Proposal for Equal Primogeniture Succession


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
They could always change the succession laws to equal primogeniture to only apply to the generation of William and Catherine's children; that way it wouldn't affect what's already in place. It's already been done in Spain, the Netherlands and Norway.
I know about Scandinavian monarchies,but I've never heard about Spain adopting the equal primogeniture
 
To change the primogeniture issue for titles other than the monarch can be dealt with simply by the British parliament but for the monarch it will require legislation in all countries of which the Queen is Queen and that isn't a given with a couple still having much stronger attitudes to male preference - e.g. Tuvalu. I was talking to a couple of parents of one of my students about this the other day, not realising actually that they came from Tuvalu - and they said they didn't think their government would agree to it as male primogeniture is still the preferred entity within that nation.

Ah, karma! :lol:

I doubt it ever entered the minds of the explorers and colonisers that one day those they attached to the Empire would have such power over Britain.
 
Ah, karma! :lol:

I doubt it ever entered the minds of the explorers and colonisers that one day those they attached to the Empire would have such power over Britain.


Of course I was only stating the opinion of a couple of people and not anything official.

It could also be that Tuvalu decides to become a republic rather than change their preferred practice but from what this couple said the people like having the Queen but simply think that men are better at that sort of thing and would prefer a male at all times over a female.
 
No. All of the realms are independent and equal. If one says 'no' then 'no' it is. Each of the realms has to pass its own legislation to make it happen in their nation.
It could result in the one saying 'no' ending up with a different monarch e.g. everyone else could end up with Queen Diana while Tuvalu keeps male primogeniture and ends up with the new King Micheal (I have taken the liberty of naming their children after William's mum and Kate's dad - to be fair to Kate).

NB This matter has nothing to do with The Commonwealth actually as most of the Commonwealth countries are republics or have their own monarchs. There are some Commonwealth countries that have the same Head of State - in the person of the monarch of the UK of GB and NI but since 1932 all of these realms have equal rights to say 'yes' or 'no' to any idea regarding that monarch e.g. if any of them hadn't agreed to Edward VIII's abdication in 1936 he could have remained as King of those realms and not as King of Britain.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
While it is technically possible for the idea of equal primogeniture to be rejected by a realm, I don't think it is in any way probable. Two things are however nearly certain:
(1) the debate about becoming a republic will be re-opened using the laws of succession as a starting point;
(2) the debate about the religious requirement will be re-opened as well, along with minor debates about adopted children and children legitimated by marriage;
(3) their will be a raft of suits petitioning the queen to change the rules governing hereditary peerages.

Given all three of these debates, I still think they would be better off waiting to see if the first born to William and Catherine is a girl. With a real live baby girl, the objections should be minimal.
 
1. Debate about becoming a republic in most realms will happen regardless - and in Australia for instance can't be determined by the parliament anyway - it will take a referendum of the Australian people and a majority of that population and a majority of the states would have to vote in favour - NB we have only passed about 8 in the 110 year history of the nation.

2. I haven't heard of any debate about adopted children having rights in Britain nor any debate about children born out of wedlock where the couple then marry - probably because people are fully aware of the fact that if the girl was pregnant they would have a quick wedding to cover that eventuality.

3. They can petition the Queen all they like - but to change the LPs for any title they would be petitioning the wrong entity. They need to ask Parliament to do so and Parliament could deal with that issue very simply by having the legislation state that all inherited titles/positions have to be gender neutral.

As for one realm refusing to agree - it is possible. We were given that right in 1932 and the realms are fully aware that it will take legislation in each realm separately and independently of Britain. The legislation therefore has to met the requirements of each of the different realms and even consider the wording of the constitutions of each of the realms as to whether it can be done simply by Parliament or whether a referendum would be required.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know about Scandinavian monarchies,but I've never heard about Spain adopting the equal primogeniture

They have with the king's grandchildren, I believe. So if Letizia and Felipe were to have a son, he would be fourth in line after his father and two sisters. The male primogeniture only still applies to the king's children.
 
Leslie2006 said:
They have with the king's grandchildren, I believe. So if Letizia and Felipe were to have a son, he would be fourth in line after his father and two sisters. The male primogeniture only still applies to the king's children.

No, Spain hasn't changed to equal primogeniture. There was a lot of discussion when Leonor was born but the government seems to want to avoid constitutional complications. I think they will change it if Felipe and Letizia have a son as they took the unusual step of revealing their second daughter's gender before her birth in case it had 'constitutional relevance' or something like that.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_Spanish_throne

I think, like in the UK, the politicians are hoping the problem never arises, although I believe F and L did want more than 2 children, at least before they were married.
 
Male primogeniture should be outlawed everywhere...
 
^i agree but only for european royal houses!!! Great Britain, Spain and Monaco could get rid of Male primogeniture, and Luxembourg and Liechenstein could get rid of the Salic law.

however, countries like Morocco, United Arab Emirates, Brunei and many more its better for them to have the Salic Law, to avoid wars and problems on sucession. on countries where females dont have that privilagies how they can have a Queen ruler? dont get me wrong, i would love to see a women on their thrones, but it would make many issues and dangerous problems.

still, Japan needs to get rid of the Salic Law, and allow Aiko to be Empress. i think this one is my top 1 for changing the constitution. its quite unfair!!
 
You actually raise a very good point as to why the Europeans probably shouldn't change - the increasing number of people from the Middle East moving to Western Europe and demanding to keep their own cultures and laws - especially with regard to women - means that having a woman as the monarch in some of these countries could be a problem in the future. Many of the new migrants to Europe are from the nations you identify as not needing to change to equal primogeniture because of their views on women but as this group will probably form a sizeable minority, if not a small majority in say Britain by the time William's eldest child is succeeding to the throne then taking that issue into account should also be influencing the decision makers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't get this- the 3 best sovereigns (or at least among the best) England has ever had were women- Elizabeth I, Victoria and Elizabeth II so why would anyone afraid of another woman sovereign? Or assume she wouldnt be as ''good'' as a boy? Also the English Queen currently is a women and seems to me no other countries (regardless of their view on women) appear to have an issue respecting her and her position....just my opinions on this subject......
 
Immigrants need to respect their chosen adopted country's culture, including learning the local language. Who cares about what these immigrants want - I could care less. Equal primogeniture should be implemented in the European countries whose native population votes in favor of it. If immigrants are anti-equal primogeniture, they can chose to live elsewhere. What about that statement is so hard for immigrants to understand? Iluvbertie, I cannot believe you had the audacity to post your entry above! I do not understand where you are coming from at all.

kathia_sophia said:
^i agree but only for european royal houses!!! Great Britain, Spain and Monaco could get rid of Male primogeniture, and Luxembourg and Liechenstein could get rid of the Salic law.

however, countries like Morocco, United Arab Emirates, Brunei and many more its better for them to have the Salic Law, to avoid wars and problems on sucession. on countries where females dont have that privilagies how they can have a Queen ruler? dont get me wrong, i would love to see a women on their thrones, but it would make many issues and dangerous problems.

still, Japan needs to get rid of the Salic Law, and allow Aiko to be Empress. i think this one is my top 1 for changing the constitution. its quite unfair!!


I know you meant well by writing you post, but you cannot have it every which way! Maybe you could work as a consultant to these respective governments to make sure your specifications are met! ;-D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Immigrants need to respect their chosen adopted country's culture, including learning the local language. Who cares about what these immigrants want - I could care less. Equal primogeniture should be implemented in the European countries whose native population votes in favor of it. If immigrants are anti-equal primogeniture, they can chose to live elsewhere. What about that statement is so hard for immigrants to understand? Iluvbertie, I cannot believe you had the audacity to post your entry above! I do not understand where you are coming from at all.


I was coming from the point of view that in 50 or 100 years the majority in many countries will be very different to what it is now and thus what is the culture and language of those countries could be very different.

In Australia we have a policy of multiculturalism so all cultures are welcome and able to follow their own beliefs and practices. Many don't learn English and the government etc acknowledge that in many ways e.g. multilingual notices from the government. Where I lived a couple of years ago - the most multicultural local council area in Australia it was perfectly possible to walk the streets without seeing a sign in English. The last time I was in Britain there were also areas there that were the same - where English was the foreign language.

So as these groups become more sizeable then their views will have to be taken into account - just as the Anglo-Saxons had to accept the Norman ideas when they were conquered or the Native Americans and Indigenous Australians have had to come to terms with the new majority in their countries so the Europeans might have to deal with the increasing numbers from the Middle East and Asia - particularly of the Islamic faith - the fastest growing religion in the world.

My point therefore is that if it is clear that in a generation or two generations the majority, or at least a very large minority, are going to have a problem with gender blind succession and thus lead to a coming back to the way it is now why change it?
 
Last edited:
That would be a shame. I respect all different cultures (I live in one of the most mixed countries there is) but I go w/ the saying "If you come to my house, you play by my rules".
The thing is, of course in regards to Britain, as much as we can predict a change in it's current "face", I don't see it changing this drastically in the next 5 years (which is when I predict William and Catherine would have their first child) so in the case of a girl being the first born that would naturally push the matter forward.
I don't thing the tricky part will be inside the UK, but more so, as explained before by other members, with Commonwealth nations. How to deal with that will prove to be the real challenge.
 
Last edited:
I don't know; I can see the appeal of equal primogeniture because offhand it sounds more fair, but I fear the end result would be massive lawsuits!
After all, why should the eldest child inherit at all? Why not the smartest, or the favorite? Why not draw lots and the winner takes all?
You see my drift?
I actually think the change would be more trouble than it's worth.

I was wondering whether, in countries with equal primogeniture like Sweden, do all titles now devolve onto the eldest child? Or is that limited to the Monarchy?
 
I hope they do it.Then William and Kate's daughter will be a future Victoria II or Elizabeth III!
 
IloveCP said:
I hope they do it.Then William and Kate's daughter will be a future Victoria II or Elizabeth III!

Lol. I read your first sentence the wrong way before realizing that you meant changing the law! Ok, I'll behave.
 
@ Esmeralda,it took me a couple of seconds to get what you were talking about!I guess I should of used other wording!
 
I was wondering whether, in countries with equal primogeniture like Sweden, do all titles now devolve onto the eldest child? Or is that limited to the Monarchy?

In Sweden it seems only limited to the Royal Family, since the 1980 reform was made to the Swedish Act of Succession. The reform states that the eldest child of the monarch, regardless of sex, is the first in line of succession. I don't think this applies to Swedish nobility.. but then their nobility is quite different from British nobility, so I cannot say for sure just what their rules of succession are/have been.

As for other countries with equal primogeniture - Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, Denmark and now Luxembourg - they deserve closer inspection as to the structure and application of the provisions.

I know that the change applies only to the royal succession in Denmark, and like Sweden, it doesn't seem to change whatever succession is in place for the nobility.

But the King of Spain did change the succession of the Spanish nobility to equal primogeniture in 2006, but this change apparently does not apply to the royal family. It should be noted that the change is only applied when the order of succession to the Spanish title is not specified in the letters patent of the title's creation.
 
Last edited:
Discussion about legislation about the Duchy of Cornwall has been further moved to the Duchy of Cornwall thread, as it appears to have no direct impact on the line of succession.
 
The trouble with tinkering about with the Constitution is that it raises issues of equality, which carried to the logical conclusion, makes one question whether there should be a monarchy anyway..........

And with the UK in dire staits at the moment, I would hope that Prime Minister Cameron could find better things to do with his time.........with a rise in unemployment yet again and people's living standards continually under attack, with a National Health Service unable to cope with the demands on it and an increasing sick and poor elderly population, I think that DC has enough on his plate already..........

We've had a huge amount of Constitutional change in the last few years in the UK; we need time to first absorb all these changes.....

Just my thoughts and not meant to offend
Alex
 
Last edited:
It could also cause problems in the Commonwealth, opening up a wider debate on the continuation of the monarchy which may not be welcome. In some of these nations, such as Australia and NZ, there is already talk of a republic and in others like Canada the monarchy survives in part because it is ignored on a day to day basis and only becomes real when the monarch or member of the family is visiting. Other than that people dont really think about it.

I think like other PMs Mr cameron talks about the monarchy to take attention away from more serious issues.
Hopefully the Cambridges first born will be a son and the discussion will be put off again.
 
Last edited:
While I can see the point, I don't think they should keep putting off the issue. Regardless of a change in the Constitution, certain countries are going to become republics eventually anyway. Besides that fact, I think it's an issue that has been put off long enough. They need to fix it. In America, whenever the President is visibly fixing whatever everyone has on their minds, it's the same thing. There's always a this can wait attitude. Besides that fact, just because he starts working on other things as well it doesn't mean he isn't working on the other things going on with the country. So, I think it's a good idea. I want everything to get better too, but I don't want to push pther issues off the table that are of importance too.
 
Its not exacty a pressing issue, not even a necessary one to secure the succession. Not everyone in the UK will be in favor of the proposed change, some people will see no reason to change tradition to be politically correct.
 
The trouble with tinkering about with the Constitution is that it raises issues of equality, which carried to the logical conclusion, makes one question whether there should be a monarchy anyway..........

Alex

This is what I think that those in the media and chattering class in the UK who are currently argueing for equal prig. are really after. When I read articles in papers from people who have expressed in the past that they want a repub;ic, saying that the monarchy should allow equal succession for women, I think that they are being very hypocritacl and manipulative.
One thing to consider is this. IN the past two hundred years, how many of those years have we had a Queen, and how many a female Prime Minister?
 
Of course this isn't just a British matter anyway and will also need legislation in the other 16 realms (it may even need a referendum in some of them).

This could even see a situation where the thrones separate - e.g. if the legislation hasn't passed in say Australia at the time that William, Charles and the Queen die and William has a daughter and then a son (I know hard to imagine but so many things do happen that are hard to imagine) then the daughter would inherit Britain but the son Australia.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom