Proposal for Equal Primogeniture Succession

[Iluvbertie]

Elizabeth, like Victoria before her, was only ever an heiress presumptive or 'presumed heir'.

A son to George VI would have replaced, just as any child born to Queen Adelaide would have repleced Victoria.

Had The Queen Mum had a son after February 6th 1952 but before November 6th 1952 that son or son's line would be Elizabeth's heir not Charles. This was apparently - can't find the reference now but have read it somewhere - the decision in 1837 about Victoria - a child born to Adelaide within 9 months of Victoria's accession would be Victoria's heir. I have also read, however, that Victoria would have had to abdicate immediately - so it isn't written in stone.

Charles is the heir apparent and William is his heir apparent.

Of course, in the future, there will be fewer chances for an heiress apparent as the first born, regardless of gender will be the apparent heir.

The only way there would be a 'presumptive heir' in future will be in cases like Victoria's rather than Elizabeth's.

[NGalitzine]

^^^^^
Nothing ever stops a good conspiracy theorist.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Vecchiolarry

Hi,

Why even have a monarchy if you don't have a King and Queen at least?
Or a Queen, if no King, as is the case today??

Ands in the case of twins, is not Catherine present at the birth to say which came first? Is not William going to be present too?
They are whom I would believe before doctors/palace grey suits....
Their word should stop all conspiracy & theorists!!

Larry

It is the doctor or midwife who puts down the time of birth and that is the official time so it will be the doctor's word who will decide if they are so close together that it isn't clear and usually there are a couple of minutes at least - time enough for the first one to be clearly recorded before the second one arrives.

[NGalitzine]

Well no matter how close the timing one still has to come out first unless they are conjoined. Its not like the birth room will be empty. There will be witnesses.......but even that would not stop a good conspiracy theorist or tabloid writer.

[cepe]

Originally Posted by NGalitzine

Well no matter how close the timing one still has to come out first unless they are conjoined. Its not like the birth room will be empty. There will be witnesses.......but even that would not stop a good conspiracy theorist or tabloid writer.

Something about not letting the truth get in the way of a good story

[COUNTESS]

It is all nonsense and keeps people and the press going. No one, really, cares.

[cepe]

yes they do - vicarious living; dreams of better things; sense of history; fear of politicians; desire for continuity; desire for equality; something to break the monotony; etc

oh yes - and something to complain about or deride

[Trillian]

Continuity of leadership without political fear or favour?

[padams2359]

Did SJP announce twins, and I missed it? Not sure who put 2 in there?

[Artemisia]

No one has made any such announcement. The twins speculation started because the condition Kate is suffering from mainly occurs when a woman is pregnant with twins and, to a lesser degree, with a girl.

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Vecchiolarry

Hi,
Ands in the case of twins, is not Catherine present at the birth to say which came first? Is not William going to be present too?
They are whom I would believe before doctors/palace grey suits....
Their word should stop all conspiracy & theorists!!

Larry

Doctors will decide who comes out first or second, if it's caesarean. If it's not, then the babies decide.

Originally Posted by padams2359

Did SJP announce twins, and I missed it? Not sure who put 2 in there?

SJP did not announce twins, hypothetical conversation.

[AdmirerUS]

Originally Posted by Vecchiolarry

Hi,

Why even have a monarchy if you don't have a King and Queen at least?
Or a Queen, if no King, as is the case today??

Ands in the case of twins, is not Catherine present at the birth to say which came first? Is not William going to be present too?
They are whom I would believe before doctors/palace grey suits....
Their word should stop all conspiracy & theorists!!

Larry

Queen Elizabeth I is rolling over in the grave right now! And all her fans are saying "Wait one minute, now..."

[Duke-of-Earl]

Why didn't they talk to Charles before this mad scramble? | Mail Online

The announcement of the Duchess of Cambridge’s pregnancy – and the imminent arrival of a child who will be third in line to the throne – has caused a flurry of activity in Whitehall.
As part of the Government’s commitment to equal opportunities, driven by the Lib Dems and especially by their leader Nick Clegg, it wishes to ensure that the first-born child of the Cambridges succeeds to the throne irrespective of its sex.
At present, custom and practice going back to the Norman Conquest and before dictates that a first-born girl can reign as queen only if she has no younger brother.

The Succession to the Crown Bill, drawn up by the Cabinet Office and published last month, seeks to change that.
The Government originally raised the issue in 2011, when David Cameron asked all 15 Commonwealth nations who have the Queen as Head of State to approve the change.
They have now done this. They also approved changes to the Royal Marriages Act of 1772 and to the Bill of Rights of 1689, to allow those in line to the throne to marry a Catholic without having to renounce their right to succeed – as, for example, Prince Michael of Kent had to when he married his Catholic wife in 1978.However,
I am told by friends of the Prince of Wales that he is alarmed, for several reasons, about the nature of this major constitutional change.

[Artemisia]

A stupid article full of errors.

The Act of Settlement clearly states that the Monarch, as well as those who wish to retain their succession rights, must always belong to the Church of England: there are no plans to change that. That means the theoretical situation the DM article envisions can never take place. Now, I'm pretty sure Prince Charles is perfectly aware of the fact, which in turn means the whole article was basically made up. What a surprise.

[cepe]

majority of politicans are amateurs (or in the Uk, failed lawyers);the recent cull of civil servants (where the most experienced left with a sigh of relief and mega-pensions) has left negliable experience in Whitehall; and asking for advice (ie constituional experts) is seen as involving consultants - a dirty word in government circles.

The article may not be made up - it could be worse. Someone involved in this has explained it to the DM and its obvious that they dont understand.

EDIT: And I find it hard to believe that David Cameron and the Queen have not discussed this during their weekly meetings.

[Duke-of-Earl]

Succeeding to the Canadian throne

Since the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the English Parliament — rather than the monarch — has controlled the line of succession to the throne through legislation, such as the Act of Settlement, 1701. There is therefore no question that the British Parliament must enact a law to amend the rules of succession. But what of Canada? Must we do the same? Indeed, we must, a reality that dispels any notion that the Crown is a mere symbol of Canada’s history as a British colony, and that highlights how deeply entrenched the Crown is in the Canadian constitution.

The Royal Line of Succession: Coordinating Amendments to the Act of Settlement in the 16 Commonwealth Realms | James W.J. Bowden's Blog

I support the two proposed changes. I only wish that Prime Minister Cameron in particular were willing to acknowledge that the Act of Settlement contains far more than simply the codification of male primogeniture and the penalty applied to royal marriages to Catholics. In fact, the Act of Settlement and the Bill of Rights represent the triumph of parliamentary sovereignty by vesting power in the crown-in-parliament rather than simply in the Sovereign’s person.

[angieuk]

Prince Charles: Shake-up to let a daughter succeed to the throne 'has not been thought through' | Mail Online

As far as I am concerned the Sons' should always be given precedence over older sisters. Don't care if it is old fashioned that is how it should be left.

Sweden can keep its Queen's. Kings and Queens in a pack of card - King wins every time. That is how it should be.

A woman sovereign will never have the status of a male sovereign. On paper maybe, but that's it. My views won't change on this. I think they should leave well alone. If there are no male children born then fair enough, but if a male child comes along later, he should inherit the throne above his older sister, no question about it!

[HRHHermione]

Originally Posted by angieuk

Prince Charles: Shake-up to let a daughter succeed to the throne 'has not been thought through' | Mail Online

As far as I am concerned the Sons' should always be given precedence over older sisters. Don't care if it is old fashioned that is how it should be left.

Sweden can keep its Queen's. Kings and Queens in a pack of card - King wins every time. That is how it should be.

A woman sovereign will never have the status of a male sovereign. On paper maybe, but that's it. My views won't change on this. I think they should leave well alone. If there are no male children born then fair enough, but if a male child comes along later, he should inherit the throne above his older sister, no question about it!

You're free to have your own opinion of course, but I find this view point incredibly narrow minded and very demeaning to the many, many women who have successfully occupied positions of power, including Queen Elizabeth II. I see absolutely no reason why gender discrimination should have any place in determining the sovereign and I'm thrilled that the rules are changing and this form of discrimination is being done away with.

[hkittybaby]

"New laws to ensure William and Kate’s first child accedes to the throne even if it is a girl will be rushed out within weeks and fast-tracked through Parliament in two days, the Standard reveals today."
Fast-track vote for Duchess of Cambridge's baby law - UK - News - London Evening Standard

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

This is in the wrong thread, but I'm interested as to why you think a woman sovereign will never have the status of a male one when the current Queen completely and utterly shatters that view point?

Oh and Sweden isn't the only one with it's Queens only Spain, the UK and Monaco left to change it's primogeniture laws in Europe.

And in both Spain and Monaco at the moment it seems that due to Semi-Salic law there will be a future female souverain.