Proposal for Equal Primogeniture Succession

[Sunnystar]

That might not be the worst thing in the world. The son could move to Australia and then there'd be no need for Australia to become a republic at all.

 

[grevinnan]

They are very smart in starting the process now rather than wait. If the firstborn for William and Catherine is a girl the discussions will take on a very different dynamic if the succession issue has not been addressed.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Exactly. I'm of the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" school.

It could also cause problems in the Commonwealth, opening up a wider debate on the continuation of the monarchy which may not be welcome.

And then there's the obvious question of how equal should equality be? Let alone class distinction, should people be allowed to be wealthy by birth? Or should one's estate upon death go to the government so that the money can be divided equally among everyone? Just think, if a Canadian worth about $30,000,000 died, and it would be equally divided, that would be a dollar for everyone in Canada. The fact is, people aren't born equal. Some are more intelligent than others. Some are more attractive than others. Some are more healthy than others. People will never be entirely equal, and life will never be entirely fair.

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..........

 

[Mandarin_Empress]

The fact is, people aren't born equal. Some are more intelligent than others. Some are more attractive than others. Some are more healthy than others. People will never be entirely equal, and life will never be entirely fair.

I agree--of course, everyone is born with different personality traits, physical traits, and family circumstances. That's unavoidable. Shouldn't everyone have the same rights and opportunities, though, such as basic human rights, equal education and career opportunities, and equal justice under the law?

That said, I can see how bringing this issue to the forefront in the UK and Commonwealth nations can spark a debate about a whole host of thorny issues, which may include whether younger children or even extended family should have equal rights to inherit the throne (not to mention how that individual should be chosen), the irrelevance in modern times of the original underpinnings of monarchy, and the ultimate question of whether it should exist at all. It is a needed debate, whether it's welcome or not.

At a time when many other, more important issues are demanding immediate attention, I think this debate should happen at a different time for the UK public and government. Equal primogeniture is far from a pressing issue, and affects only the royal family (or perhaps also the aristocracy), so it shouldn't really be a matter of concern for the gov't. at this time. Basic human rights should be addressed first.

Of course, that doesn't mean royal enthusiasts can't debate it here--I just mean that it should not be a matter for national debate quite yet.

 

[wbenson]

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.

Presumably each country could include in its legislation a clause stating that it doesn't go into effect until the other relevant countries pass similar laws. (Or at least an option for it to be deferred and then brought into force later by an order in council.)

 

[MARG]

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

Well, not only have they started the process of equal primogeniture but also removing the Roman Catholic penalty but, if they manage to pull it off on the basis of equality all of the Aristocracy will have to be prepared to take the next hit.

I mean that if it's OK for Andrew to be the Duke of York, why is it not OK for Beatrice to be his heir and become "Duchess of York" in her own right? The ramifications of such a change are mind boggling but if they don't include them there may bes a case for the European Human Rights Court

I do however agree with removing the consequent loss of succession rights on marrying a Roman Catholic.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Presumably each country could include in its legislation a clause stating that it doesn't go into effect until the other relevant countries pass similar laws. (Or at least an option for it to be deferred and then brought into force later by an order in council.)

As each of the countries is completely independent of each other and only share a Head of State each one has to pass it using their own legal requirements regardless of what happens in any of the others. Orders in Council only apply in the UK and have no bearing in each of the other nations so an Order in Council in Britain won't change the law in Australia, unless the Australian government passes the same order - the same with ordinary legislation.

Each of the 16 nations of which the Queen is Queen is totally independent of each other and each has to pass this legislation independently of the others.

 

[Osipi]

Actually I think in a way with Parliament addressing these issues now may go a ways towards making the monarchy more relevant in this day and age. It puts forward the idea that with equal primogeniture, the monarchy (and the aristocracy) is no longer accepting of an archaic and outdated way of thinking that the female gender is less acceptable than the male gender. I think it would be retaining such a way of thinking that would endanger the monarchy and class structure that would serve as more of a cause for republicanism.

Since 1838, the monarchy has had three very long standing, respected and much beloved females as icons of what the monarchy stands for. Queen Victoria, Queen Elizabeth, Queen Consort and Queen Mother and Queen Elizabeth II. As an American, I'd really be hard pressed to sit down and name the list of Prime Ministers that have headed Parliament but I would wager that most people world wide would at least be able to name one - Margaret Thatcher.

Another point of view. If equal primogeniture was to be passed and enacted in 2012, I would think that it would really be such a wonderful tribute to HM who after dedicated and devoted service for 60 years as Queen to be remembered in the history books as the Queen who was on the throne when this was passed.

As far as the Roman Catholic aspect. I don't really believe that I've ever heard anyone in this day and age express the opinion that a RC in the line of succession would be a bad thing. As I believe I've read somewhere elsewhere on the board, it was primarily enacted to prevent the Stuarts from claiming the throne and also noted that if/when William does become King, it will be the first time in centuries that the Stuart bloodline will once again be a monarch.

 

[wbenson]

As each of the countries is completely independent of each other and only share a Head of State each one has to pass it using their own legal requirements regardless of what happens in any of the others.

What I'm saying is that each country could independently include a clause in its own legislation saying that the legislation isn't effectual until similar legislation goes into effect in other countries. (It's how legislation that gives effect to treaties often works, so it's not a totally alien concept. If two countries agree to reduce import tariffs, both countries' changes to the relevant tax codes will hinge on the other country's enactment of its end of the deal.)

They wouldn't have to do it that way, of course, and ultimately I think this is going to involve a lot of cat-herding, but theoretically avoiding a split should be easy.

Orders in Council only apply in the UK and have no bearing in each of the other nations so an Order in Council in Britain won't change the law in Australia, unless the Australian government passes the same order - the same with ordinary legislation.

That's what I had in mind. (By order in council I meant an order from each relevant privy or executive council. Sorry for the confusion.)

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Its an issue that cannot be surpressed for longer, it has to come through to make the institution at least look modern.
Britain is a country that has had great Queens, however, its does come with a sacrifice as women are those who have to give birth and raise a family at the same time when ruling a country, in most cases. Its an impossible task and while I dont want to go into detail, we can easily see the deficits in the life of QEII as a mother.

The modern generation might not be prepared for such sacrifices or unable to handle this kind of pressure with a media scrutiny a million times stronger than during QEII's time as a working mother. Plus, women destined to rule have to find a husband who will have to put up with the special male consort/family man role that is very demaning in its own right and needs a suitable personality in a time where divorce has become an option.

However, I dont think there is a choice about the firstborn being heir or heiress to the throne, it only follows the logic of modern time.

 

[Tiberivs]

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.

It's actually isn't legally possible, the Westminster Act determine that any future change to the line of succession should be approved by all commonwealth realms. Either all of them change the succession or none at all.

 

[wbenson]

The Statute of Westminster isn't irrevocable. There's no reason why a country that so desired couldn't simply repeal that part of it in order to make such a change. (In countries like the United Kingdom and New Zealand that operate under the principles of parliamentary supremacy, no change in the law can be legally impossible.)

Harper backs British PM's plan to modernize royal succession - The Globe and Mail

Stephen Harper has informed British Prime Minister David Cameron that Canada will support his plan to modernize the royal succession – as long it doesn’t get in the way of fixing the economy.

 

[Grandma828]

I hope the change happens, but somehow I feel like it will take some years.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

The Statute of Westminster isn't irrevocable. There's no reason why a country that so desired couldn't simply repeal that part of it in order to make such a change. (In countries like the United Kingdom and New Zealand that operate under the principles of parliamentary supremacy, no change in the law can be legally impossible.)

I think that the Commonwealth unanimousness(?) relates to the dissolution of the Monarchy, not succession.

 

[camelot23ca]

I think if this issue is put off on the basis of there being other, more pressing things that need to be dealt with then change will never happen. But by that argument then every government should only deal with the single most important, immediate issue of the day. Education reform is important but it will need to wait because we need to figure out what to do about healthcare. Wait, though, let's put healthcare on hold; the economy's horrible so let's focus on that. Hang on, hang on, the Middle East is blowing up AGAIN, we'll need to come back to the economy... and so on and so forth.

Additionally, different people have different thoughts on what's important. I don't agree with those who think this is a trivial matter or that it's about being politically correct. I think symbols are important and I think advancing and reinforcing the idea that women are not inherently inferior to men is important.

I also don't understand why people think the end of the monarchy is the natural end point of making changes that bring the institution more in line with modern society. If Henry VIII were to come back to life today he'd find many aspects of the British monarchy changed to the point of being completely alien, (I imagine he would be horrified ). And yet the institution has survived and I doubt that even the most stalwart traditionalists would advocate a return to a Tudor style monarchy.

 

[NGalitzine]

Well in Canada the chnage may be more difficult that the Prime Ministers thinks, if a change in succession law is interpretted as a change to the office of the Queen which may well be the case.
In the case of an amendment related to the Office of the Queen, the use of either official language (subject to section 43), the amending formula, or the composition of the Supreme Court, the amendment must be adopted by unanimous consent of all the provinces in accordance with section 41.

Constitutional change is very difficult in Canada because of the need for provincial approval. It is virtually impossible to get all 10 provinces to agree on anything.

 

[Jacknch]

I can't see how the proposals can be so difficult to navigate through and I certainly do not think a change in who becomes monarch first - male or female - should be related to constitutional change (abolishing the monarchy and becoming a republic I would agree is constitutional, but not equal primogeniture). It is already established that by law a female may, under certain circumstances, become a monarch. Is it not simply a case of expanding slightly on such circumstances.
I also fail to see how a debate on this matter could possibly have a detrimental affect on fixing economies.

 

[wbenson]

I also fail to see how a debate on this matter could possibly have a detrimental affect on fixing economies.

There's a possibility, it's not settled but it's a possibility, that enacting the change in Canada would require the use of the most strict formula for amending the Constitution (the unanimous agreement of Parliament and all ten provincial legislatures). Canadian politicians are extremely gun-shy about such things, as the last two attempts to "re-open the Constitution" failed after monopolizing political attention for quite some time, and the failures were a factor in the decimation of the governing party at the next election (worse than decimation, actually; they went from 151 seats to 2).

While this change wouldn't be nearly as controversial as the comparably much more major changes proposed 20 years ago, there's always a fear that a province or two might hold things up in order to extract some prized goody from the federal government.

 

[Dierna23]

Sure, there might be more important things at the moment, but I personally can't wait to see this change happen. At last. A preference for male children and the exclusion from the line of succession because a member of the family marries a Catholic - all of this is terribly discriminatory and old-fashioned, such things shouldn't have a place in any society of the 21th century.

 

[NGalitzine]

Sure, there might be more important things at the moment, but I personally can't wait to see this change happen. At last. A preference for male children and the exclusion from the line of succession because a member of the family marries a Catholic - all of this is terribly discriminatory and old-fashioned, such things shouldn't have a place in any society of the 21th century.

Discriminatory perhaps, but that discrimination applies to the very few people in the line of succession not to the society as a whole. Even barring Catholics from the succession does not impact on the Catholic marriage partner marrying a member of the BRF as they themselves are not dynasts, it only impacts on their non-Catholic marriage partner who is still free to marry who they wish if they are willing to give up their right to the succession. The proposed changes will still require Protestant succession, Catholics will still not be able to be the monarch.

 

[Diarist]

My problem is still that if you take the view that 'A preference for male children and the exclusion from the line of succession because a member of the family marries a Catholic' is discriminatory and out of step with today's society etc, you then open a can of worms regarding whether the whole idea of a monarchy is 'discriminatory and out-of-step' with the idea that the UK is striving to be a Meritocracy...and thus that a monarchy has NO place in today's society, based on inherited position and accident of birth etc etc........

Only my thoughts,

Alex

 

[NGalitzine]

Monarchy is discriminatory by its very nature, but so are other institutions. I don't want to start a religious war but the Roman Catholic Church could also be called discriminatory....women cannot be priests, non-Catholics cannot become Pope, priests who wish to marry must leave the priesthood. In America they always say that anyone can grow up to become President but that really isn't true, you have to be born a US citizen, generally go to the right universities and as it stands now be able to raise in excess of a billion dollars. The world is filled with inequalities and discrimination.

JMO
Nicholas

 

[fearghas]

Monarchy is discriminatory by its very nature, but so are other institutions. I don't want to start a religious war but the Roman Catholic Church could also be called discriminatory....women cannot be priests, non-Catholics cannot become Pope, priests who wish to marry must leave the priesthood. In American they always say that anyone can grow up to become President but that really isnt true, you have to be born a US citizen, generally go to the right universities and as it stands now be able to raise in excess of a billion dollars. The world is filled with inequalities and discrimination.

JMO
Nicholas

Whike i gree that the world is full of inequalities, the Americab President is not the best example. After all, to be King you have to be born to a certain person and is limited to only a few dozen or do. To be Us President, any of the 100 million people born in the US, could conceviably overxome the other obstacles and become President.

 

[NGalitzine]

Whike i gree that the world is full of inequalities, the Americab President is not the best example. After all, to be King you have to be born to a certain person and is limited to only a few dozen or do. To be Us President, any of the 100 million people born in the US, could conceviably overxome the other obstacles and become President.

Perhaps but if you are a naturalized US citizen, no matter what else you achieve in life you are constitutionally barred from becoming President. That is discrimination and creates 2 classes of US citizens.

 

[Daria_S]

Her Majesty is not opposed to the idea, according to The Telegraph.

Queen backs plan to let daughter of Prince William and Kate Middleton to accede to the throne - Telegraph

 

[Mermaid1962]

I'm somewhat suspect about HM "letting this be made known." The Queen doesn't voice her opinions on political matters, even if they involve her own family. Or perhaps even especially if they involve her own family.

 

[Daria_S]

I'm somewhat suspect about HM "letting this be made known." The Queen doesn't voice her opinions on political matters, even if they involve her own family. Or perhaps even especially if they involve her own family.

Then perhaps we're once again being misinformed by the media. Not surprising.

 

[Baroness of Books]

While the article is interesting and exciting for the changes it talks about, I guess like anything else, we have to wait for a formal announcement from the government regarding any implemented changes. But, wow! Imagine Princess Anne leapfrogging ahead of her younger brothers in the succession.......

 

[PrincessKaimi]

So, what legal processes have to occur for the change to equal succession to take place?

And it would it be certain that the change was retroactive (affecting Princess Anne)?

Anyway, fascinating to think about and makes me happy it's been considered. It should be seen as a tribute to the excellent of the current monarch, who has proved that a woman is more than able to be a regent. Some of it may indeed come from being the firstborn.

 

[Mermaid1962]

And/or the media could be pushing the agenda.

Then perhaps we're once again being misinformed by the media. Not surprising.