Proposal for Equal Primogeniture Succession

[Daz_Voz]

Well yes but these questions are not about the primogeniture changes.

[Lumutqueen]

I've updated my post.

[Zonk]

Closed for moderator review.

[Palmerston]

I can guarantee you that this proposed legislation will not be effected. Not only are there more pressing concerns than David Cameron bludgeoning our constitution, the ratification of all constituent realms with their respective constitutions will be logistical nightmare, with our without verbal agreement being made. Add to the mix that backbench conservatives will never support this motion and you have an idiotic recipe that’s doomed to failure – God knows why Cameron thought it opportune to make such a foolish and, unconservative, statement.

Britain isn’t Sweden or Norway or any other quasi socialist hotspot – conservatives & monarchists will not stand for the complete inversion of the monarchy and our constitution.

[Palmerston]

Originally Posted by Kellydofc

I don't know how quickly this issue will proceed because at the moment it's a nonissue really. The next two heirs to the throne are male not matter what. If William and Katherine have only girls or a girl first then I can see how it might become more pressing 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.

Why is it pressing? Nobody cares about it apart from the Guardian and evidently David Cameron, much to the chagrin of the Conservative's core vote. I can guarantee you that this legislation will not be passed. It's all hot air.

[Lumutqueen]

Sorry but the line of succession and the catholic issue will be altered. If The Queen agrees with the changes, why on earth should any monarchist disagree with their monarch?

There are more pressing issue right now, but as far as I know steps are already in motion for these changes to be applied. It's not going to be forgotten.

[Palmerston]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

Sorry but the line of succession and the catholic issue will be altered. If The Queen agrees with the changes, why on earth should any monarchist disagree with their monarch?

There are more pressing issue right now, but as far as I know steps are already in motion for these changes to be applied. It's not going to be forgotten.

The Catholic debarment will take theological legerdemain to rectify: I won't be holding my breath that they'll be able to remedy the issue. It really isn’t a pressing concern.

The issue of succession is altogether different: I'm not aware the Monarch has even been consulted or that the wishes of the Royal family will be considered; even if they are clandestinely consulted, I doubt they'll voice an opinion overtly - it isn't the done thing.

I guarantee you these changes will not be implemented. It's all hot air. It was part of Cameron's jolt towards the leftwing, his banal attempt to woo the metropolitan middle class. There are already signs even today that he's reneging that initiative.

[Felica]

But it is potentially a pressing issue-the clock starts ticking the moment Kate becomes pregnant

[Excalibur]

Originally Posted by Palmerston

The issue of succession is altogether different: I'm not aware the Monarch has even been consulted or that the wishes of the Royal family will be considered; even if they are clandestinely consulted, I doubt they'll voice an opinion overtly - it isn't the done thing.

Not only was the Queen consulted, Her Majesty has given her approval to the proposal. And in a very public venue, the meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of State back in October. I believe that this was even reported on in the national news here in the US. IIRC, the theme of the meeting was centered around women and their potential in the Commonwealth.

The manner in which the proposal is being acted upon -- discussions to assure the language of the legislation is acceptable to all realms that need to approve it -- bodes well for its eventual passage and enactment. I believe it is simply a matter of time.

[Felica]

Bear in mind---the Queen is a woman of course!!!

[Palmerston]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

Not only was the Queen consulted, Her Majesty has given her approval to the proposal. And in a very public venue, the meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of State back in October. I believe that this was even reported on in the national news here in the US. IIRC, the theme of the meeting was centered around women and their potential in the Commonwealth.

The manner in which the proposal is being acted upon -- discussions to assure the language of the legislation is acceptable to all realms that need to approve it -- bodes well for its eventual passage and enactment. I believe it is simply a matter of time.

Absolute rubbish - if the Prime Minister has decided upon legislation of this sort then it behoves the Monarch to accept the proposal whether or not she agrees with it, to say otherwise would invoke a constiutional crisis. I can assure you, absolutely, that this legislation will not pass; you're completely misreading British politics.

[Archduchess Zelia]

I definitely think that there should be equal primogeniture, but that the Brits can do what we did in Denmark and wait until the subject becomes relevant. Say that William and Catherine's first couple of children will be boys, they don't really need to change it until there comes a girl (or even, until the girl might get a baby brother). I don't know if this made sense. That said, if their firstborn is a girl, it should be changed right away.

[Felica]

No-if the Queen was not in favour she would simply not say anything at all-not openly commend and approve it as she has done

[Palmerston]

Originally Posted by Archduchess Zelia

I definitely think that there should be equal primogeniture, but that the Brits can do what we did in Denmark and wait until the subject becomes relevant. Say that William and Catherine's first couple of children will be boys, they don't really need to change it until there comes a girl (or even, until the girl might get a baby brother). I don't know if this made sense. That said, if their firstborn is a girl, it should be changed right away.

Absolutely not. The arguments for equal primogeniture are facile - there are no satisfying intellectual arguments to restructure the rules of succession. This is a minority project wishing to impose their bizarre quest for egalitarianism on something that is inherent inegalitarian. Why the first born? That's grossly unfair to later born siblings - why not elect the monarch from all available sons & daughters? The entire thrust of the argument is flawed. It isn’t logically cohesive.

I have never seen any evidence that the majority of backbench Conservatives, especially the Conservative right, would ever support these proposals. This is very much a Cameroon idea that smacks of desperate politics to 'modernise' the Conservative Party. If it can’t get rid of the remaining hereditary peers, what hope of this monumental constitutional change? What was said in the Queens Speech might as well have been said last decade for all the relevance it has given the current economic climate.

[Palmerston]

Originally Posted by Felica

No-if the Queen was not in favour she would simply not say anything at all-not openly commend and approve it as she has done

With all due respect that isn't how it works.

[Felica]

With all due respect-I have never heard Her Majesty go out of her way to commend legislation not yet drafted other than this...

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Palmerston

I can assure you, absolutely, that this legislation will not pass; you're completely misreading British politics.

Sorry but you cannot assure of us anything. Nobody can. You seem to be hell bent on convincing us that this is down to politics, which says more about you than anyone else.

This legislation is a wait and see game, we have 14 countries that need to have reforms approved by parliament and then receive royal assent. If the PM's of 14 different countries think this could happen, ALL of the proposed changes that is, then I don't see how you can be so sure they won't.

[Palmerston]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

Sorry but you cannot assure of us anything. Nobody can. You seem to be hell bent on convincing us that this is down to politics, which says more about you than anyone else.

This legislation is a wait and see game, we have 14 countries that need to have reforms approved by parliament and then receive royal assent. If the PM's of 14 different countries think this could happen, ALL of the proposed changes that is, then I don't see how you can be so sure they won't.

On the contrary, it says more about David Cameron than anything else. In the context of British politics, it's manifestly clear why Cameron embarked upon this flawed initiative.

What the Prime Ministers think in their respective countries is moot - they're not constitutional experts; the logistical nightmare of implementing these changes shouldn't be underestimated (assuming they’re still in office). I doubt this will ever be a principal concern and it will take a PM with a dogged fidelity to the idea to implement it. That's before you even begin to factor in the rest of the Conservative Party. I’m baffled how any monarchist could support such a move: is the Monarch a public servant, or do they transcend the mores and sentiments of the present? The answer to that question is the difference between royalism and republicanism.

[Archduchess Zelia]

Originally Posted by Palmerston

Why the first born? That's grossly unfair to later born siblings - why not elect the monarch from all available sons & daughters? The entire thrust of the argument is flawed. It isn’t logically cohesive.

I am not entirely sure, but I think you might have misunderstood me. Obviously the change should be made for all of William and Catherine's (and Harry's and their cousins) children, not merely for the firstborn. All I am saying is that it doesn't become relevant until William and Catherine actually have a daughter. I mean, it's a fairly complicated process (or at least it was in Denmark, with the change of our constitution) so why not wait with the change until it actually become relevant?

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Palmerston

On the contrary, it says more about David Cameron than anything else. In the context of British politics, it's manifestly clear why Cameron embarked upon this flawed initiative.

What the Prime Ministers think in their respective countries is moot - they're not constitutional experts; the logistical nightmare of implementing these changes shouldn't be underestimated (assuming they’re still in office). I doubt this will ever be a principal concern and it will take a PM with a dogged fidelity to the idea to implement it. That's before you even begin to factor in the rest of the Conservative Party. I’m baffled how any monarchist could support such a move: is the Monarch a public servant, or do they transcend the mores and sentiments of the present? The answer to that question is the difference between royalism and republicanism.

I'm sorry but what?
I doubt this has been embarked upon lightly, it's taken enough years to get to the point of establishing a change that nobody's going to ignore the fact it might take years to actually put it in place. I have no idea what politics has to do with any of this, you're evidently using this to continually slate a government you do not like.

I'm a monarchist, and I support the changes 100%, in this day and age it's plain common sense. What do you have against the changes other than logistics? Looking at your posts in the Swedish thread it's evident what your issue is, IMO you're stuck in the past. If The Queen can accept her monarchy has to move through the times, so should you. Monarchs have no legitimate power anymore, they are there to serve as ambassadors for their countries and that is across the world. One day I imagine they will disappear, but I doubt in my lifetime.

Originally Posted by Archduchess Zelia

All I am saying is that it doesn't become relevant until William and Catherine actually have a daughter. I mean, it's a fairly complicated process (or at least it was in Denmark, with the change of our constitution) so why not wait with the change until it actually become relevant?

I think because it's a fairly complicated process it should be started as soon as possible. This way it doesn't include any messing about when their first born is born.