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
 
  #21  
Old 01-23-2009, 09:56 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Grundisburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,753
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?!
__________________

__________________
J
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-23-2009, 01:51 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacknch View Post
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.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-23-2009, 01:54 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-23-2009, 02:26 PM
Lady Ann's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: IN THE CITY, United States
Posts: 857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacknch View Post
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
__________________
Lady Ann
Life began with waking up and loving my mother's face…~ George Eliot ~
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-23-2009, 03:03 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 463
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
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
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-23-2009, 03:22 PM
morhange's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Springfield, United States
Posts: 570
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.
__________________
His sense of responsibility is not less than yours or mine. How could we tell right from wrong as simple people in any kind of situation? How could we know that our courage, loyalty and lives were not misused for evil purposes?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-23-2009, 03:48 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 463
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-23-2009, 04:31 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
Isn't it obvious?
Not in the slightest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-23-2009, 04:51 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 463
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-23-2009, 05:37 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Grundisburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,753
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!
__________________
J
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 01-23-2009, 05:54 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-23-2009, 06:17 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 463
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
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?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-23-2009, 06:19 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-23-2009, 07:01 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 463
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
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?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-23-2009, 08:36 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-23-2009, 09:11 PM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,427
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
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-23-2009, 10:33 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by wymanda View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-24-2009, 07:35 AM
Claire's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 841
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-24-2009, 08:10 AM
norwegianne's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Rogaland, Norway
Posts: 5,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuroraB View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-24-2009, 01:16 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
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).
__________________

__________________
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
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession Elise,LadyofLancaster British Royals 926 04-15-2014 11:41 PM
Succession Issues ladybelline Imperial Family of Japan 918 11-02-2013 12:14 PM
Rules of Succession CrownPrinceLorenzo Royalty Past, Present, and Future 95 10-25-2012 01:55 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events diana dutch royal history engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympics ottoman pom pregnancy prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:16 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]