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
 
  #581  
Old 09-13-2012, 05:29 AM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 3,597
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!
__________________

__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #582  
Old 09-13-2012, 07:53 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Singapore, Singapore
Posts: 73
"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...
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #583  
Old 09-13-2012, 12:59 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,262
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #584  
Old 09-13-2012, 01:03 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daz_Voz View Post
"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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #585  
Old 09-13-2012, 05:26 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #586  
Old 09-13-2012, 05:36 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #587  
Old 09-13-2012, 05:58 PM
Molly2101's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,357
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.
__________________
"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
  #588  
Old 09-13-2012, 08:06 PM
padams2359's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 380
I vote for Harry to be Duke of Windsor. It needs to stay close to the family.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #589  
Old 09-13-2012, 09:23 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,129
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #590  
Old 09-14-2012, 03:00 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 75
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #591  
Old 09-18-2012, 01:17 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,181
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #592  
Old 09-18-2012, 01:38 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl View Post
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.
__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #593  
Old 09-18-2012, 01:47 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,262
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #594  
Old 09-18-2012, 11:06 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,129
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).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #595  
Old 09-21-2012, 01:35 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,181
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #596  
Old 09-21-2012, 01:42 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,427

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,
Reply With Quote
  #597  
Old 09-21-2012, 01:51 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemisia View Post

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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #598  
Old 09-21-2012, 01:56 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,984
Then Canada would be the constitutionally divisive stick in the mud.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
Reply With Quote
  #599  
Old 09-21-2012, 02:00 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Royale View Post
Then Canada would be the constitutionally divisive stick in the mud.
Maybe so but IMO this is the reality
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #600  
Old 09-21-2012, 02:06 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,181
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.
__________________

__________________
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
Succession Issues ladybelline Imperial Family of Japan 918 11-02-2013 12:14 PM
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession Elise,LadyofLancaster British Royals 912 02-04-2013 07:05 PM
Rules of Succession CrownPrinceLorenzo Royalty Past, Present, and Future 95 10-25-2012 01:55 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth birthday bourbon-parma camilla charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria danish royals engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hohenzollern infanta cristina infanta elena jordans king king abdullah king abdullah ii king albert ii king carl xvi gustav king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander picture thread pom pregnancy prince albert prince albert ii prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince frederik prince henrik prince joachim princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess annette princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess haya princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess maxima queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia state visit wedding willem-alexander 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 05:18 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]