Proposal for Equal Primogeniture Succession

[Duke-of-Earl]

Originally Posted by American Dane

Also, FYI, the sources I provided with links included were a very easy find. Don't know why you couldn't attach a link in your posts..

The Act of Settlement deals with the Roman Catholic exclusion. Nothing to do with any of your interesting links on the growth and decline of various world religions.

[American Dane]

Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl

The Act of Settlement deals with the Roman Catholic exclusion. Nothing to do with any of your interesting links on the growth and decline of various world religions.

Oy... the point of the "links on the growth and decline of various world religions" is that a law regarding religion (THE ACT OF SETTLEMENT) will be seen as irrelevant to citizens of the commonwealth realms in the coming years and will be easily abolished or changed. I love how the main point of your posts changes from post to post just so you can find a way to disagree with me.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

Except it is broken, and has been broken since it's conception in the UK. I don't see how something can be deemed as fair when it comes down to what sex you are rather than the order you were born in.
Whilst I agree that Canadian politics are Canadian priority, they are part of the commonwealth and their Governors and politicians know that.

Could you please explain your last point?

Being part of the Commonwealth has nothing to do with the issue of equal primogeniture as most of the countries in the Commonwealth are already republics or have their own monarchs.

The British monarch currently is the Head of the Commonwealth but that position isn't hereditary and it is very likely that when The Queen passes some other person, besides the British monarch, will become Head of the Commonwealth.

All of the countries of the Commonwealth are completely independent of each other - can even declare war on each other (as has happened quite regularly on the sub-continent between India and Pakistan). Theoretically The Queen could actually find herself as Head of State of two separate nations at war with each other.

[Lumutqueen]

Yes they can do what they like, and that's my point if they don't want to change their laws or find a way around their tangled mess of issues, just become a republic and leave the commonwealth.
This issue isn't going to go away, and Canada isn't going to halt its progress now or in the future. There is a reason this had to be signed off by the Commonwealth realms, and I bet Canada knows the alternatives to not signing.

Side note: I know what the commonwealth is, what it does etc but thanks for the minor education lesson.

Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl

I agree it isn't fair but where do we draw the line? Monarchy isn't supposed to be fair. It is one family given the role of Head of State by the accident of birth. Its ancient and traditional and IMO if we try and 'modernise' it too much it will just crumble away.

After equal primogeniture, what's left to modernise? The monarchy must move with the times to fit in, it's not going to last forever anyone who believes that needs to take one look at history. It will crumble away sooner or later.

[wbenson]

"Just becoming a republic" would, of course, require the same process.

[Iluvbertie]

Being a republic doesn't mean they have to leave the Commonwealth.

In fact that majority of nations in the Commonwealth aren't republics. There are also some nations that were never British colonies.

It was in fact India's desire to be a republic after independence that gave rise to the Commonwealth rather than the Empire. Currently there are 54 nations in the Commonwealth and only 16 have The Queen as Head of State.

wbenson is so right - regardless of what Canada decides to do it will take the same process - so they can hold up the equal primogeniture proposal simply because it is a change to their consistution and that is very very hard to achieve (and it would be just as hard for Canada to become a republic and not be involved in this issue). It isn't as simple as - if you don't like this idea become a republic - still needs the same process.

[wbenson]

It actually hasn't been settled that changing the succession will require the most arduous constitutional amendment process in Canada. It's certainly a possibility, but I'd expect other avenues to at least be examined.

[Duke-of-Earl]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

After equal primogeniture, what's left to modernise? The monarchy must move with the times to fit in, it's not going to last forever anyone who believes that needs to take one look at history. It will crumble away sooner or later.

Well why not force members of the Royal Family to marry visible minorities. This would reflect 'modern Britain'
Or why not choose from all the children, draw straws and the winner becomes monarch. That would be more equitable.

IMO. once you start 'dumbing' down the Royal Family and make it reflect 'modern Britain' the entire institution becomes watered down and and it will alienate many monarchists, including myself.

[casualfan]

Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl

Well why not force members of the Royal Family to marry visible minorities. This would reflect 'modern Britain'
Or why not choose from all the children, draw straws and the winner becomes monarch. That would be more equitable.

IMO. once you start 'dumbing' down the Royal Family and make it reflect 'modern Britain' the entire institution becomes watered down and and it will alienate many monarchists, including myself.

Sorry but your argument makes no sense. If you didn't allow a prince to marry a minority, even f that's who he happens to fall in love with, that would be the same as denying the throne to a woman even tho she happened to be born first.

[Archduchess Zelia]

I don't see how people can be opposed equal primogeniture, look at Queen Margrethe II of Denmark, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands or just look at the wonderful Queen Elizabeth II - they've done a just as good, maybe even better job reigning their countries. Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden all have equal primogeniture and honestly, what's the big difference? I doubt it's gonna be a bigger difference in the UK.

[HereditaryPrincess]

As some sisters were born before their brothers (just as an example; Lady Louise was born before her brother James) will the elder sisters be able to come before their brothers in the line of succession after the act has officially been declared?

[Duke-of-Earl]

Let me ask this, why is it soooo important that we go from the first born male Windsor, to the first born Windsor? Our Head of State is still going to be from one family.
Is this supposed to modernise the monarchy? Reflect modern day Britain, because if its being done for that reason, I can think of at least a dozen modernisations within the BRF that need to be address.
Nick Clegg and political correctness run a muck.

[Archduchess Zelia]

Originally Posted by HereditaryPrincess

As some sisters were born before their brothers (just as an example; Lady Louise was born before her brother James) will the elder sisters be able to come before their brothers in the line of succession after the act has officially been declared?

I doubt it, it would change the whole line of succession (the Princess Royal would move up and be 4th in line to the throne etc.). I think if the act gets declared, it will be official from William and Harry's children and onwards.

Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl

Let me ask this, why is it soooo important that we go from the first born male Windsor, to the first born Windsor? Our Head of State is still going to be from one family.
Is this supposed to modernise the monarchy? Reflect modern day Britain, because if its being done for that reason, I can think of at least a dozen modernisations within the BRF that need to be address.
Nick Clegg and political correctness run a muck.

What is it that makes it so wrong that females would be able to inherit the throne? It is a fairly narrow-minded and old-fashioned belief that only males are fit to run a country, HM is a perfect example of how women can do it just as good.

[Artemisia]

Originally Posted by HereditaryPrincess

As some sisters were born before their brothers (just as an example; Lady Louise was born before her brother James) will the elder sisters be able to come before their brothers in the line of succession after the act has officially been declared?

The proposed changes will concern only the descendants of the current Prince of Wales - or, in other words, William and Harry's children.

That means that the position of everyone else in the Line of Succession will remain unchanged, meaning Princess Anne will still come after her brothers and their descendants, and Viscount Severn will still be ahead of his elder sister.

[HereditaryPrincess]

I find this Wikipedia page very interesting to read and I'm quite familiar with it:

Line of succession to the British throne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Duke-of-Earl]

Originally Posted by Archduchess Zelia

I doubt it, it would change the whole line of succession (the Princess Royal would move up and be 4th in line to the throne etc.). I think if the act gets declared, it will be official from William and Harry's children and onwards.



What is it that makes it so wrong that females would be able to inherit the throne? It is a fairly narrow-minded and old-fashioned belief that only males are fit to run a country, HM is a perfect example of how women can do it just as good.

Old-fashioned belief?? A thousand year old institution is accused of being old-fashioned.

Time for a cup of tea, methinks.

[Duke-of-Earl]

If I marry Lady so and so, I don't become Lord so and so. Where are the bunny huggers and PC brigade over this? No shouting from the roof tops over the equality for men. Equal primogeniture for the BRF is just a PC move to show how modern a nation Britain is. Can you imagine if we have salic law? The marxiods would be in revolt.
Leave tradition alone or soon you will have no traditions at all.

[Iluvbertie]

I would like them to go to equal succession rights to all titles. I think it is absolutely wrong that Beatrice can't inherit her father's title but could become Queen - seems stupid to me.

Of course the fact that the legislation is only to apply to the descendents of Charles but not to the descendents of any of the other children of The Queen or elsewhere will be silly as well e.g. William and Harry don't have children and Beatrice has a girl before a boy - that boy will still be ahead of his sister in the line of succession so back to square one.

[Archduchess Zelia]

Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl

Old-fashioned belief?? A thousand year old institution is being accused of being old-fashioned.

Time for a cup of tea, methinks.

Yes, I do think it is old-fashioned to believe that women aren't "fit enough" to run a country especially when you look at a monarch like HM.
But ah, maybe you're right Duke of Earl, maybe us women are too hysterical and weak to be head-of-states. Besides, women all over the world have been over-celebrated for too long. We are a society that constantly celebrates no one but women and it must stop!

[NGalitzine]

I just hope William and Catherine have 2 boys and no daughters and the whole issue dies on the political cutting room table.