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
 
  #501  
Old 02-23-2012, 03:30 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellydofc View Post
but since it could be a good 70 - 80 years before that child succeeds to the throne there is loads of time to deal with this issue if that's what the UK decides it wants.
Except it won't be another 70-80 years before the child is born. If you wait until William is on his death bed to change the legislation for his child, they won't have enough time. This process could take years, to finalise all the wording, work out the problems with existing legislation. It's not going to happen tomorrow, but if it's changing it needs to start soon.
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #502  
Old 02-23-2012, 04:57 PM
Kellydofc's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tucson, United States
Posts: 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Except it won't be another 70-80 years before the child is born. If you wait until William is on his death bed to change the legislation for his child, they won't have enough time. This process could take years, to finalise all the wording, work out the problems with existing legislation. It's not going to happen tomorrow, but if it's changing it needs to start soon.
That is true.
Honestly I don't see the succession law changing any time soon. It's not like it was in the 16th century where people thought women couldn't rule at all and there was the overwhelming pressure to produce a son. I think most people feel if there are only girls and one reigns fine but if there's a boy and he reigns ahead of any older sisters that's fine too.
Truthfully, outside of these boards no one I talked to in England, when I was there last year, seemed to care one way or the other (funnily it seems to be a bigger topic of conversation here in the US. Interesting cultural difference there). And that ambivalence in general will do more to kill the topic than anything else could.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #503  
Old 02-23-2012, 05:07 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellydofc View Post
Honestly I don't see the succession law changing any time soon.
It won't change anytime soon because the legislation that is being written up, debated over, worked out will take a few years. But it is happening, it was decided at the CHOGM meeting in Perth last year. They will need to be approved by 14 of the 16 commonwealth parliaments and then receive royal assent.

A bill placed before the Prime Ministers in Perth stated that

Quote:
The changes would replace male preference primogeniture with absolute primogeniture for descendants of the current Prince of Wales, end the ban on marriage to Catholics, and limit the requirement for those in line to the throne to acquire permission of the sovereign to marry. However the requirement for the sovereign to be in communion with the Church of England would remain
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #504  
Old 02-27-2012, 11:18 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,410
Posts discussing the position of the Monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England have been moved to the The Sovereign & the Church of England thread.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #505  
Old 05-10-2012, 02:45 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,133
Nothing new;
Kate Middleton: Crown will pass to Duchess of Cambridge's first-born even if it is a girl | Mail Online
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #506  
Old 05-10-2012, 03:07 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
Nothing new at all, and Catherine could well be the mother of a couple of children before all the necessary legislation is passed.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #507  
Old 05-10-2012, 03:22 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,208
Like I've said earlier, I sure welcome a change, so that Roman Catholics aren't discriminated anymore. But I'm less sure about what to think about the first-born, reguardless of gender, being the heir appearent. I don't want women to be discriminated, but monarchy is so full of old traditions anyway, that I don't mind male primogeniture, even though it would seem awfully dated these days in many other situations. And like Graham Smith said, one of the children would still be the most privileged.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #508  
Old 05-23-2012, 04:46 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,133
Maybe they think if they keep repeating this 'good' information it might make them look good;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-confirms.html
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #509  
Old 05-23-2012, 05:35 AM
EIIR's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Somewhere, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,624
How many times does the government think they can announce the same policy? Once is enough.

This really annoys me, though. The government are choosing to tinker with the constitution - royal succession, House of Lords - when those things are not priorities for the electorate. They should just leave this issue alone until such times as William and Kate have their first child. If it's a girl, then go ahead and change it; if it's a boy just leave it alone for a generation and concentrate on the things that really affect the lives of ordinary people.

It's not as if we don't have enough problems to keep the politicians busy.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #510  
Old 08-02-2012, 09:55 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 16
Male Preference Primogeniture to Survive?

The reform I have read about would apply to descendants of Prince Charles. Of course it is highly likely that William's children or, failing that, Harry's will eventually succeed to the throne. Yet there is still some chance that these lines will die out. So does that mean for those next in the succession, i.e. Andrew, his daughters and their eventual children, male-preference primogeniture would survive? So if Beatrice has a daughter before a son her son is still ranked higher in the line of succession than his older sister? The same question could be asked about the thousands of descendants of every one else in line after Charles' sons from Elizabeth's other children and grandchildren all the way down to various obscure Germans. This seems rather sloppy, but that is the logic of the proposal under discussion.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #511  
Old 08-03-2012, 02:02 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,410
The proposed legislation is expected to be retrospective to 2011; those born prior to that date will remain subject to male primogeniture; those born after will be subject to equal primogeniture succession. Thus any child born to Princess Beatrice will be subject to equal primogeniture.

The principle and application is straightforward: no person currently living will be personally affected by the new arrangements.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #512  
Old 08-03-2012, 03:29 PM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 2,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
Like I've said earlier, I sure welcome a change, so that Roman Catholics aren't discriminated anymore. But I'm less sure about what to think about the first-born, reguardless of gender, being the heir appearent. I don't want women to be discriminated, but monarchy is so full of old traditions anyway, that I don't mind male primogeniture, even though it would seem awfully dated these days in many other situations. And like Graham Smith said, one of the children would still be the most privileged.
Those in line for the throne won't lose their place if they wed a Roman Catholic. An RC could be prince or queen consort, but never the monarch.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #513  
Old 08-03-2012, 05:09 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,006
I always understood that in the UK if a Royal marries a Catholic they must give up their place in the line of succession.


LaRae
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #514  
Old 08-03-2012, 05:13 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
I always understood that in the UK if a Royal marries a Catholic they must give up their place in the line of succession.
LaRae
That's accurate right now, and in accordance with the Act of Settlement 1701.

However, one of the proposed (but not yet accepted) changes allows those in the Line of Succession to marry Catholics without giving up their succession rights. Those in the Line of Succession cannot be Catholics themselves though, and the Monarch must belong to the Church of England.

Basically, it means that, for instance, Prince Harry could marry a Catholic and remain in the succession line, but he could not convert himself. His children would also be raised in Anglican faith (or any other but Catholic, really) to have succession rights.
Reply With Quote
  #515  
Old 08-03-2012, 09:36 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Los Alamos, United States
Posts: 1,034
The sticker in the change to marriage to a Catholic is this: The Catholic partner would have to agree to have her/his child raised outside the Catholic faith. Any "good Catholic" will not agree to this. Catholic law is that a person cannot marry a non-Catholic until the non-C spouse agrees to raise the children Catholic. A priest would not participate in the marriage ceremony with this impediment. That is the way it is unless any changes have been made recently.
Some Catholics are willing to give up their place in the Church by allowing their children to be raised Protestant. Princess Michael of Kent is a Catholic whose children were raised Protestant. She is therefore not a member in good standing of the Catholic Church.
It's different with Princess Caroline of Monaco. When she married Ernst August, she was not married in the Catholic Church, as she was with her first two marriages. Her daughter is being raised Protestant. Therefore she never had to promise to raise her daughter Catholic, and didn't break a promise made in her marriage.

I do not think one could find a Catholic who would marry into the British Royal Family if he/she had to raise children outside the faith; that is, unless that person wanted to leave the Church anyway. It's a sticker that hasn't been talked about, but a big one. Can you imagine, for instance, if Princess Alexandra of Lux were tapped to be married to Prince Harry? She would NOT agree to the stipulation on children, so no marriage.
The Lux family takes their faith seriously, for the most part.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #516  
Old 08-03-2012, 10:27 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Los Alamos, United States
Posts: 1,034
The title Lady of Rothes was semi-salic since the 12th century. Peter Pollock who built the castle of Rothes in northern Scotland left it to his daughter Muriel, as he had no sons.
Muriel had no sons, and left it to her daughter Eva. Eva had no sons, but her daughter married a powerful knight and we don't even remember her name. However, that title went to any girl descending from Peter if there were no boy in the way. This title remained until late in the 20th century, with the last Lady of Rothes being Georgiana Maxwell.
I am a descendant of Peter Pollock's brother Robert. Darn, I missed my chance by being a descendant of the second son, who had his own castle in Renfrewshire. I believe the title was put in abeyance anyway, why I don't know. I didn't know anything about this until 16 years ago when I looked for my ancestors.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #517  
Old 08-03-2012, 10:48 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,006
Unless it's different in Europe than it is here in the US, the requirement to raise the children in the Church has been relaxed to something along the lines of doing their best to see they are raised in the faith, so one could be a Catholic in good standing and have a 'mixed marriage' situation where it would cause a division in the marriage if the Catholic spouse insisted the children be raised in the Catholic Faith. The non-Catholic spouse no longer has to sign a statement or agree that the children must be raised Catholic.


LaRae
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #518  
Old 08-04-2012, 01:45 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
I always understood that in the UK if a Royal marries a Catholic they must give up their place in the line of succession.
Just to clarify this, there is no "they must give up their place" (as there may be with a formal deed of renunciation or abdication). They don't have to do anything - the instrument is set in law enacted by the Parliament. The moment they marry a Roman Catholic the Act of Settlement comes into play and the person is automatically and instantly "made forever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown and government of this realm..."
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #519  
Old 08-29-2012, 07:56 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Singapore, Singapore
Posts: 73
Remaining discriminatory rules

As you are all no doubt aware, some time in the not so distant future, legislation will be brought about converting the rule of succession to the British throne from male-preference primogeniture to absolute primogeniture.

This decision has met, near as I can tell, with zero resistance and appears to be in keeping with modern ideas about the sexes.

There will always be a balance between tradition and modernity with regard to a constitutional monarchy: it is important not to be completely out of touch with public sentiment, but at the same time the link with the past is a very valuable commodity for a royal family.

There are of course a number of "sex-specific" titles, and it is hard to imagine for instance the Dukedom of Cornwall suddenly being a unisex office, or that someone will come up with a Prince Royal title to balance the Princess Royal...

But it does occur to me that some remaining and avoidable elements of sexual discrimination that a modern minded monarchist might criticise. Two are spelt out in King George V's letters patent of 1917. They could be considered separate issues.

1/ that the Sovereign's daughters' children are not RH, and are not princesses or princes

2/ that the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (and no other great grandchildren of the Sovereign) are RH and have the style Prince

The other issue is a more general one and I don't know what piece of legislation covers it, to be honest:

3/ wives take their husband's style and not vice versa.


To my mind, the removal of the restriction 1/ above (ie establishing that all grandchildren of the Sovereign are RH and style Prince or Princess) would be unlikely to face much resistance or put anyone's nose out of joint.

On the other hand, the traditions connected to the direct male line succession to the Prince of Wales are highly valued by some and one could imagine there would be an objection to the removal of the special case 2/ above.

But Number 3/ : this is a very deepseated tradition, connected with common ideas about what "wife" and "husband" mean, probably. It's hard to imagine people would have accepted Philip as Elizabeth's King Consort in 1952, or even a fresh Prince Mark in 1973. Would they, in the coming decade, be ready to accept that someone with no title could be elevated to the status of a Prince by marrying Eugenie or Beatrice?

I would like to hear your ideas on these things, and to learn more about these traditions and rules.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #520  
Old 08-29-2012, 08:08 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,133
There is an existing thread to discuss the primogeniture changes and titles and styles. When it comes to the letters patent, IMO it's going to change a lot that doesn't need changing. The Primogeniture issue didn't even need sorting out now, there is a lot better things the government should be concentrating.
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
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
abdication birth charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games olympics ottoman poland pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marilene princess mary princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:02 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]