Proposal for Equal Primogeniture Succession

[Hopewell]

Change law of succession?

My biggest fear is that William and Kate's first born will be a girl and that they will saddle her with "Diana" as her first name. With that in mind [and I wouldn't wish that on any child--way to overwhelming a legacy] should Parliament revise things so a first-born is heir regardless of gender? Personally I'm praying William and Harry's children are all boys or at least lots of boys first, then a girl. I know the Di-groupies would be gaga for a little "Queen Diana" but I think that would send the poor kid straight to therapy with the overwhelming shadow of granny ever to reign over her!!

Also, what about Catholics? Currently most of the Duke of Kent's family are now Catholic and for the first time in so long a royal Dukedom will become not only NON-Royal, but Catholic on the current Duke's death. Should that change? Should the Sovereign be, as Prince Charles has suggested, the Defender of FathS and not "the Faith?"

 

[QEII]

I don't know why but I would want them to have a girl, but if it's a boy it's okay too.
What happens if they are twins? Would the first one that comes out be heir or could they just pick which one they want?

 

[Lenora]

I don't know why but I would want them to have a girl, but if it's a boy it's okay too.
What happens if they are twins? Would the first one that comes out be heir or could they just pick which one they want?

Yes,they have a good chance to have twins as Earl Spencer,Diana's brother has twin-daughters.If we look at the Spencer bloodline we could see more girls than boys,the Windsor bloodline is quite equal ,but who knows.
I think if they have twins of different gender,the heir will be boy.If the twins will be both girls,the first should be considered as heir,if they will change the law of equal primogeniture

 

[Somersby Tulip]

Sovereignty

Also, what about Catholics? Currently most of the Duke of Kent's family are now Catholic and for the first time in so long a royal Dukedom will become not only NON-Royal, but Catholic on the current Duke's death. Should that change? Should the Sovereign be, as Prince Charles has suggested, the Defender of FathS and not "the Faith?"

Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory. It can be found in a power to rule and make law that rests on a political fact for which no purely legal explanation can be provided. The concept has been discussed, debated and questioned throughout history, from the time of the Romans through to the present day, although it has changed in its definition, concept, and application throughout, especially during the Age of Englightenment. The current notion of state sovereignty is often traced back to the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), which, in relation to states, codified the basic principles of territorial integrity, border inviolability, and supremacy of the state (rather than the Church).

I believe Charles is correct about faiths in view of state soveignty in relation to integrity (and also the law does supercede the Church).

There is protestant, presbetyrian, catholic, roman catholic, lutharian, orthodox and many other religions.

 

[nascarlucy]

Here something that would be rather interesting. If Kate was carrying twins and one was a boy the other a girl. Whoever was born first would be firstborn. Unless the law of succession changes, the male would still be the heir to the throne regardless of how they were born.

If the law changes, then the first baby who was taken out would be the heir to the throne. It would be interesting if there was a change in the law (whoever was born first) if the doctor would attempt to take the male out first if the birth was a C-section. As of yet, this issue has never arose in any royal household as the first born male would be heir to the throne regardless of birth order.

 

[Esmerelda]

I would surely hope that in the case of a c section the doctors would take out whichever baby it would be safest to do.

 

[nascarlucy]

You certainly would hope so. However, because that the male is preferred heir to the throne in most countries (even in countries where this has changed to first born), a doctor might be tempted to do this in the case of a C-Section, even if it put the female baby at risk. Or in a case where there was a highly unlikely another pregnancy would occur. There would be a lot of moral and ethnical questions regarding this type of situation.

 

[Lenora]

Brit asks Canada for help rewriting the rules of the Crown

 

[Esmerelda]

You certainly would hope so. However, because that the male is preferred heir to the throne in most countries (even in countries where this has changed to first born), a doctor might be tempted to do this in the case of a C-Section, even if it put the female baby at risk. Or in a case where there was a highly unlikely another pregnancy would occur. There would be a lot of moral and ethnical questions regarding this type of situation.

It might put the male baby at risk to come out first depending on the relative positions etc. Besides, there are many female doctors on obstetrics and the same argument could be made about them pulling out the girl first. It's very hard to imagine where the lives of the babies and mother are at risk, that a doctor would base their decision on their own preferences regarding the gender of the future monarch.

 

[Somersby Tulip]

Faith to Faiths & Sovereignty

...Another problem is succession to the peerage titles. It will be a lot harder to establish equal primogeniture in e.g. succession to the dukedom of Norfolk and other peerage titles which follow strict Salic law. The Duke of Norfolk is also the Premier Duke in the Peerage of England and that position was held only by males throughout history (indeed, when a woman inherits the highest title of a certain rank, the position of premier peer would go the male holder of the next highest title of the same rank).

Interestingly enough

The Duke of Norfolk is the premier duke in the peerage of England and also as Earl of Arundel the premier earl. The Duke of Norfolk is, moreover, the Earl Marshal and hereditary Marshal of England. The dukes have historically been Roman Catholic, a state of affairs known as recusancy in England. Despite this apparent handicap however, for Protestant England to have its highest-ranking peer remain a Roman Catholic it may have protected the dukes from further religious persecution after the reign of Elizabeth I.

Many of the Dukes of Norfolk have also been knights of the Order of the Garter. The first Earl of Norfolk dates back to the 1300's.
Some of the inheriting Dukes were second sons and there was even a great-grandson.

was there always something in the wind for changing the wording from 'Faith' to 'Faiths'

 

[QEII]

BBC News - Review could see Prince William's daughter as Queen

 

[KittyAtlanta]

There is protestant, presbetyrian, catholic, roman catholic, lutharian, orthodox and many other religions.

Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist are all Protestant and Christian. Also, let's not forget Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Friends. They are Protestant and Christian as well.

Eastern Orthodox, is Eastern Orthodox. Roman Catholic is Roman Catholic. However both are Christian.

The following are independent religions and are not Protestant, nor are they Christian: Baha'i, Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism, Wicca, Zoroastrianism, and Druidism (SOME INCLUDE VooDoo, which is a mix of Christian and non-Christian.)

To do this, in my opinion, the PoW would have to divest himself as Head of the Church of England.


I can see the PoW wanting to sooth all the religions in the UK, but don't know how one can do that without espousing all the belief systems that he is defending.

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

Hi

This is my first post

Now that I have said hello, I'm all for equal primongeniture. There is no objective reason for discriminating against Females in the line of succession. It is true that favouring the oldest child is a little bit discriminatory in itself, but at least Elisabeth of Belgium's younger siblings can take heart in knowing that she is the heiress because she came along before them, and there was no reason to discriminate against her. Lady Louise, on the other hand, must grow up knowing that she was put on the backburner, soley on the basis of her gender. On the issue of the Throne not being desirable, it certainly involves a lot of pressure, but it is fair that a Royal who is not the heir would rise to the challenge if anything tragic were to happen.

As for peerages, I would love for a title to be created that could be given to the husband of a Duchess, without making him a Duke, and for fairness, the wife of a Duke, without making her a Duchess. This would allow, the royal partner to be the holder of the Duchy. I would also love to see the wife of a King be referred to as Princess Consort. It would allow Queen Regants to stand out. Until quite recently, I thought Queen Beatrix of The Netherlands was a Consort. Admitedly this was due to a lack of on my part (the Dutch Royal Family doesn't get much coverage in Australia) but has anyone ever believed King Carl Gustav of Sweden to be a consort? This is a problem.

As for the Catholic Issue. It makes sense for the head of The Church of England to be an Anglican, but marrying a Catholic should be allowed. There should be the right for the children to be raised as both, make up their minds, when old enough, and if they choose to become Catholics keep their places in the line, with a conversion being acceptable for any Catholic who becomes Sovereign.

Well thats My first
I've been browsing this place for a while, and I am so glad to be posting

Whoops

I mean "but it is fair to assume that any Royal, who is not the heir would dutifully rise to the challenge, if something tragic were to happen"

 

[melissaadrian]

The Dutch we Canadians have a special bond with. Beatrix and her sisters lived with their mom here in Canada during the war. One of them was born here. I wonder if it will be odd to the Dutch, when Wilhelm becomes king. It will be since the 1800's since they have had a reigning king. The last was William III, who died in 1890. He had three sons with his first wife, all who died before him, two before his daughter was even born. His second wife and widow Queen Emma served as regent until 1898 when Queen Wilhemina turned 18, and was enthroned. She served as queen until her abdication in 1948. At that point the 15 monarchs on the throne when she became queen, were all dead, and only 7 european monarchies remained. Julliana, who had been in Canada during the war, took the throne and ruled until april 30 1980 when she abdicated due to illness, in favor of her eldest daughter Beatrix. She died in 2004, buried next to her mother, and her husband died eight months later and interred next to her. It will be interesting to see if Beatrix abdicates, or reigns until her death.

But with only three daughters, it is pretty clear Wilhelm will only be a break in the run of women.

Can anyone explain why his three daughters are called the three A's. His eldest is Catharina-Amalia isn't she? I'd assume she'd rule under that name.

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

It certainly is interesting how The Netherlands manged to have a significant number of Queen Regnants before Male Primogeniture was abolished. Maybe they were the motivation

 

[Lakshmi]

It might put the male baby at risk to come out first depending on the relative positions etc. Besides, there are many female doctors on obstetrics and the same argument could be made about them pulling out the girl first. It's very hard to imagine where the lives of the babies and mother are at risk, that a doctor would base their decision on their own preferences regarding the gender of the future monarch.

OMG, I hope it would never happen. I hope no doctor would make decision which baby to pull out first based his/her beliefs about monarchy, but only based on health issues.

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

Can a Duchess ever be above a Duke?

Crown Princess Victoria has been The Duchess of Vastergotland since she was two, yet Prince Daniel became The Duke of Vastergotland when they wed.

Shurely the Dukedom wasn't handed over to him, given she has owned it since she was a baby

If a Duchess can be above a Duke (in a Swedish sense at least) then The British Monarchy would do well to follow Sweden's lead. It would make the gender equal inheritence of Peerages much easier

OMG, I hope it would never happen. I hope no doctor would make decision which baby to pull out first based his/her beliefs about monarchy, but only based on health issues.

I don't think any Doctor would risk it.

 

[wbenson]

'Equal rights' move for Kate and William's children: Government examines legal change to allow first born girl to accede to throne | Mail Online

Ways of allowing a daughter born to Kate Middleton and Prince William the same rights of succession to the throne as a son are being examined by the Government, it emerged tonight.

 

[EchoLynn]

I think it would be awsome if they could change the law to allow a first born daughter the right to rule... Though I do understand that there are more pressing things, I think that compared to some stuff you see them 'discussing' is more useless then putting this on the table and finally fixing it.

 

[TLLK]

Hi, This is my first post

Welcome to the Royal Forums. Since you post has stated everything that I wanted to write in my own post then I will simply state that I agree with what you've written.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I have no real problem with equal primogeniture for the monarchy so long as it is extended to all titles e.g. Beatrice be able to inherit York.

All in the one piece of legislation - for all inheritiances the family must divide everything equally between all children and the eldest child, regardless of gender inherits any title.

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

Welcome to the Royal Forums. Since you post has stated everything that I wanted to write in my own post then I will simply state that I agree with what you've written.

Aww! Thanks

I have no real problem with equal primogeniture for the monarchy so long as it is extended to all titles e.g. Beatrice be able to inherit York.

All in the one piece of legislation - for all inheritiances the family must divide everything equally between all children and the eldest child, regardless of gender inherits any title.

Agreed. I am hoping that by the time of Andrew's passing, the rules will have been changed to allow Beatrice to become The Duchess of York. It wouldn't be retrospective, given that the Dukedom hasn't been promised to anyone else. This is the twenty first century now

 

[Roslyn]

I am most definitely in favour of equal primogeniture for the monarchy, and the sooner the better. Like, next week. If it is wrapped up in a package with all the other aspects of inheritance of property and titles, it will get put on the back burner and nothing will happen, because such legislation would involve a review of the whole system. I think the issues can, and should be, severed.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I am most definitely in favour of equal primogeniture for the monarchy, and the sooner the better. Like, next week. If it is wrapped up in a package with all the other aspects of inheritance of property and titles, it will get put on the back burner and nothing will happen, because such legislation would involve a review of the whole system. I think the issues can, and should be, severed.

Why?

Surely inheritance to any title should be equal - why should Beatrice be able to become Queen but not inherit her father's title?

It is sheer sexism at its worst and unless you fix the entire system then there is no point in fixing one part of it.

It could even lead to a situation whereby the Edinburgh title passes to William's son - the second born child while the eldest child gets the throne (if William has a girl and a boy and then he and Charles die before Philip).

 

[Mirabel]

I have no real problem with equal primogeniture for the monarchy so long as it is extended to all titles e.g. Beatrice be able to inherit York.

All in the one piece of legislation - for all inheritiances the family must divide everything equally between all children and the eldest child, regardless of gender inherits any title.

But if the property is equally divided, then those great estates would cease to be by the third generation! Soon there'd be nothing worth inheriting for anyone; that's why male primogeniture came about originally.

 

[Iluvbertie]

But if the property is equally divided, then those great estates would cease to be by the third generation! Soon there'd be nothing worth inheriting for anyone; that's why male primogeniture came about originally.

And is there a need for those great estates to be in the hands on one person rather than be in a trust to provide an equal income for all of the children?

 

[Mirabel]

And is there a need for those great estates to be in the hands on one person rather than be in a trust to provide an equal income for all of the children?

Yes, because much of the money generated goes to maintain the estate itself. Those stately homes are hugely expensive to run, not to mention all the death duties, etc. If the income is equally divided, it can't be done.

 

[Roslyn]

The reason I say that the male primogeniture issue can, and should, be severed, is to enable the anachronistic sexism inherent in the present system of inheritance of the monarchy to cease immediately. I believe it is a relatively straightforward issue and can, (and should, IMO), be severed, as, I understand, was the case in Sweden. If that particularly thorny issue is resolved, the rest can be dealt with at leisure.

The issues relating to inheritance of peerages involves consideration of more fundamental issues and the situation is also inextricably linked to property law generally, and it will take time to tease out all the strands and devise a new regime.

 

[wbenson]

Royal succession rules unlikely to change soon

David Cameron has played down the prospect of an imminent change in the rules of royal succession amid concerns that constitutional tinkering could spark a fresh campaign in Australia for it to become a republic.

 

[pacomartin]

David Cameron has played down the prospect of an imminent change in the rules of royal succession amid concerns that constitutional tinkering could spark a fresh campaign in Australia for it to become a republic.

There are a number of items about the British monarchy that seem to come up repeatedly. The prohibition against Catholic monarchs, the relationship with the Anglican church, the title of "Prince of Wales", the male preference in the laws of succession, not addressing adoption, the fact that the monarch is still called "Defender of the Faith" even though that title was bestowed by a pope.

I think David Cameron is correct. Let them have a baby first. If it's a girl there will be overwhelming support to changing the law. It will be much easier. I disagree with the people who think it should be passed before there is a real person involved.

If you do it in the abstract then you will get all kinds of collateral discussions about the nature of monarchy, and why the former colonies still have a monarch. Once a real baby is involved, it will be much easier.

The real issue, I think is that if you change the rules for the monarch, then the rules governing all the peerages will be challenged.