Proposal for Equal Primogeniture Succession

[Royal_Eagle]

Originally Posted by zembla

It's certainly a victory for gender politics and religious ones as well, but I'm not a total fan. The media landscape has changed a lot since QEII took the throne. Any little girl today who would be destined to become Queen is going to face a lot of criticism from her looks to her behavior--looks, especially. She will not get the same pass her father did for youthful hijinks: clubbing, looking drunk in public, and any other sort of behavior that looks messy. I think for a girl, it won't be as easy on her psyche.

Very interesting point....one of the thing that has always impressed me about the Queen was she seem to be always very dignified even in her childhood, as if she has been preparing to be Queen since birth. Granted she knew at about age 10 that she would eventually become Queen, but even so, she seemed to have projected an attitude of responsibility and maturity from childhood onward.. Of course that could be because the press were very respectful of the Royal Family back then though and didn't report anything that would cast a shadow on them.

The Prince of Wales has also seemed to have taken himself seriously (maybe too seriously sometimes) in his growing up. At least that has always been my impression of him while growing up in the 70s--that he was very careful about what he was doing, etc. I see the similar traits in the Duke of Cambridge, although not as uptight as his father. I think if he has a daughter (or son) as the heir apparent, he'll use his and his father's experience to help prepare her/him. I think he'll be a wonderful father and whoever first-born will have a strong foundation to build on from him.

[NotAPretender]

No referendum was required in Australia after all? Interesting.

I toast HM the Queen on this; I firmly believe that it is her life-long example of Queenship, service, and devotion to country, as much as any political expediency, that made this possible.

[Lenora]

It's interesting to me to know something deeper on this law.If they've adopted the equal law,will this law apply to the British nobility as well?

[KittyAtlanta]

From reading a couple of previous posts, I don't think it does. Prehaps someone will make it a bit clearer.

[Royal_Eagle]

Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta

From reading a couple of previous posts, I don't think it does. Prehaps someone will make it a bit clearer.

Some Lord earlier had indicated that this would not extend to nobility, only the succession to the Throne.

[KittyAtlanta]

Hummm...there are lots of nobles in the succession. Or is everyone outside the Windsors disqualified?

[Baroness of Books]

It doesn't mention anything in today's news, but I remember reading in the British press leading up to this law that the nobility is excluded because of vast complications in the peerage system.

BTW, I wonder how the Middleton family must be reacting to this news? I'm sure they're most likely proud and happy that their daughter/sister is an instrumental part of the change in the monarchy.

[Lenora]

Basically ,I am not against the new law,but it won't be correct if this applies only to the future King/Queen.So I do think,as example to the next heirs of these titles in the future.As I know,Lord Mountbatten's title passed to his eldest daughter,as exception done in this way.
List of dukes in the peerages of the British Isles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Royal_Eagle]

Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta

Hummm...there are lots of nobles in the succession. Or is everyone outside the Windsors disqualified?

Only descendants of Electress Sophia of Hanover are eligible for the Throne, as set down in the Act of Settlement 1701, and of course must meet other requirements (which will be adjusted soon to allow equal gender primogeniture and remove the restriction on marrying Roman Catholics).

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by Lenora

It's interesting to me to know something deeper on this law.If they've adopted the equal law,will this law apply to the British nobility as well?

No, it won't. This only affects succession to the throne. Succession to peerages is a different issue.

Originally Posted by Lenora

As I know,Lord Mountbatten's title passed to his eldest daughter,as exception done in this way.

That was done as a special remainder to his two daughters. No other women are able to succeed to that earldom. (It will descend to the heirs male of the current Countess, then if they are exhausted to her sister Pamela and her heirs male.)

[camelot23ca]

Originally Posted by zembla

It's certainly a victory for gender politics and religious ones as well, but I'm not a total fan. The media landscape has changed a lot since QEII took the throne. Any little girl today who would be destined to become Queen is going to face a lot of criticism from her looks to her behavior--looks, especially. She will not get the same pass her father did for youthful hijinks: clubbing, looking drunk in public, and any other sort of behavior that looks messy. I think for a girl, it won't be as easy on her psyche.

There's going to be an immense amount of focus on a daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge whether she's the firstborn and heir or not. Especially if she's good looking and "glamorous." If anything, I think the tone of the attention focused on a future queen would be more positive as she would be the future head of state and therefore be seen as more than a decorative royal doll. Although I don't think this is just a gender issue - there's always been a difference in tone between the press coverage of Prince William and that of Prince Harry, for example.

[wbenson]

First draft of Agreement in Principle among the Realms | chogm2011.org

The Prime Ministers of the sixteen Commonwealth nations of whom Her Majesty the Queen is Head of State have agreed during their meeting in Perth to work together towards a common approach to amending the rules on the succession to their respective Crowns. They will wish unanimously to advise The Queen of their views and seek her agreement.

[MRSJ]

It'll be interesting to see if they have girl if shed became Princess of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall herself or what'll happen with that.....

As for the Queen's husband, nothing has to change in my opinion bc Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth ate perfect example of a husband beside a Queen....and isn't a King higher then a Queen and no one can be higher or not equal to monarch....?

[PrincessKaimi]

A King Consort role could be created (and, I believe, has been, in other monarchies) and defined as lower than the Queen Regnant. I don't see exactly why anyone would want to do that. Seems to me that a man willing to marry future Queen Willa/Catherine/Diana would have to be content with becoming a Prince.

The firstborn child of anyone so close to succession to the throne is likely to be brought up to be a responsible sort of person anyway, girl or boy. I'm not sure that girls' psyches are so nonresilient or troubled by public scrutiny. The various crown princesses and queens of other nations seem to get along all right. Queen Elizabeth has done more than just all right.

Lots of girls look to their fathers as examples of how to go about being the leader of a large business, as it's often men who accomplish those positions, and if the Cambridges have a girl first, she will grow up looking to her father as an example (and her mother will show her how to deal with being scrutinized, as a female, in public as by then she should be somewhat expert at it). Personally, I think Kate is doing just fine already.

By the time this infant becomes Queen (if she ever exists), she is (hopefully) going to be middle-aged. If Charles reigns until he's in his 90's, won't that make William in his late 50's/60's when he is crowned? This daughter, if she's born soon, will be in her late twenties or even 30 years old when she becomes Princess of Wales. Maybe even older. And she may well be 60 before she's Queen. Lots of time to learn the ropes.

In fact, it's rather amusing to suggest that a female would be less likely to learn how to do this than a male, I see absolutely no reason why that would be so.

[Sherlock221B]

What is the purpose of going through this political stunt and done when William and Catherine don't even have a child yet? IMHO The Monarchy is above the 'party politics' of Parliament. Male primogeniture is outdated, is it? In the last 100 years has an eldest daughter been superseded by a younger brother for the throne? If male primogeniture is so out dated, according to Mr. Cameron, then why legislation just for who inherits the throne why not every hereditary title? Proof of his political vanity. If "We need to get on and do it" why hasn't he done it in his family already? Why doesn't he insists his children use his wife's surname instead of his own? This is political theater. What damage to the throne has male primogeniture caused? Otherwise what is the need for the hurried change other than meaningless political posturing, a desire to look ‘modern’. This is a piece of political vanity for which future generations may pay a high price. Absolute primogeniture did not produce Queen Elizabeth I or Queen Anne or Queen Victoria or HM Queen Elizabeth II. This so called "out dated" method, male primogeniture, is responsible for these great queens.

[Emperor Roku XIV]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Elizabeth though was born as a member of the House of Windsor and so there would have been no change in 1952. Any change would take place with the accession of Charles - just as in 1901 Victoria was the last monarch of the House of Hannover and Edward VII became the first King of the House of Saxe-Coburgh Gotha. Same with Mary II who reigned as a member of the House of Stuart and not the House of Orange - although if they had had a child then the royal house would presumably have changed to Orange. Mary I reigned as a Tudor not a Hapsburg despite being married to one - but again if they had had a child then the royal house would have changed to Hapsburg.

Indeed, though Wikipedia lists Prince Charles as a Windsor, so I don't know what that means when he succeeds...

[IloveCP]

Well it's about time!

[PrincessKaimi]

It's much better, from a human perspective, to do it before the child is done and more mannerly, in my opinion.

And I'm totally confused about the transmission of this "House" thing - got into a discussion with another editor on Wikipedia about it recently. The woman stays her own House (whatever she was at birth, which she took from her father unless the mother is a queen regnant? What?) but her children are their father's house (unless the father is lower ranking than the mother? Is that it?)

[Duchess of Darwin]

This is great news!

It has potentially saved The British Monarchy from a very sudden decline in popularity, and it's a victory for Gender equality.

The lifting of the Catholic ban hasn't come a moment too soon either.

[CordeliaFitzgerald]

I'm so happy that this "political stunt" is happening. It's way overdue!