria, Carl-Phillipe, Martha-Louise & Haakon were only small children. The Queens children are all middle aged & have all given good service in their current roles

It was mad retroactive in Sweden, but not in Norway. HH Princess Martha Louise was born 22 Sept 1971 and HRH The Crown Prince Haakon Magnus was born 2 July 1973. In Norway, a constitutional amendment adopted in 1990 established the right of eldest born child to succeed to the Throne regardless of gender; however, as the amendment entered into force long after the Princess and Crown Prince were born, it was decided that males would continue to take precedence over females for children born prior to 1990.

[Claire]

Personally I support the bill, but I feel that it should only come active with the birth of Prince William's first child.
I fell it is unfair to Peter, Zara, Beatrice and Eugenie. Not to mention Anne and Andrew.

[norwegianne]

Originally Posted by AuroraB

It was mad retroactive in Sweden, but not in Norway. HH Princess Martha Louise was born 22 Sept 1971 and HRH The Crown Prince Haakon Magnus was born 2 July 1973. In Norway, a constitutional amendment adopted in 1990 established the right of eldest born child to succeed to the Throne regardless of gender; however, as the amendment entered into force long after the Princess and Crown Prince were born, it was decided that males would continue to take precedence over females for children born prior to 1990.

It's certainly been a way that made sense, given that Haakon was raised to be the heir, and Märtha Louise didn't want to be.

I think it is an interesting development, and considering that some of the more prominent British monarchs have been women, I don't see why the sex should be any hinderance.

As has been pointed out, the fact that the three first in line are male, anyway, means that it won't have any real impact until Charles' sons marry and have children.

The Danes will, in all likelihood, change their legislation on the matter this summer, so there's a lot of change going around.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by Claire

Personally I support the bill, but I feel that it should only come active with the birth of Prince William's first child.
I fell it is unfair to Peter, Zara, Beatrice and Eugenie. Not to mention Anne and Andrew.

I think I feel the same way, too, although quite honestly I'd much rather see Anne as sovereign than Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, or Edward (if something terrible were to happen).