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
 
  #201  
Old 09-05-2012, 10:54 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
In the UK, we're fairly resigned to the fact that we have a monarchy and at the moment, it's popular. Few people fancy a republic (even less so when we look at the candidates!) so monarchy is here to stay. Because of that, both monarchy and people look at ways of making it more adaptable to modern viewpoints. That's why these changes haven't been hugely controversial here, the reaction seems to have been "Well if we have a monarch, it shouldn't be men first and women second. So do it". And the Catholic ban should have been dropped years ago. I'm in no doubt that in time, we'll even see other changes take place but the question of "Why do we need a monarchy anyway?" never comes up in any serious form.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 09-05-2012, 05:53 PM
LadyGabrielle's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: kapaa, United States
Posts: 1,158
In my opinion, not that it really matters, I think that a monarch should be a monarch because that person is the best one for the job and not because of male or female. I know traditions are appreciated by many but sometimes traditions get a little old after a while. In this respect I think the heirs should be all the children and who ever is best qualified for the job should become the next monarch. Kind of silly I know, but sort of makes sense. Anyone else think so or am I just crazy? :)
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 09-05-2012, 06:00 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyGabrielle View Post
In my opinion, not that it really matters, I think that a monarch should be a monarch because that person is the best one for the job and not because of male or female. I know traditions are appreciated by many but sometimes traditions get a little old after a while. In this respect I think the heirs should be all the children and who ever is best qualified for the job should become the next monarch. Kind of silly I know, but sort of makes sense. Anyone else think so or am I just crazy? :)
Well at some point during the life of the monarch the heir has to be in place and trained up to succeed. What criteria do you have in mind to determine who is best qualified , at what point does the decision get made and who gets to make that decision? We are talking about a hereditary monarchy after not which is not like electing a President.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 09-05-2012, 06:01 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 18
Well it works that way ( though limited to men only) in some of the Arab monarchies I believe - but no couldn't work here- who would choose ? When? Limited how?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 09-05-2012, 06:15 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,847
The dis-establishment of the Church of England would be a big issue. Consider Northern Ireland and also (to a lesser degree and mostly in Glasgow) Scotland and the impact on devolution. If the politicans stick with the Monarch being CofE then this will all happen and I think it would be a good thing.

Regarding "best for the job" - what is the criteria? As someone said (?) the Monarchy is not a popularity contest. Nor is it a competition.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 09-05-2012, 06:27 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 75
Tell me what do you guys think about my assumption to royal styles and titles once full primogeniture is enacted. I believe the title of Prince of Wales should be changed to that of, The Crown Prince of Wales for a male heir apparent, or Crown Princess of Wales for a female heiress. And the entitlement of princely titles for male line grandchildren should be abolished completely, allowing it to die out. The latter titles should be reserved for "the male and female line grandchildren of the British monarch whose son or daughter is the heir/ss apparent and the eldest child of the eldest child of the Crown Prince or Crown Princess of Wales. This would limit the entitlement to princely rank because the children of the Sovereign's sons would not (as male line grandchildren) be eligible for those titles unless their father was the heir apparent. And the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales should be changed to the "eldest child of the eldest child of the Crown prince or Crown princess of Wales". What do you guys think?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 09-05-2012, 06:40 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,420

I could agree with the second of your suggestions - that the style of Royal Highness and title of a Prince/Princess should be limited to the children of the Monarch, plus the children of the Heir Apparent. In fact, I'd say what with the tendency to downsize the Royal Family, that's increasingly likely. Alternatively, the style and title can be limited to, say, first 5 people in the Line of Succession (for scenarios when the Monarch is childless, which would mean there would be no Princes and Princesses at all).

However, I strongly disagree in regards to the effective "abolishment" of the Prince of Wales title; the tradition for the Heir Apparent to the Throne being invested at some point as the Prince of Wales is almost a thousand years old. Moreover, it creates a strong bond with Wales. What could be done in regards to the soon-to-be-adopted Equal Primogeniture rules is to allow an Heiress Apparent to be invested as The Princess of Wales in her own right. No changes in law will be required: a female can in fact be a Princess of Wales in her own right (there are no rules against that) - it's just that had never happened before.
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 09-05-2012, 06:50 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,256
"Crown Prince of Wales" implies there is a King or Queen of Wales that the Crown Prince is heir to. That is not the case. The person titled Prince of Wales is heir to the British monarch ( and in an earlier age heir to the Kings of England).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 09-05-2012, 07:24 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 2,371
Well, I say that if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Once you start messing with centuries-old traditions, the traditions themselves don't just change, they disappear!

And where do you then draw the line?
Shouldn't equal primogeniture also apply to the aristocracy? If not, why not?
(See, once you start there's no end to it).

(Take Sweden, for example; that was changed to equal primogeniture and now people are questioning whether to even have a monarchy at all. I know Victoria is quite popular, but still the question is there. Same with Norway recently.)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 09-05-2012, 08:00 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
(Take Sweden, for example; that was changed to equal primogeniture and now people are questioning whether to even have a monarchy at all. I know Victoria is quite popular, but still the question is there. Same with Norway recently.)
The relevance of the Swedish and Norwegian monarchies has been questioned in those respective countries long before the question of Equal Primogeniture became a hot topic.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 09-06-2012, 12:03 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,256
Can't see any reason to apply it to the hereditary peerages since they no longer have the automatic right to sit in the House of Lords/play a role in government. Equal primogeniture might reduce the possibility of the title becoming extinct I suppose but that really doesn't benefit society at all. No reason to go mucking around with something that has no benefit to the country or society in general. The extinction of a peerage really only impacts the family of that peer.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 09-06-2012, 01:51 AM
DCVO's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Tacoma, United States
Posts: 83
When the heir to the title also gets the family castle and the lion's share of the inheritance, it does make a difference. Althorp didn't go to Diana's eldest sister Sarah, it went to her brother, the new Earl Spencer. If equal primogeniture passes for the royal family, I predict a lot of firstborn peers' daughters stirring the pot to get it enacted for peers as well. Realistically though such a measure could only be implemented forward, not backdated to find who the heir apparent ought to be if equal primogeniture had been around; more "from this date, the firstborn legitimate child shall be the heir apparent."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 09-06-2012, 04:39 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,934
I wonder if in the following scenario they will quickly change it:

William has a girl first and then a boy. William dies. The boy becomes Duke of Cambridge but the girl remains as untitled until she becomes Queen.

The LPs for William's titles is 'heirs male of the body' - the standard inheritance clause - like Philip's, Andrew's and Edward's.

From everything that I have read there would be little support for children of younger children being HRH - look at the praise for Edward and Anne for not giving their children the HRH. I can see the restriction being that the only grandchildren of the monarch that are HRH are those children of the future monarch and no one.

As for only the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales - that was George V's decision for some reason and that is fine with me.

As for a future husband of someone of Beatrice or Eugenie becoming a Prince - no way. If the husbands of daughters of monarchs don't get it then no way the husband's of grandchildren will get.

I am almost of the opinion that even the wives of Princes shouldn't be made into princesses as they weren't born a princess.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 09-11-2012, 11:17 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Simcoe, Canada
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menarue
I am all for it, especially the rule about not being able to marry a Catholic, but then the sovereign would have to lose the title Defender of the Faith.
Actually, under this rule, the MONARCH can't be catholic meaning they are still the head of the church!

Quote:
Originally Posted by kimebear
I don't like the idea that it will be done retroactively. If Princess Anne was now to pass her brothers in the line of succession, you would have Peter and Zara Phillips in line ahead of 2 HRHs, a Viscount and a Lady grandchildren of the sovereign.
It will only happen to the descendants of Charles! Anne is not affected!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 09-12-2012, 02:10 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Singapore, Singapore
Posts: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimebear
I don't like the idea that it will be done retroactively. If Princess Anne was now to pass her brothers in the line of succession, you would have Peter and Zara Phillips in line ahead of 2 HRHs, a Viscount and a Lady grandchildren of the sovereign.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royalfamilyresearc
It will only happen to the descendants of Charles! Anne is not affected!


In any case, Peter and Zara are already in line ahead of several HRHs.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 09-12-2012, 02:41 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Hamilton, Canada
Posts: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royalfamilyresearc

It will only happen to the descendants of Charles! Anne is not affected!
Damn! I wonder what it would have been like for her if she was the first born and equal primogeniture was already in place.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 09-12-2012, 07:29 PM
DukeOfAster's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Pembroke, United States
Posts: 178
I could be wrong but it was my understanding it shall affect the children of William not his father. I also think we are making this out to be much more then it is. Once a daughter is born I am sure the laws will change and I feel when the time is right she will be a Duchess of Cornwall, a Princess of Wales, and a Queen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 09-12-2012, 07:35 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by DukeOfAster View Post
I could be wrong but it was my understanding it shall affect the children of William not his father. I also think we are making this out to be much more then it is. Once a daughter is born I am sure the laws will change and I feel when the time is right she will be a Duchess of Cornwall, a Princess of Wales, and a Queen.
The changes will affect the heirs of the current Prince of Wales - that is to say, Prince Charles.
That means that the children of both William and Harry will occupy their places in the Line of Succession based on seniority of birth.

William first-born child, if a daughter will indeed become Queen one day. Whether she'll be the Princess of Wales in her own right is debatable: it has never happened before but there are no laws that would prohibit that. However, she will not become the Duchess of Cornwall unless laws are changed: as things are now, the occupant of that particular title has to be not only the Heir (or Heiress) Apparent to the Throne, but also the Sovereign's eldest surviving son. For instance, if Prince Charles were to predecease his mother, William could never become The Duke of Cornwall (as he'd be the Sovereign's grandson, not son). Personally, I don't think that rules regarding the Duke of Cornwall title will change. After all, there are titles that exist in feminine-form only as well (Queen Consort, Queen Mother, Queen Dowager, Princess Royal).
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 09-12-2012, 09:19 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 362
I think they will have to do something about all future heirs. It doesn't seem right that it will be equal for Will's children but not Beatrice's. I agree no current heirs s/b displaced. I think they will do it like Norway - everyone born after x date will be by equal p.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 09-12-2012, 10:12 PM
DukeOfAster's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Pembroke, United States
Posts: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by yvr girl
I think they will have to do something about all future heirs. It doesn't seem right that it will be equal for Will's children but not Beatrice's. I agree no current heirs s/b displaced. I think they will do it like Norway - everyone born after x date will be by equal p.
I believe the reason it was set for Williams children is because he will be a furture king and his and Catherine child will be a monarch as well. You will not see others being affected because it is the biggest deal when it is the future Monarch. It was not lesser royals but the heir and the heir child that in a sense "Matters".
__________________

__________________
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 941 02-24-2015 06:31 PM
Prince Frederik and Princess Mary's Official Visit to Australia: November 19-26, 2011 Princess Robijn Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary and Family 295 08-28-2014 08:34 PM
The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change GrandDuchess Royal House of Sweden 276 06-30-2014 12:52 AM
Prince Frederik and Princess Mary's Official Visit to Brazil: September 16-21, 2012 ricarda Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary and Family 81 10-05-2012 04:15 PM
The Third Succession Act (Henry VIII, 1543) Daz_Voz British Royal History 4 07-25-2012 03:17 PM




Popular Tags
belgium carl philip charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events death duchess of cambridge fashion grand duchess maria teresa hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility norway royals official visit ottoman poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince henrik prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess ariane princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess of asturias queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia queen sonja royal royal fashion sofia hellqvist spain state visit stockholm sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:39 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2015
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]