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
 
  #401  
Old 10-28-2011, 11:43 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,231
PM welcomes proposal to amend rules governing the royal line of succession - Prime Minister of Canada

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today welcomed a proposal by David Cameron, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, to amend the rules governing the line of succession to the Throne.

The Government of Canada will continue to engage constructively with the other Realms regarding the details of the proposal and the method for its adoption.
__________________

__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #402  
Old 10-29-2011, 12:41 AM
Sherlock221B's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi View Post
It's much better, from a human perspective, to do it before the child is done and more mannerly, in my opinion.
And what if William and Catherine's eldest child is a son, what would have been the purpose for going through all of these changes? One might say "You don't know if a son or a daughter will be born first." Exactly! At least wait and see and stop this political nonsense! Even if the oldest child is a daughter, what if their second child is a daughter as in the case of the last king. There's still no need to go through with this political pageantry, that is not even remotely relevant to the pressing issues concerning the UK today.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi View Post
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?)
A wife usually joins the House of her husband whether her mother is queen regent or her father is king regent. She usually keeps her royal title. That is an aspect of male primogeniture. Will this dissolution legislation affect this? Who knows? It might. Did it harm the monarchy in the past in terms of gender discrimination. Well, let's see. Queen Victoria became a member of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha as queen regent after she married Prince Albert despite beloning to the House of Hanover when she became queen regent. Her children were members of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha despite Victoria being the queen regent and Albert only a prince consort. The monarchy as it exists today is of direct lineage of Queen Victoria's reign

...you decide
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #403  
Old 10-29-2011, 04:06 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock221B View Post
Women's liberation, that is what this is all about! This is at the top of Cameron's agenda?! THIS! What nonsense! What a maniacal waste of time. The Duke and Duchess do not even have a child yet. Victoria and Carl Philip were born before Sweden adopted absolute primogeniture. To do so on assumption is insane. What if William and Catherine's first born child is a son? This is a political stunt to regain popularity and why not include dukes, earls and barons?
A political stunt? Seriously? It's an outdated legislation that needed changing, it's been changed. It's not like Cameron has anything better to do at the moment while he's selling this country down the swanny. Do you think he's going to be more popular because he changed some royal law? Doubtful seeing has probably 95% don't actually understand it or won't know what it is.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #404  
Old 10-29-2011, 08:39 AM
Baroness of Books's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 5,762
Well done by the British government for instituting changes to keep up with the 21st century. The issue of peerage inheritance should be addressed as well, and may very well be in the future, but at least this is a good start.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #405  
Old 10-29-2011, 09:14 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baroness of Books View Post
The issue of peerage inheritance should be addressed as well, and may very well be in the future, but at least this is a good start.
As long as the Royal family (or better: the queen) does not start with that within their Royal peerages, I don't see any reason to change the system for the others. Most titles go back to times when the king/queen granted them as he or she thought it should be. At some times daughters could inherit, at other times this was out of the question. But that's how it is and it was indivually decided for each title. See eg the Mountbatten-title.
As the queen did not decide to introduce gender equality with the titles she bestowed on Andrew, Edward and William, even restricted the inheritance of them to the "heirs male", she obviously has no interest in changing anything in the aristocracy. And IMHO the relation souverain/peers is nothing a democratic government should tamper with. They either accept that as part of the British society or they end it but I don't think you can modernize it.

Of course the government could advise the queen to change the Letter Patents of peerages if the current holder of the title asks for it. So any current peer could himself decide how he and his family handle the inheritance of their peerage in the future. After all today not many estates are entailed, so they can already distribute the financial inheritance as they want. Why not be able to do the same with the title if the appeal to the souverain?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #406  
Old 10-29-2011, 10:40 AM
Sherlock221B's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 171
The most recent case of an elder sister being superseded by a younger brother is Victoria, Princess Royal, Empress of Germany, Queen of Prussia and Edward VII. Princess Victoria passed away the same year her mother Queen Victoria passed away. Had absolute primogeniture been applied to the monarchy at that time the Princess Royal's son Wilhelm, who was already Emperor of Germany and King of Prussia, would have become the King of the UK. Wilhelm II, Emperor of Germany, King of Prussia, King of the United Kingdom and British Dominions and Emperor of India...now that's a mouthful. Fascinating...there would've been no Edward VII, no George V, no Edward VIII, no George VI and no...oh my gosh...no HM Queen Elizabeth II! However, at that time male primogeniture was in place so upon the death of Queen Victoria her son Edward became king, the his son George V, his son Edward VIII, his brother George VI, his daughter...daughter? I thought male primogeniture discriminated against women becoming sovereign, what gives?

Whatever, it's important to resolve gender discrimination in the monarchy because it's the last remnant of gender discrimination in the Commonwealth. There's no more gender discrimination in the military...in the workplace...in the education system...male primogeniture in the monarchy is the last obstacle to total gender equality! Plus it casts a shade of nostalgia over the monarchy preventing the light of modernity of the 21st century. You know like horses and carriages, sentries posted outside palaces, ceremonial uniforms, parades created hundreds of years ago and all that other old stuff we've gotten rid of...what's that, we haven't got rid of that stuff yet. Come on! This is the 21st century what's taking them so long!

You know any type of primogeniture, gender or age, is discriminatory? Perhaps there ought to be an examination among the children of the monarch, along the lines of the old civil service exams? Or maybe set up an interview panel to see who would be the best candidate? Why not award the Crown to whoever got the best GCSE results? I mean the ultimate goal this dissolution legislation is neutrality right? Treating the monarchy as though it is just another public-sector job subject to anti-discrimination legislation is ludicrous. The obvious truth is that the whole concept of monarchy – with its, ancient traditions and customs and usages – is simply not logical in the modern business sense. Attempting to legislate it, rationally leads to absurdities

I am against almost all types of discrimination...gender, religious, disability, cultural, ageism (scratch that last one, it's irrelevant)...in almost any circumstance...housing, education, employment, military, medicine...but with the world in a cataclysmic economic meltdown, this Prime Minister has chosen to put forward this proposal that the presently Duke and Duchess' as-yet-unborn children should be allowed to marry Catholics without losing their right to the Throne, and should themselves inherit on the basis of age rather than gender. IMHO this is quite a deranged set of priorities for Mr. Cameron, quite apart from the inherent weakness of the arguments themselves?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #407  
Old 10-29-2011, 10:51 AM
Baroness of Books's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 5,762
The idea of the government allowing the current holder of a peerage to decide how to handle inheritance on an individual basis is certainly a sound idea. Naturally, it all depends on if the noble wishes to adhere to the traditional method of primogeniture or decides to go with the flow, in a manner of speaking, with equal status. It would be good to introduce such flexibility in the system, although it might end up a big headache for the peer if any daughter pesters him for equal rights if she has a younger brother!

So in this scenario of peer equal primogeniture, would a title now be inherited by a daughter rather than passing to the nearest male relative if she's the only child? Would it still die out? I'm a bit unclear about this.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #408  
Old 10-29-2011, 01:55 PM
Tiggersk8's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Evansville, Canada
Posts: 1,259
I cheered when I heard this news yesterday. About time is right!!

And I don't think we should compare HM's upbringing/childhood/teenage years w/those of today. Not only was it a different time, but she was also a child of WWII. Going through something like that can certainly speed up a child's maturity.

Just something to keep in mind... :o)
__________________
Recycle Life ~ Be An Organ Donor!!
Recieved my Kidney Transplant on December 10th, 1993 and will be forever grateful to the family of my donor for the greatest earliest Christmas Present I've ever been given
Reply With Quote
  #409  
Old 10-29-2011, 07:22 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,158
Change is sometimes good and sometimes bad, but nothing in this world is ever really static. Sure, it is easy to look back and say if the rules of succession had been different, we would have had no Edward VII, George V, etc., but I doubt very much Princess Victoria would have married an heir to a foreign throne. And besides, what good does it do to look back? Besides, we would have to go back to the the 1700s when Parliament changed the line of succession and complain about that too, no? But the public accepted that change and the world kept spinning.

We must embrace the future and we must embrace change. Nothing is wrong about changing the rules of succession. The individual's place in the line of succession is still an accident of birth. Who can say that this change will be bad? I, for one, welcome it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #410  
Old 10-29-2011, 07:32 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
Also it is likely to be another 20-50 years before we see the impact.....and if William and Catherine have a son as their first child even longer before we see a first born daughter take precedence over a second born son and succeed to the throne.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #411  
Old 10-29-2011, 09:17 PM
Sherlock221B's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vasillisos Markos View Post
Change is sometimes good and sometimes bad, but nothing in this world is ever really static. Sure, it is easy to look back and say if the rules of succession had been different, we would have had no Edward VII, George V, etc., but I doubt very much Princess Victoria would have married an heir to a foreign throne. And besides, what good does it do to look back? Besides, we would have to go back to the the 1700s when Parliament changed the line of succession and complain about that too, no? But the public accepted that change and the world kept spinning.

We must embrace the future and we must embrace change. Nothing is wrong about changing the rules of succession. The individual's place in the line of succession is still an accident of birth. Who can say that this change will be bad? I, for one, welcome it.
I also agree that change is unpredictable. Nevertheless, reflection is useful. IMHO it allows one to curb impulsiveness in the benefit that one carefully judges the possible repercussions of future endeavors. Yes, we must embrace the future and change. But change can be spontaneous or it can be intentional. For the latter I believe that there should be justified reasons.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with absolute primogeniture. However, IMHO no justified reasons have been made to initiate such a drastic change to the adoption of absolute primogeniture by the monarchy. Reasons have been raised...gender discrimination, modernization, ease of transition. IMHO none the reasons given so far can justify the change "at this moment". Given the looming global economic perils, a proposal that the unborn children of William and Catherine should inherit the throne on the basis of age rather than gender IMHO displays a clear example of reckless indulgence in impulsiveness.

The monarchy is not subject to anti-discrimination legislation like some other public-sector job. The concept of monarchy just simply does not make sense in the modern business model. To legislate it as such, will undoubtedly lead to a range of absurdities. Between the reign of Queen Victoria and HM Queen Elizabeth II, over 100 years, no princess has been denied the throne as a result of male primogeniture. Will this happen in the future, some think so. Nevertheless, who knows what benefit or pitfalls will result from this dissolution legislation, weather they be to the monarchy, the peerage, or to the commonwealth as a whole. "At this moment" IMHO this time should be delegated to more important issues. What do you think?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #412  
Old 10-29-2011, 10:20 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,158
My dear Sherlock,

You make valid points and with the troubles facing the world today, this issue certainly ranks near the bottom in the list of priorities. But when would it ever be valid to raise such an issue and effectuate the change? Do you forsee an event in the future which would mandate a change? Hasn't history already shown us that many times the heir to the throne is not the one the public might like, or the better candidate may be found farther down the line?

And will it really take up much time and effort to make this change? Certainly government can tackle the important issues of the day while still implementing the change in the line of succession. I don't see important tasks being put aside while addressing this issue.

The monarchy is an anachronism but even anachronisms can try to keep current and adapt with changing opinions and beliefs. I am a history major and love tradition but sometimes traditions must change to meet the public's expectation that even when it comes to royalty and succession, people should be treated equally. Years ago people said women should not be allowed to vote because they never had before and there was no need to change the law. Certainly the monarch realizes that he or she happens to be on the throne through pure accident of birth--there is no meritocracy involved. Why can't the powers that be simply state that the eldest, regardless of sex, and through pure accident of birth, shall inherit the throne?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #413  
Old 10-30-2011, 02:44 AM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock221B View Post
Between the reign of Queen Victoria and HM Queen Elizabeth II, over 100 years, no princess has been denied the throne as a result of male primogeniture.
As several others have pointed out in this thread, this is not true. Queen Victoria's eldest child was a girl, Princess Victoria (later Empress of Germany). She most certainly was denied the throne as a result of male primogeniture.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #414  
Old 10-30-2011, 03:48 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock221B View Post
"At this moment" IMHO this time should be delegated to more important issues. What do you think?
This issue was dealt with in what, a day? If they didn't do it before a baby was born it would have caused a lot more fuss if they were to do it after.

You seem to be basing your writings on the fact that genes have produced the boys first rather than the girls, so basically luck. Well we know for a fact that the girls can come first, and if it does in the case of William and Catherine then the right laws will be in place. I don't see what the big fuss is about changing this law?
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #415  
Old 10-30-2011, 04:33 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,742
Perhaps its just me but I had gotten the idea that perhaps the timing of this proposal for equal primogeniture was deliberately planned so that the Queen's support of the changes would be known as she attended the CHOGM in Perth.

To me it was kind of fitting for this issue to be on the table as the Queen attended what may be her last CHOGM and trip to Australia. As Lumutqueen said its a issue that was dealt with quite quickly. Also, as a female regnant herself, having this ages old restriction changed within the time of her Diamond Jubilee celebrations approaching is a far better legacy and a salute to HM than any parade or commemorative coin could ever be.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #416  
Old 10-30-2011, 11:38 AM
Baroness of Books's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 5,762
The Queen is definitely leaving a very fitting legacy for which she'll be remembered, and who better than a female monarch supporting equal primogeniture. And wouldn't it be so well-timed if Will and Kate's first child was a girl? But if not, well, it's in place for future generations and indicates that the monarchy is flexible and adaptable to change.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #417  
Old 10-30-2011, 01:23 PM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock221B View Post
The most recent case of an elder sister being superseded by a younger brother is Victoria, Princess Royal, Empress of Germany, Queen of Prussia and Edward VII. Princess Victoria passed away the same year her mother Queen Victoria passed away. Had absolute primogeniture been applied to the monarchy at that time the Princess Royal's son Wilhelm, who was already Emperor of Germany and King of Prussia, would have become the King of the UK. Wilhelm II, Emperor of Germany, King of Prussia, King of the United Kingdom and British Dominions and Emperor of India...now that's a mouthful. Fascinating...there would've been no Edward VII, no George V, no Edward VIII, no George VI and no...oh my gosh...no HM Queen Elizabeth II! However, at that time male primogeniture was in place so upon the death of Queen Victoria her son Edward became king, the his son George V, his son Edward VIII, his brother George VI, his daughter...daughter? I thought male primogeniture discriminated against women becoming sovereign, what gives?
That's beside the point: Had primogenitur been in effect Victoria wouldn't have married the next german Kaiser, but like Queen Victoria a younger son ...

as it was an arranged marriage - and not a matter of love - another prince would have been the luck guy...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #418  
Old 10-30-2011, 06:47 PM
Molly2101's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,542
I am quite glad this has come to be as I feel we should have a Queen after two Kings, though after all this change William and Catherine's first child will no doubt be a boy now! But I do think it is a good think as this whole "men before women" deal dates back so long, we are living in the 21st Century! Change needs to happen.

From what I have read, this change of law does not affect the current line up does it? It WOULD have been nice to see Anne come before her younger brothers, as anything to get Beatrice and Eugenie further from the Crown is always a bonus. I doubt Anne REALLY cares, but it must have been annoying to be shot down several places after the birth of your younger brothers and their children. Even Louise got moved a place after the birth of her younger brother.
__________________
"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.
Reply With Quote
  #419  
Old 10-30-2011, 06:51 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molly2101 View Post
From what I have read, this change of law does not affect the current line up does it?
The most recent BBC article says that it will only apply to descendants of the Prince of Wales.
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #420  
Old 10-30-2011, 09:26 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molly2101 View Post
I am quite glad this has come to be as I feel we should have a Queen after two Kings, though after all this change William and Catherine's first child will no doubt be a boy now! But I do think it is a good think as this whole "men before women" deal dates back so long, we are living in the 21st Century! Change needs to happen.

From what I have read, this change of law does not affect the current line up does it? It WOULD have been nice to see Anne come before her younger brothers, as anything to get Beatrice and Eugenie further from the Crown is always a bonus. I doubt Anne REALLY cares, but it must have been annoying to be shot down several places after the birth of your younger brothers and their children. Even Louise got moved a place after the birth of her younger brother.
I think that Anne would probably have been happy to let her younger brothers displace her. From what I've gathered, no one in the RF want to be king/queen. There have been numerous stories about past royals who weren't happy they were going to become King/Queen. Being the King/Queen isn't that glamorous as it might have been, especially in a constitutional monarchy--you're severely restricted in what you can do, have great responsibilities, etc. I once read somewhere that the PoW once said he was in no hurry to become King, as it would mean he would lose much of his freedom that he currently has, and of course would mean the lose of his mother too.

The fact that the Queen has unwaveringly served her countries as the Queen for so long and so well is a testimony to her strength and character.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 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 dutch royal history fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta cristina infanta elena infanta leonor 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 ottoman pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince joachim prince laurent prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess elisabeth princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia spain state visit wedding 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 11:07 PM.

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]