Proposal for Equal Primogeniture Succession


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
It seems it's Cameron's people who say the Queen is in favor of it:

Queen backs the plan.

Telegraph is not a tabloid, is it?

So it could also be the case that the Queen is in favor of it. Why wouldn't she be? Doesn't she have those private talks with the PM?
 
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....... :)


I doubt very much if any new proposal would suggest that. There is no need really.

This issue was raised, of course, when Diana was pregnant with William but as he was a boy it was shelved.
 
If the story in the Telegraph is correct, I think it's interesting that the changes will apparently apply to all descendants of the Queen. I wonder if Peter Phillips is just a little nervous knowing that he and Savannah will be two heartbeats away from the throne if the change goes through. (If it happens, he'll probably be a counsellor of state at least at the beginning of the next reign, too.)
 
Last edited:
Is the proposed change in succession retrospective? If so, wouldn't that practically remove William from any chance of becoming the King.
 
I haven't seen anything that says that it would alter it beyond the Queen's descendants. The first three places in the line of succession are the same if that change is made. (And any change that would remove William from his place would probably also depose the Queen, so it's really not probable at all.)
 
And/or the media could be pushing the agenda.;)

Think about it this way/

The issue/agenda goes up in front of all the lawmakers and its on record who voted how and what not.

Do you really think anyone in this day and age would vote NAY?

I think its an issue that would pass in a moment wherever it needs to be passed.

then they'll all go out and drink pink squirrels, bow down and chant MOO to the cow god beluah.

They could ignore the issue too and just go on vacation too.

What do I know.

I haven't seen anything that says that it would alter it beyond the Queen's descendants. The first three places in the line of succession are the same if that change is made. (And any change that would remove William from his place would probably also depose the Queen, so it's really not probable at all.)

I would imagine too that the decree would state "from this day forward" or similar. Enacted on the day it was decided on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
While I think this would be a pretty popular non-binding measure (equality! yeah! seriously, who would go up against that?), my impression is that execution would be awfully messy.
 
So the line of succession, if enacted and retroactive, would be the Prince of Wales and his children (which would not have changed), then Princess Anne, Peter Phillips and his family, Zara and any future children of her marriage, Prince Andrew and family, Prince Edward and his family. I can imagine Peter having a bit of a shock knowing he's thisclose to the succession if there is a law implemented, and Mike Tindall as well. :ROFLMAO: And I wouldn't think in this modern age that there would be naysayers, either, other than those grey suits who want to uphold tradition but they'd be wise to go along with the times. :whistling:
 
It's not going to be retroactive, that's silly.
 
With the way Princess Anne goes about her business and then comparing that to current number 4 Andrew, I don't really see what's wrong with doing it retroactively JMHO. Obviously if it affected the heir and his heir that would be a problem but as it doesn't, I think Prince Philip would be quite pleased to see his beloved daughter and favourite grandson and granddaughter move up a few places. In regards to Peter and Zara then continuing with their current careers, only the HRH title confines them to royal life and not their position in succession.
 
I haven't seen anything that says that it would alter it beyond the Queen's descendants. The first three places in the line of succession are the same if that change is made. (And any change that would remove William from his place would probably also depose the Queen, so it's really not probable at all.)

Thanks. In a moment of confusion I reversed the birth order of Anne and Charles.
 
So the line of succession, if enacted and retroactive, would be the Prince of Wales and his children (which would not have changed), then Princess Anne, Peter Phillips and his family, Zara and any future children of her marriage, Prince Andrew and family, Prince Edward and his family. I can imagine Peter having a bit of a shock knowing he's thisclose to the succession if there is a law implemented, and Mike Tindall as well. :ROFLMAO: And I wouldn't think in this modern age that there would be naysayers, either, other than those grey suits who want to uphold tradition but they'd be wise to go along with the times. :whistling:

I can't imagine Peter would be that shocked as he knows that even if this law is changed, the possibilty of him becoming King is very small. The same can be said for the current order as I am sure Andrew and Edward are quite happy with the lineup as they know they will never become King.

Out of the entire family, if we could choose a Monarch, my choice would be Anne (she'd be just like her mother, a no-nonsense kinda gal) or Edward (Mainly because Sophie would make an awesome Queen), however I think out of all of them the only person who really WANTS to be Monarch is Charles.
 
Does anyone have a link to the actual language proposed by Cameron or is it just a 'topic' to be discussed? Many articles state that it would start with children born to William and Catherine with the first born becoming the future monarch, irrespective of gender. Others seem to believe it would apply to the Queen's children, moving Anne ahead of Andrew and Edward.
Seems to me that starting w/ Charles and his descendants would be easiest since he had no daughters and his children haven't had children yet, thus no changes.
Starting w/ William and Catherine could leave Harry and his future children under the old rules, should something cause William and Catherine to not have heirs.
Starting with the descendants of the Queen my take on the changes:
Anne (from 10 to 4)
Peter (from 11 to 5)
Peter's daughter (from 12 to 6)
Zara (from 13 to 7)
Andrew (from 4 to 8)
Beatrice (from 5 to 9)
Eugenie (from 6 to 10)
Edward (from 7 to 11)
Edward's daughter (from 9 to 12)
Edward's son (from 8 to 13)
 
I think it's a good idea but how can we be sure that their first born will be a girl and their second a boy? It would be nice though to see Kate give birth to a princess, I am sure William would like a little girl because of not having a sister,but Harry on the other hand gets a sister , a sister-in-law.
 
I can't imagine Peter would be that shocked as he knows that even if this law is changed, the possibilty of him becoming King is very small. The same can be said for the current order as I am sure Andrew and Edward are quite happy with the lineup as they know they will never become King.

Out of the entire family, if we could choose a Monarch, my choice would be Anne (she'd be just like her mother, a no-nonsense kinda gal) or Edward (Mainly because Sophie would make an awesome Queen), however I think out of all of them the only person who really WANTS to be Monarch is Charles.

The possibility of Peter Phillips, or anyone else in the royal family other than the expected heirs, becoming sovereign would be most unlikely, that's true. However, I think that just being moved up nearer to the throne would be a bit of a jolt to the system for anyone, IMHO. Peter's position would be fifth in line to the succession, for example, a radical difference from his current one. I know that dramatic change would make me pause, but who can say how anyone would feel under those circumstances? :)

And Anne would definitely make an extremely competent ruler; there's something about her that makes me think of Elizabeth I.
 
Last edited:
If the change was to move Anne and her line above that of Andrew then there would be a very big change - who would be eligible to be the 4th CoS - from Andrew to Anne and Peter would then have to be prepared to take on that responsibility as well (something he hasn't really ever been prepared to do as it was always assumed that he would never have to serve in that capacity) while Beatrice would have been prepared to do it.
 
Do you think the government would take such drastic changes and shuffling around of the line of succession within the royal family into consideration and just change primogeniture with William's and Kate's children? That is, of course, if they are considering the latter scenario only.
 
Last edited:
From what I've read from non-tabloid sources the changes would not affect the relative positions of anyone currently alive but would begin with children born after some date in the very near future. So, no Anne and her family leapfrogging over her brothers and their children. They could even put that date at Jan. 1, 2000 and only really affect Louise and James Wessex (and possibly Savannah depending on if her new sibling is a brother or a sister.) Beyond the descendents of George VI it's really only academic anyway.
 
Establishing a date for equal primogeniture for the future generation rather than the current one might be a neat solution, but it's all speculation anyway (which makes it the fun part) until the law is approved and passed. It would be exciting to see British history in the making if this does get implemented.
 
IMHO this should not be addressed right now. It should be put on hold until after William becomes king. Ask yourselves if this change is to affect the succession to the throne, should it affect other titles received through male primogeniture? Some good examples relating to the current monarch would be the Earl of Wessex's children, Louise and James. Louise is oldest...should she inherit her father's earldom or dukedom, if he becomes Duke of Edinburgh, when he passes away? Should Princess Beatrice inherit her father's dukedom after he passes away and become the new Duchess of York? If William and Catherine do have a daughter first, once William is king will she be the Princess Royal or the Princess of Wales? Will she be the Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay? What happens if she marries a heir to a foreign royal throne? Does she and her descendents lose their places in the line of succession?
 
Last edited:
IMHO this should not be addressed right now. It should be put on hold until after William becomes king. Ask yourselves if this change is to affect the succession to the throne, should it affect other titles received through male primogeniture? Some good examples relating to the current monarch would be the Earl of Wessex's children, Louise and James. Louise is oldest...should she inherit her father's earldom or dukedom, if he becomes Duke of Edinburgh, when he passes away? Should Princess Beatrice inherit her father's dukedom after he passes away and become the new Duchess of York? If William and Catherine do have a daughter first, once William is king will she be the Princess Royal or the Princess of Wales? Will she be the Countess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay? What happens if she marries a heir to a foreign royal throne? Does she and her descendents lose their places in the line of succession?

I believe this is completely separate from the rest of the peer system. That is, the rest of the Peers will continued to be governed under whatever letter patent each title is granted under. For example, the Duke of York will continue to be passed down via the male line of the Duke of York. Ditto for Earl of Wessex. The only thing that would be changed is who ascend to the Throne, although of course they can use this opportunity to review the peer system and who knows what else (hence can of worms....)

Personally while I agree completely with the principle of equal primogeniture, I think the practical effect will be to cause more trouble than it's worth--in other words, open a can of worms. After all the monarch doesn't have any real power, and it's not like folks are demanding to sit on the throne anyway. There have been many many cases where past princes/princesses have approached this with great trepidations. It was said that Princess Margaret said "Poor you" to Princess Elizabeth (the future Queen Elizabeth II) once they learned she would be heir presumptive, and that Princess Elizabeth prayed for a brother. I think there was a past King who had an older sister (can't quite find the right one, so maybe a urban legend) and was very upset when he learned that she wouldn't be next, but he would be.

So basically, while I do agree with the principle, I'm just not sure it's worth the risk of unintended consequences, but I hope to be wrong though if they do go thorough with it. :flowers:
 
...the rest of the Peers will continued to be governed under whatever letter patent each title is granted under. For example, the Duke of York will continue to be passed down via the male line of the Duke of York. Ditto for Earl of Wessex. The only thing that would be changed is who ascend to the Throne, although of course they can use this opportunity to review the peer system and who knows what else (hence can of worms....)

:previous:Would it be fair to address equal primogeniture only in regards to who ascends the throne and not in regards to other titles of the peerage granted through male primogeniture especially those involving the BRF?:ermm: If the eldest son of the monarch becomes the Prince of Wales and the Prince of Wales becomes the next monarch...with equal primogeniture will there still be a Prince of Wales if the eldest son is not the eldest child? IMHO this topic is way too complex than to be centered around just "who ascends to the Throne"

Personally while I agree completely with the principle of equal primogeniture, I think the practical effect will be to cause more trouble than it's worth--in other words, open a can of worms.

:previous:I am in complete agreement with your statement...I also feel that it will be more troublesome than beneficiary. What would be the advantage, in terms of governing, of going through such a change especially if it's only applied to who ascend to the throne?

After all the monarch doesn't have any real power, and it's not like folks are demanding to sit on the throne anyway. There have been many many cases where past princes/princesses have approached this with great trepidations. It was said that Princess Margaret said "Poor you" to Princess Elizabeth (the future Queen Elizabeth II) once they learned she would be heir presumptive, and that Princess Elizabeth prayed for a brother. I think there was a past King who had an older sister (can't quite find the right one, so maybe a urban legend) and was very upset when he learned that she wouldn't be next, but he would be.

So basically, while I do agree with the principle, I'm just not sure it's worth the risk of unintended consequences, but I hope to be wrong though if they do go thorough with it. :flowers:

IMHO I see no practical usage of applying equal primogeniture to the monarchy at this time, especially since the heir and the second in line are pretty much already determined. Waiting until William becomes king would be the best time to address equal primogeniture in regards to the throne. However, in the mean time the "water can be tested" by applying equal primogeniture to lesser peerage titles.
 
IMHO I see no practical usage of applying equal primogeniture to the monarchy at this time, especially since the heir and the second in line are pretty much already determined. Waiting until William becomes king would be the best time to address equal primogeniture in regards to the throne. However, in the mean time the "water can be tested" by applying equal primogeniture to lesser peerage titles.

And by the time William becomes King he will, hopefully, have at least a child or two who are fully grown with children of their own. Tell me, how would it be right or fair, should William & Kate's eldest child be a girl followed by a son, to change the rules of succession to apply equal primogeniture when said son would have been raised as William's heir?

Do it now. If you want to apply it only to children born going forward or to children of the Queen's grandchildren, so be it. But waiting on something like this is ridiculous if the support exists within the Commonwealth realms currently. It might be messy but waiting on it until further down the line is not going to eliminate any of the challenges that will be faced in changing it now. And, in fact, it could be a great deal more challenging, especially if the republican sentiment in nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada grows to the point of those citizens deciding "why bother" with the monarchy at all. With the Queen as popular as she is and entering her Diamond Jubilee year, there won't be a better time to make this change than in the near-to-immediate future, before William & Kate's first child comes along.
 
However, in the mean time the "water can be tested" by applying equal primogeniture to lesser peerage titles.

I'm not sure the means by which a country's head of state is chosen can really be "tested" by applying the same changes to titles that are increasingly amounting to merely a fancy last name (if removal of all hereditary peers from the House of Lords doesn't happen in this Parliament, it will probably happen in the next one). Being a hereditary peer isn't anything like being the monarch, either in responsibility or social status. There's no reason why a change in the succession for one should necessitate (or preclude, or need to be preceded by) the other. They're just completely different things today and I don't see why they wouldn't be dealt with as the separate issues they are.

From what I've read from non-tabloid sources the changes would not affect the relative positions of anyone currently alive but would begin with children born after some date in the very near future.

That's what the original articles say, but the most recent article in the (non-tabloid) Telegraph says otherwise. But we won't know until it's clarified by the powers that be or legislation is put down for us to read.
 
Last edited:
:previous: Exactly.

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.

True of course, but it still reflects, no? I mean, I've read it so many times at this forum that royals should be an "example" for their people. Such old-fashioned rules aren't exemplary, IMHO. I don't think everything has to be over-modern, political correct etc. to be exemplary, but these two things are simply too medieval for my taste.

As to the topic regarding Catholics: I've never said I want a Catholic King or Queen for England. It's clear that the monarch of England can only be Protestant and that's fine. I'd just say that IF a member of the BRF can marry a Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim or whatever and WON'T lose the place in the line of succession, then he/she shouldn't lose this place for marrying a Catholic either. I know the "rule" comes from a time where marrying Muslims or Hindus was out of question anyway, but... In this day and age such a rule is definitely discriminatory. Monarchy is much about traditions and I have nothing against the fact that members of the BRF should stay Anglican to be in the line of succession, and that they should raise their children, if they want to have them in the line of succesion, Anglican, but my oh my, let them marry Catholics without fearing this "punishment". It simply leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

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


I'm optimistic here (one could probably call it naive, too :D). Other monarchies, like Sweden or Norway, have overcome this issue successfully as well, so why should it damage the fundament of the British monarchy? Sure, England isn't Norway or Sweden (and I LOVE the British way of life, btw :)), but I can only think that most people would appreciate such changes. It won't be the last change for the British monarchy IMO anyway.
 
Last edited:
Has male primogeniture prevented women from becoming monarchs?
 
Has male primogeniture prevented women from becoming monarchs?

Actually yes, IF the rule exists back then. It looks like Princess Victoria,, daughter of Queen Victoria, was the oldest child, but the next child was a boy, who would eventually become King Edward VII. So I think this may have been the one I was thinking of earlier in this thread--that he was very disappointed he has to become King rather than his sister, Victoria. But that was way back in the 19th/early 20th century though, when attitudes were much more different from today's.
 
Actually yes, IF the rule exists back then. It looks like Princess Victoria,, daughter of Queen Victoria, was the oldest child, but the next child was a boy, who would eventually become King Edward VII. So I think this may have been the one I was thinking of earlier in this thread--that he was very disappointed he has to become King rather than his sister, Victoria. But that was way back in the 19th/early 20th century though, when attitudes were much more different from today's.

:previous:Princess Victoria married the German emperor Frederick III before her mother passed away. Wouldn't equal primogeniture have merged the two crowns if she became queen...would the same happen under equal primogeniture today? Lets say the eldest child of William and Catherine would be a daughter if she were to marry the eldest child of Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden if the child is a son, both children would be heirs to their individual countries thrones...so William and Catherine's daughter would be Queen of UK and Queen consort of Sweden? Too complicated...primogeniture should be left alone for now.

IMHO attention should be focused on the topic of succession and Catholicism.
 
Actually yes, IF the rule exists back then. It looks like Princess Victoria,, daughter of Queen Victoria, was the oldest child, but the next child was a boy, who would eventually become King Edward VII. So I think this may have been the one I was thinking of earlier in this thread--that he was very disappointed he has to become King rather than his sister, Victoria. But that was way back in the 19th/early 20th century though, when attitudes were much more different from today's.

It would have prevented Elizabeth I from becoming Queen had her younger brother been healthy enough. Same with Elizabeth I's older sister, Mary.

I believe someone has also noted... Frederick, Prince of Wales' (son of George II) eldest child was Princess Augusta. She would have advanced to the throne had equal primogeniture existed.

Furthermore, George III had one daughter who was older than the Duke of Kent (Queen Victoria's father) who would have been ahead of Victoria for many years - though since she she had no children and died before her oldest brother (George IV) the actual line of succession to Victoria would not have been altered.

Interestingly enough, Elizabeth Stuart, daughter of James VI & I and mother of Sophia, Electress of Hanover, would have been Elizabeth II of England had equal primogeniture existed in the 17th century instead of her younger brother becoming Charles I.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom