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
 
  #81  
Old 11-23-2010, 03:13 AM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 193
Okay, this irritates me - kind of similarly to when people confuse 'perspective' and 'prospective' but the word that should be used in this thread is 'retroactive' not 'retrospective'. Retroactive means that the change is effective at some date in the past. Retrospective means that you are reviewing/revisiting the past. In a sentence - a documentary on Princess Diana's life would likely include some interviews of a retrospective nature, however there is nothing retroactive that would change the fact that she's deceased.

As it is, it's hard to say what choices would be made in an equal primogeniture succession proposal. Personally, as both Charles and William are the eldest children, I see no reason to not make a unilateral change that affects everyone in the line of succession rather than just from Charles' or William's descendants forward. Yes, it would mean that Anne and her children would move up the chain, however they are still unlikely to inherit the throne, especially after Will & Kate start their family.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 11-23-2010, 03:56 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunnystar View Post
As it is, it's hard to say what choices would be made in an equal primogeniture succession proposal. Personally, as both Charles and William are the eldest children, I see no reason to not make a unilateral change that affects everyone in the line of succession rather than just from Charles' or William's descendants forward. Yes, it would mean that Anne and her children would move up the chain, however they are still unlikely to inherit the throne, especially after Will & Kate start their family.
I think that should the law of primogeniture be changed, there would be no retroactive results from it. It would more or less state along the lines that from this day forward, the first issue of the reigning monarch and their children regardless of sex would be equal in the line of succession.
This is why I believe the subject is coming up now. Once William is married and perhaps has a daughter and then a son when they passed it, the law passed would be a moot point. The purpose of doing it now would be to start a new precedent whereas the order of succession to the Crown would be regardless of the sex of the first born. If changed now, it would not affect anything in place already. The BRF is downsizing itself. Anne's children don't have title by request. Edward is the same way and keeps his family out of the limelight and they're not princes and princesses of the Realm (legally yes.. by choice.. no)

Honestly though, can you tell me that after how many years now with the UK and the Commonwealth and back then.. Empire, women aren't fit to be Queen?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 11-23-2010, 11:29 AM
Maura724's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: St. Louis, United States
Posts: 772
The current system acknowledges that they ARE fit to be Queen, or obviously there wouldn't be a woman sitting on the throne right now. There's a HUGE difference in salic and semi-salic law.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 11-23-2010, 01:08 PM
Esmerelda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,215
The UK actually has male preference primogeniture, not semi-salic law. In male preference primogeniture, a woman inherits after her brothers but before her uncles. In semi-salic law, a female or her decendants can only inherit if there are no male-line male decendants left in the dynasty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_o...#Primogeniture
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 11-23-2010, 04:17 PM
Maura724's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: St. Louis, United States
Posts: 772
Thanks, Esmerelda, you're very right. The UK system is technically male preference primogeniture. But whatever it's called, it still does acknowledge that women are fit to be Queen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 11-23-2010, 05:19 PM
Esmerelda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maura724 View Post
Thanks, Esmerelda, you're very right. The UK system is technically male preference primogeniture. But whatever it's called, it still does acknowledge that women are fit to be Queen.
That's true, although it does contend that they are less fit to be monarch than a younger brother..
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 11-23-2010, 06:12 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunnystar View Post
Okay, this irritates me - kind of similarly to when people confuse 'perspective' and 'prospective' but the word that should be used in this thread is 'retroactive' not 'retrospective'. Retroactive means that the change is effective at some date in the past. Retrospective means that you are reviewing/revisiting the past. In a sentence - a documentary on Princess Diana's life would likely include some interviews of a retrospective nature, however there is nothing retroactive that would change the fact that she's deceased.

As it is, it's hard to say what choices would be made in an equal primogeniture succession proposal. Personally, as both Charles and William are the eldest children, I see no reason to not make a unilateral change that affects everyone in the line of succession rather than just from Charles' or William's descendants forward. Yes, it would mean that Anne and her children would move up the chain, however they are still unlikely to inherit the throne, especially after Will & Kate start their family.

You are forgetting the Counsellors of State. Currently these are Charles, William, Harry and Andrew. At some time in the future Beatrice and possibly Eugenie will be called upon to serve and they have been trained to do that job but Peter and Zara haven't.

Change the succession laws and Peter and Zara will have to be prepared to serve in that role.

The Councillors of State are the next 4 over 21 in the line of succession and do the job of the Queen when she is out of the country e.g. while she is on the state visit Charles will be doing the job, unless she has named William or Harry.

When Charles becomes King then next four in line will include Beatrice until a child of William's or Harry's turns 21 (except if William's eldest is a son and then it is 18 if William is King). It is perfectly possible that within the next 19 years (the earliest date that a child of William could reach 18) that William will be King in which case Eugenie would also be eligible to serve. Beatrice and Eugenie have had the constitutional training necessary to do this whereas Peter and Zara haven't.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 11-23-2010, 06:33 PM
Esmerelda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Beatrice and Eugenie have had the constitutional training necessary to do this whereas Peter and Zara haven't.
Really? At the risk of going off-topic here, what does that entail? Also, couldn't Peter and Zara just be given the training after the law change? Or maybe just Peter, as the next four after Charles under equal primogeniture would be: William, Harry, Anne, Peter. As Beatrice and Eugenie are both quite young, I don't think training takes that long. Whether or not Peter and Zara would want to do it is another matter, of course.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 12-16-2010, 09:40 AM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,428
IMO it will be made to apply proactively. That is, it will mean that if William & Catherine have a daughter first she cannot be moved down the succession by the birth of a younger brother.
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 12-16-2010, 10:11 AM
Esmerelda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by wymanda View Post
IMO it will be made to apply proactively. That is, it will mean that if William & Catherine have a daughter first she cannot be moved down the succession by the birth of a younger brother.
That would probably be the solution, like the situation in Norway. Alternatively, they could restrict the sucession to descendants of Charles and then apply equal primogeniture. That would be a shame though, to get rid of the tradition of having thousands in the line of succession..
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 12-17-2010, 02:58 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 352
I don't think they would change the whole succession. In Norway they applied it to those born after (a certain year).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 12-24-2010, 08:50 AM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 386
Equal gender rights would mean, that also in the british aristocracy the first born would inherite the titel (earl, duke, ...)

In Switzerland they changed the name-laws when you get married. Now you can choose what your name will be:

husbands name, or wife name, or each keeps his/her name, or wife keeps hers and ads name of husband (without a "-") or wife takes name from husband and ads her name (with a "-")

So if Mr Schmied marries Ms Müller, they can be named Müller or Schmied, or he stays Schmied and she can be Ms Müller Schmied, or Ms Schmied-Müller :-)

With an Gender-legislation they could probably overturne the whole system (goosh: that would probabely be the end of a lot of lovely tradition...) anyway: what a thought.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 12-24-2010, 03:04 PM
Krisotter's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Richmond, United States
Posts: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nice Nofret
Equal gender rights would mean, that also in the british aristocracy the first born would inherite the titel (earl, duke, ...)
I'm not sure that's automatically the case, as the titles are conferred by LP, most of which specify male heirs. It would make an interesting court case, though.
__________________
"The important thing is not what they think of me, but what I think of them." -Queen Victoria
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 12-24-2010, 03:08 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nice Nofret View Post
Equal gender rights would mean, that also in the british aristocracy the first born would inherite the titel (earl, duke, ...)
No it wouldn't mean that.
If the line of succesion were changed, it would apply only to the line of succesion not to royal titles or any other dukedoms, earldoms etc. That would require all new legislation I believe.

If they changed the line of succesion if Catherine has a girl, then it will most likely appy from then on and not alter the previous succesion laws, ie placing Edward before Anne.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 12-24-2010, 04:56 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,438
However there is no reason to assume that the parliament would only restrict that equal gender rights to one title and not to all. It would make sense.
If the gender equality was to come about (and it will) I don't see Anne and her descendents moving ahead of Andrew and Edward's lines either but they could change it to move Louise and her descendents ahead of James and his descendents if they dated it back to say 2001.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 12-24-2010, 04:58 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,105
Your right there is no reason why they would restrict it just to the sovereignty and it would make sense but in answer to Nice Nofrets statement it won't all change when the throne goes equal.

It would make sense to date it back to 2001.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 12-25-2010, 11:05 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Virginia, United States
Posts: 58
There is the Spanish precedent to consider. In the early 2000s King Juan Carlos changed the succession practices for the inheritance of Spanish peerage titles. As a general rule, most titles are now inherited by absolute cognatic primogeniture.... regardless of gender… as the default inheritance.

However, there are exceptions. According to the Spanish Ministry of Justice, titles in Spain are granted by the grace of the king. The mechanism for this is known as the Title of Concession, akin to the Royal Warrant in England. The succession principle by which a title is inherited is listed on individual Titles of Concessions, with the default that the titles be inherited by Absolute Cognatic. The title holder may, in a will I believe, distribute his titles among his children with the eldest getting the highest ranking titles. This succession is known as Succession by Distribution. Also, the title holder may designate a sole heir to inherit all titles regardless of the birth order of his children; this is known as Succession by Assignment.

Both political parties in Spain support the amendment for absolute cognatic, though I admit I am unsure why the amendment has not come to a vote. Granted, Spain does have other issues on its plate then to worry about a succession question at the moment. It’s not really a question either, as the Prince of Asturias two children are both are little princesses.

For England, more then likely any constitutional change for absolute cognatic for the succession will only affect William and his children. I suspect, like in Spain, the English Parliament would have to pass legislation for noble titles separately then from the royal titles.
__________________
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent
- Eleanor Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 12-25-2010, 05:45 PM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 386
Thank you Keystone - this is interessting .. i didn't know.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 12-26-2010, 05:36 AM
Esmerelda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keystone View Post
There is the Spanish precedent to consider. In the early 2000s King Juan Carlos changed the succession practices for the inheritance of Spanish peerage titles. As a general rule, most titles are now inherited by absolute cognatic primogeniture.... regardless of gender… as the default inheritance.

.
They haven't changed that for the inheritance of the crown (not yet anyway) so if Infanta Leonor gets a brother, he pushes her down in the succession. It may happen the other way round in the UK.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 01-04-2011, 03:08 AM
Kasumi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: ****, Taiwan
Posts: 2,616
A new bid for equal rights for women and Catholics this month

British politicians are launching a new bid this month to rewrite the rules of succession, a move aimed at giving Catholics and female members of the Royal Family equal status with men and Protestants under the 310-year-old legislation governing the order of those in line to the throne. - Vancouver Sun
__________________

__________________
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
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession Elise,LadyofLancaster British Royals 926 04-15-2014 11:41 PM
Succession Issues ladybelline Imperial Family of Japan 918 11-02-2013 12:14 PM
Rules of Succession CrownPrinceLorenzo Royalty Past, Present, and Future 95 10-25-2012 01:55 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events diana dutch royal history engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hohenzollern infanta elena infanta sofia jordan kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg ottoman pom president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:47 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]