Proposal for Equal Primogeniture Succession

[MARG]

There is no doubt but that The Princess Royal would have made an outstanding Queen. Both she and her older brother are of a generation of noblesse oblige.

But, I still have to wonder if the Equal Primogeniture applies only to the Succession if it is not just a political sop to equality. After all, we all know and Elizabeth, Victoria and Elizabeth have proved that gender is irrelevant as to the success of a Monarch. All sorts of laws would have to be changed both at home and within the Commonwealth to ensure it worked so applying it to all aristocracy is just more of the same.

To be honest, once the laws of succession are changed, would the UK have a leg to stand on in the International Courts of Human Rights should various daughters of the aristocracy start agitating for change on the grounds of gender discrimination?

If it aint broke don't fix it indeed!

[Daz_Voz]

"applying it to all aristocracy is just more of the same."

What statutes cover succession among the nobility? I would have assumed that these days it is a civil matter...

[NGalitzine]

Actually I believe international courts, espoecially the European Court, has already stated that it has no role to play in succession issues which are up to individual nations.
I see no benefit to society in changing the succession to hereditary peers since those peers play no role in the government of the UK unless they get themselves elected to public office or receive a life peerage.

[NGalitzine]

Originally Posted by Daz_Voz

"applying it to all aristocracy is just more of the same."

What statutes cover succession among the nobility? I would have assumed that these days it is a civil matter...

Succession to peerages are determined by the original letters patent granted to the original holders to the title not by act of legislation. Generally succession is to heirs male but in some of the older peerages, and especially in the Scottish peerage, it had be a bit of a hodge podge of rules.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by NGalitzine

Actually I believe international courts, espoecially the European Court, has already stated that it has no role to play in succession issues which are up to individual nations.
I see no benefit to society in changing the succession to hereditary peers since those peers play no role in the government of the UK unless they get themselves elected to public office or receive a life peerage.

The fact that the situation isn't equal between the sexes is a reason to change it.

Things don't have to benefit someone to be right - and changing to gender blind succession for all titles would be the right thing to do, even if society in general doesn't benefit but it would send a very large message that women are equal.

As it is now - some women in the UK don't have equal rights.

[NGalitzine]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

As it is now - some women in the UK don't have equal rights.

Lots of people in the UK don't have equal rights, in a lot of cases supported by religion and the state. Homosexuals currently cannot marry in the UK. Divorced people cannot marry in either the Anglican or Roman Catholic faiths. In the grand scheme of things succession to a hereditary peerage is a pretty minor privelege and changes would benefit much less than 1% of the population. I would venture a guess that the population would not consider the state of the hereditary peers a major concern.

[Molly2101]

I agree that Anne would have made a great Queen, but I do not think she herself would have wanted the rules to have changed for her. She has wanted her children to lead private lives, she and her husband refused titles for their children in the hope it would shield them from the public life. To a certain extent it has; most people know who Zara Phillips is, but mainly for her career in Eqestrianism. Peter Phillips is a relative unknown, which is exactly how Anne wanted it. They will always be known as the Queen's grandchildren, but they will never have the stigma attached to being an HRH. The same is said for Edward and Sophie's choice to refuse royal styles for their children. To be fair, if they really wanted their kids to be "normal" they should have forgone using Lady and Viscount, but Louise and James will remain relatively unknown throughout their lives, at least until they attend the Queen's funeral, or Charles' funeral in the future. It is then that someone will say, "They are the youngest grandchildren of the late Queen Elizabeth." James may be known in the future if he becomes Duke of Edinburgh, as I am sure the award will still exists after Philip and Edward die, therefore James will likely give out the awards.

I am glad the rules have been changed now though. We are living in the 21st Century, it is only right that we should get rid of "old fashioned ways", particularly when it comes to the Monarchy. This will add to their popularity as well. If the rules had not been changed imagine the outcry if William's first child was a daughter and then he had a son. I don't think the public would understand the reasoning behind their son coming before his sister (or possibly sisters) in the line of succession.

[padams2359]

I vote for Harry to be Duke of Windsor. It needs to stay close to the family.

[Iluvbertie]

The rules haven't changed yet - they are still in the planning stage.

They may even go on the back burner if William and Kate's first born is a son and even more so if they have a second child who is also a boy before the legislation is passed throught the various parliaments that have to pass it.

[HRHThePrince]

Prince Charles has commented that he's in favor of a more slimmed down Royal Family. If the equal primogeniture is enacted by law is it fair to say that George V's 1917 Letters Patent will more than likely be overridden by The Queen or Charles himself when he becomes king? I see no reason for it to be further enforced in retrospect of a male line grandchild being entitled to the style of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess just because their father has precedence over a older sister. I also believe that Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie will not have royal roles in Charles's reign, but that of his son Prince William.

[Duke-of-Earl]

Back 10 years ago or so, a Canadian challenged the Catholic exclusion in the Act of Settlement in Canadian Federal court. He argued that under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms it violates 'human rights' to exclude a Catholic monarch. The court ruled that the Act of Settlement is part of the Canadian Constitution and that our Bill of Rights did not apply to this area of law.
I mention this because that ruling gives me the impression that to amend the Act of Settlement to accommodate equal primogeniture, would actually require changing the Constitution of Canada and that puts the fear of God into Federal politicians who don't want to open a Pandora's Box with the Quebec separatists.
My understanding is that to amend our constitution would require not only Federal approval but also the approval of all the provincial premiers. (someone correct me if I'm wrong) and that needless to say is a huge deal in Canada and such constitutional showdowns a la Meech Lake are very very rare in Canada.
To confuse me even more, my local MP emailed me an answer to a question I had on equal primogeniture and he told me that 'the file on equal primogeniture was not currently active'
Does anyone have an update on all of this and do all of HM realms need to sign off or does it work by 'majority vote' or something along those lines?
Nick Clegg says it is a 'done deal' but it appears much work is still needed at least in Canada.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl

Back 10 years ago or so, a Canadian challenged the Catholic exclusion in the Act of Settlement in Canadian Federal court. He argued that under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms it violates 'human rights' to exclude a Catholic monarch. The court ruled that the Act of Settlement is part of the Canadian Constitution and that our Bill of Rights did not apply to this area of law.
I mention this because that ruling gives me the impression that to amend the Act of Settlement to accommodate equal primogeniture, would actually require changing the Constitution of Canada and that puts the fear of God into Federal politicians who don't want to open a Pandora's Box with the Quebec separatists.
My understanding is that to amend our constitution would require not only Federal approval but also the approval of all the provincial premiers. (someone correct me if I'm wrong) and that needless to say is a huge deal in Canada and such constitutional showdowns a la Meech Lake are very very rare in Canada.
To confuse me even more, my local MP emailed me an answer to a question I had on equal primogeniture and he told me that 'the file on equal primogeniture was not currently active'
Does anyone have an update on all of this and do all of HM realms need to sign off or does it work by 'majority vote' or something along those lines?
Nick Clegg says it is a 'done deal' but it appears much work is still needed at least in Canada.

I think we need Iluvbertie here. She's taught me so much and i've come to think of her as TRF's historian.

What I find kind of anachronistic in this is that it pertains to Catholics only and that dates back to when under the pope, there was actual political power.

My thoughts are that if it changed, it would eliminate the the exclusion of a Catholic being married to a monarch. As it stands now, to my understanding, a monarch can marry an Atheist, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, Wiccan or Druid if he/she wishes..just not a Catholic. Those that would marry such monarch would agree to bring any children up in the CoE.

Its odd to mention but when Camilla married Andrew Parker Bowles and had children, both of them were raised in Andrew's Catholic faith and that Charles is the godfather of their oldest son Tom.

In that respect I do see a need for a change. The political power and affect on the world of the RC church is long gone and that rule is anachronistic.

[NGalitzine]

The election of a minority separatist government in Quebec will complicate the issue in Canada where approval of the provinces will be required. It will certainly not be a priority for the federal government and right now English Canada does not seem in the mood to give up anything more to Quebec which makes constitutional negotiations even messier.

[Iluvbertie]

All the realms have to approve the changes according to their own constitutions.

Canada and Australia are a little more confusing as they also are federations.

Canada requires all provinces to agree.

I am not sure, and have not been able to get a definitive answer, as to whether the states and federal governments in Australia have to agree, just the federal government or whether it may even have to go to a full referendum (which I doubt but that suggestion has been made by a friend of my father's who specialised in Constitutional Law as it applies to Australia throughout his working life of over 50 years).

[Duke-of-Earl]

Thank you Iluvbertie for your reply. Hopefully TRH have a first born son because personally I can't see any politician in Canada giving the proposal for equal primogeniture a high priority.

[Artemisia]

All the Governments of Commonwealth Realms have already agreed to the proposal, although none has ratified it so far. The moment it is officially announced the Duchess of Cambridge is pregnant, it is likely the changes will be legalised in very short time, certainly before the birth of the child.

It may not be a priority issue, but it's also not one that can potentially divide a Parliament, so the changes are likely to be ratified quite quickly,

[Duke-of-Earl]

Originally Posted by Artemisia

All the Governments of Commonwealth Realms have already agreed to the proposal, although none has ratified it so far.
The moment it is officially announced the Duchess of Cambridge is pregnant, it is likely the changes will be legalised in very short time, certainly before the birth of the child.

It may not be a priority issue, but it's also not one that can potentially divide a Parliament, so the changes are likely to be ratified quite quickly,

Canadian politicians' first priority is to the people of Canada. Domestic politics in Canada is such that if changing the Act of Settlement requires amending the Canadian Constitution, then it will get zero priority from any Prime Minister regardless of political party.

PM Harper only reluctantly gave his support after the other realms agreed to it but his first response was if its not broke then don't tamper with it.

There are too many groups in Canada that would love nothing more then to open up constitutional wrangling in order to further their own agendas and IMO no federal politician is going to touch this.

[Madame Royale]

Then Canada would be the constitutionally divisive stick in the mud.

[Duke-of-Earl]

Originally Posted by Madame Royale

Then Canada would be the constitutionally divisive stick in the mud.

Maybe so but IMO this is the reality

[Duke-of-Earl]

I can think of 3 provinces right off the bat that wouldn't agree to any amendments to the Constitution unless their laundry list of grievances are addressed.

Don't even get me started on the Quebec separatists.