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
 
  #301  
Old 07-22-2013, 05:36 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Grundisburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
She would only go down further if they had a second son after a first girl.
Is it not correct that after the change of succession rules, if W&C have a girl next time she will be ahead of any subsequent sons therafter?
__________________

__________________
J
Reply With Quote
  #302  
Old 07-22-2013, 05:59 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacknch View Post

Is it not correct that after the change of succession rules, if W&C have a girl next time she will be ahead of any subsequent sons therafter?
After the change of the rules children will be in the line of succession according to the order of their birth, regardless of gender.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #303  
Old 07-22-2013, 07:19 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,238
The change, when/if it goes into effect, will mean that any girl, anywhere in the line of succession (not just the descendants of Charles), will not be displaced by a boy born after October 2011.

In this hypothetical family:
  • Margaret, born 2006
  • George, born 2008
  • Mary, born 2012
  • John, born 2013

they would be ordered George-John-Margaret-Mary before the change comes into force, but George-Margaret-Mary-John afterwards. (George and Margaret were born before 2011 and stay in their sex-determined order, but John was born afterwards and won't come before his elder sisters.)
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #304  
Old 07-22-2013, 07:25 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
It's not going to be stopped, but it's not going to be rushed anymore. Some states which haven't passed it yet may out it on the backburner and (hopefully) the government of Canada will be forced to redo how they did it.
There was never a rush to start. It has been agreed, the new laws apply to any children born after 2011. If the little Prince had been a princess, Will and Kate could have had a further 6 sons, 12 grandsons and so on and so on, and this little Princess would still be heir when the law was changed. We would just see an occurrence like in Sweden, where CP went from being the heir, to the spare. As long as the queen, Charles and William don't all die before it is passed, there was never any rush.

Why move it to the backburner? Do it and get it done with. Putting it on the back burner is the same as stopping it. Why waste all the time and effort put into it so far, just to set it aside now, even if temporarily?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #305  
Old 07-22-2013, 07:28 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,491
Why should the other realms waste the time and effort now when it isn't necessary? We have better things to do with our parliamentary time then worry about this issue.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #306  
Old 07-22-2013, 07:33 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: MO, United States
Posts: 99
I think that eventually the laws will come into force, but I agree: any urgency whatsoever to enact this law has been scrapped because functionally, it doesn't change anything.

Even if the Duchess has a daughter, I think it will take a third pregnancy (and the possibility of the "spare" daughter being superseded by a younger brother) for the changes to be considered important.

It's nice to remove codified sexism from the laws, but it can wait since it may very well not have any real effect on succession for the next 100 years, just like the changes wouldn't have changed anything in the previous 100 years.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #307  
Old 07-22-2013, 07:37 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: bedford, United States
Posts: 474
real matters need attention not hypothetical daughters and changes most people won't live to see take effect...we have monarchs lined up for the next 60 or 70 years barring the unthinkable.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #308  
Old 07-22-2013, 07:40 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: MO, United States
Posts: 99
If anything the only real effect of passing it anytime soon would mean that republicans would have to stop concern trolling over people losing their places in the succession over marrying Catholics.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #309  
Old 07-23-2013, 02:58 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Grundisburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
Why move it to the backburner? Do it and get it done with. Putting it on the back burner is the same as stopping it. Why waste all the time and effort put into it so far, just to set it aside now, even if temporarily?
I couldn't agree more with you. There was NEVER any urgency for this new law to be passed and the efforts made so far should not be wasted simply because it is presumed it is not now needed or that parliaments apparently shoudl not waste their time on it. Parliaments are not just there to deal with current issues (which frankly they waste too much time on anyway with LITTLE result).

It is a simple fact and quite reasonable and correct that in a situation where only one person can, or is allowed to, inherit something, that that person should be the first born child.
Accordingly, it is right and proper to ensure that a change in the law concerning succession is well established by the time such situation arises even if such situation does not come to pass for another few decades.
__________________
J
Reply With Quote
  #310  
Old 07-25-2013, 07:57 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Beckley, WV, United States
Posts: 4
Her Majesty's realms share the same monarch but otherwise are independent of each other. That means that each realm could alter, for itself, the line of succession. Each realm can also choose who will be regent. So, for example, while Prince Harry is regent for the United Kingdom, Australia could make a law that makes Princess Anne the regent. So, for purposes of selecting the Governor-General and the state governors, Princess Anne would be the one whose appointing power would be recognized.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #311  
Old 07-25-2013, 08:33 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,124
I'd have to ask Iluvbertie on this but I don't think it works like that, well in my mind it shouldn't. This is why the succesion act must be agreed by all commonwealth realms.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #312  
Old 07-25-2013, 12:44 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralmcg View Post
Her Majesty's realms share the same monarch but otherwise are independent of each other. That means that each realm could alter, for itself, the line of succession. Each realm can also choose who will be regent. So, for example, while Prince Harry is regent for the United Kingdom, Australia could make a law that makes Princess Anne the regent. So, for purposes of selecting the Governor-General and the state governors, Princess Anne would be the one whose appointing power would be recognized.
Well, if you look at the way the current attempt to change the succession is happening it's been treated as an all of nothing - either they all change the succession or they don't.

I don't think each realm could - or would - have a different regent either. Most of the realms seem to accept the idea that whoever is the monarch in the UK, or regent for that matter, is the monarch or regent throughout the Commonwealth.

If Australia, say, wanted to name Anne as their monarch instead of Charles, then Australia would no longer have need for a Governor General as Anne would (presumably) move to live in Australia and would not need a full time representative of the crown, which is essentially what the GG is.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #313  
Old 07-25-2013, 12:45 PM
BritishRoyalist's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 755
I was wondering was there ever talks of changing the Succession Law when Charles and William were born?
__________________
Long Live the Queen!! The Real Queen of Hearts!
Reply With Quote
  #314  
Old 07-25-2013, 12:58 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralmcg View Post
Her Majesty's realms share the same monarch but otherwise are independent of each other. That means that each realm could alter, for itself, the line of succession. Each realm can also choose who will be regent. So, for example, while Prince Harry is regent for the United Kingdom, Australia could make a law that makes Princess Anne the regent. So, for purposes of selecting the Governor-General and the state governors, Princess Anne would be the one whose appointing power would be recognized.
In the differrent realms outside of the UK the Governor General is effectovely the Regent for the monarch so there is no need for a new royal Australian or Canadian Regent in the UK. It would make absolutely no sense at all to have different royal Regents living in the UK acting for the different realms.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #315  
Old 07-25-2013, 01:07 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Beckley, WV, United States
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
In the differrent realms outside of the UK the Governor General is effectovely the Regent for the monarch so there is no need for a new royal Australian or Canadian Regent in the UK. It would make absolutely no sense at all to have different royal Regents living in the UK acting for the different realms.
The Governors General of the other realms are still appointed by the monarch. In theory a realm, being independent of the UK, could choose a different way of choosing a regent, who would then formally appoint the Governor General in the name of the monarch.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #316  
Old 07-25-2013, 01:25 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
I realize that the GGs are appointed formally by the monarch but I do not understand your suggestion that we should have different Regents acting on behalf of the monarch for the different realms. It just seems silly and needlessly bureaucratic. We would have one regent in the UK acting on behalf of the monarch if need be. That seems quite sufficient to sign the warrants appointing the different GGs in the realms.
Why would Australia for instance come up with its own way of appointing a Regent who would then turn around and appoint a Governor General of Australia? I cannot see the sense in that at all.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #317  
Old 07-25-2013, 01:39 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Grundisburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by amaryllus View Post
real matters need attention not hypothetical daughters and changes most people won't live to see take effect...we have monarchs lined up for the next 60 or 70 years barring the unthinkable.
I'm not sure I understand. Other countries with monarchs managed quite successfully and without fuss to change their laws of succession, without affecting the progress of their other respective parliamentary business.
One might think that it suggests the British parliament and the parliaments of the British realms are so incompetant and useless that they cannot manage to add one simple and straightforward addition to the business they are already dealing with. Or it might suggest that the parliaments of other monarchies have nothing significant to do other than tweak their constitutions.
__________________
J
Reply With Quote
  #318  
Old 07-25-2013, 02:47 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,325
I certainly hope that contemporary lawmakers are concerned about the future, 60-70 years from now. What is fair and right is fair and right, regardless of how little or much affect it has on individuals living right now.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #319  
Old 07-25-2013, 03:39 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacknch View Post

I'm not sure I understand. Other countries with monarchs managed quite successfully and without fuss to change their laws of succession, without affecting the progress of their other respective parliamentary business.
One might think that it suggests the British parliament and the parliaments of the British realms are so incompetant and useless that they cannot manage to add one simple and straightforward addition to the business they are already dealing with. Or it might suggest that the parliaments of other monarchies have nothing significant to do other than tweak their constitutions.
Changing constitutional matters is a lot harder than simply "tweaking" things.

This change has actually been implemented fairly well in most cases, but the methods through which some governments have done so has been questioned. Changing the constitution of a state that is divided into federal and state/provincial governments is a lot more than just one governmental body changing a law.

There's also the fact that the succession has religious discrimination in it, which is unconstitutional in some of the Commonwealth realms. Other realms can also use this to further the republican debate.

No other monarchy has had to change it's succession laws in 16 independent realms before. It's kind of understandable that this isn't turning out to be all that simple to do, regardless of the competence levels of the parliaments.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #320  
Old 07-25-2013, 03:46 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritishRoyalist View Post
I was wondering was there ever talks of changing the Succession Law when Charles and William were born?
I don't remember there being any talk about the succession changing when Diana was pregnant with William. If there was it was so muted that it was not mentioned in the press.

I would be very surprised if the matter was raised when the Queen was pregnant with Charles. King George was still reigning and, even though women had proved themselves during the recent war, women's rights/female equality were still very much in the future.
__________________

__________________
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
Frederik and Mary's Official/Business 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
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession Elise,LadyofLancaster British Royals 926 04-15-2014 11:41 PM
Prince Frederik and Princess Mary 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 Royals 4 07-25-2012 03:17 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympic games ottoman picture of the month pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:01 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
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]