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
 
  #341  
Old 12-04-2012, 04:58 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_ View Post
Why would the boy be king and not the girl if she's born first?
If for some reason the proposed succession law changes don't pass in all the 16 realms then the current rules, males before females, remain in place.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #342  
Old 12-04-2012, 05:03 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_ View Post
Why would the boy be king and not the girl if she's born first?
Because, as of now, Britain still employs Male Primogeniture, meaning women can ascend to the Throne but only in absence of brothers (elder or younger). For instance, if George VI had a son, then the present Queen would have never become Monarch.

If the proposed changes are accepted then the first-born child, regardless of gender, will be the Heir or Heiress. The changes could also be adopted retroactively (the Swedish scenario), meaning that if William and Kate have twins and the first-born is a girl and the younger twin - a boy, the girl may still become Heiress at some point.


Before the 1991 reform, Belgium had similar laws (or rather, Belgium had Agnatic Primogeniture, meaning women couldn't ascend to the Throne); after the changes, Princess Astrid and her descendants placed higher than Prince Laurent, whereas before Astrid had no succession rights at all.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #343  
Old 12-04-2012, 05:14 PM
Blue_'s Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: _, Belgium
Posts: 471
Okay! Thank you very much!
It isn't clear in newspapers then, they said that even if it's a girl she will be Queen of Britain.
__________________
Despite all the dificulties you face, learn what really matters in life, and never give up hope.

Queen Mathilde
Reply With Quote
  #344  
Old 12-04-2012, 06:28 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,930
The 16 realms have agreed that the first born will be the monarch but...at the moment none of those realms have past the necessary legislation as it is still being worked on by the committee in NZ.

Unless something dreadful happens like Charles, William and The Queen all die before the legislation is actually past it is safe to say that the first born will inherit as they will have decades to get the new law past - just an agreement is enough to go on with at the moment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom View Post
Thanks for your answer. I dont know why I was left to believe that If Charles was to die that Andrew would become next in line to the queen as he would be her oldest son at the time of her death. I was also lead to believe that William would only become King after Charles filled the roll.

If I can add an historical precedence:

George II had a three sons and numerous daughters. His eldest son was Frederick, Prince of Wales (in the position Charles is now), with two younger brothers George William, and William. Frederick also was father with 9 children of his own - the eldest being George in the position William is now. When Frederick died it was this George who became heir apparent to the throne and was created Prince of Wales by his grandfather and eventually reigned as George III.

The line of succession is set and only births and deaths change it. As of now the line of succession is:

1. Charles
2. William
3. Harry
4. Andrew
5. Beatrice
6. Eugenie

When the child is born everyone from Harry down will move down one.

The other impact of the proposed changes to the legislation is that when this child is born Eugenie will not need the Queen's permission to marry as the RMA is being modified to only apply to the first 6 in line (in a few years even Andrew will be able to remarry without needing the monarch's consent - will he then remarry Sarah???)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #345  
Old 12-04-2012, 07:06 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 797
I don't like what Cameron is so categorical in his statements. It is possible PM will point at princess X as heiress, but the law will say "prince Y is heir". Nonsense
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #346  
Old 12-04-2012, 07:13 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,930
Archaic and sexist law overshadows pending arrival of a new royal

I don't know if anyone else has read this but it does show why this law is taking so long - the smaller nations have more pressing issues and the problem with Australia being that the states also have to pass the laws so it is simply a lot of countries having to pass it.

An interesting read.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #347  
Old 12-04-2012, 07:24 PM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 208
I can't see Andrew re-marrying Sarah until after Philip passes on, much like Charles waited to marry Camilla until after the Queen Mother had been deceased a few years. Heck, I'm not sure he'd re-marry her until after the Queen is no longer with us either.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #348  
Old 12-04-2012, 07:28 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,169
Statute of Westminster 1931 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some additional reading for people not familiar with the issue
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #349  
Old 12-04-2012, 10:45 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,887
Thanks, for about the 100th time, Artemisia. You are the best.

I asked because the justification for the change is that it is unfair (unequal treatment of men and women). I bet Parliament could eliminate all male primogeniture - and if they really are concerned with "fairness" they should. Interesting that this is a concern for the monarch only.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #350  
Old 12-04-2012, 11:16 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,256
^^^^
Well the monarchy has a role in government. The hereditary peers are about as relevant as being a member of the Rotary Club or the Chamber of Commerce. There is just no good reason for the government to involve themselves with something that has no impact on government or general society.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #351  
Old 12-04-2012, 11:24 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,169
The thing about hereditary peers is, once created by Letters Patent, not even the Queen can alter the 'terms' of the peerage.
The standard remainder is legitimate males heirs, so it will take an Act of Parliament to change the remainder to equal primogeniture.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #352  
Old 12-04-2012, 11:50 PM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 7,907
Consent given for change to royal succession rules:
All Commonwealth realms have agreed to press ahead with a bill ending discrimination against women in the succession to the British throne-
BBC News - Consent given for change to royal succession rules
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #353  
Old 12-04-2012, 11:53 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
^^^^
Well the monarchy has a role in government. The hereditary peers are about as relevant as being a member of the Rotary Club or the Chamber of Commerce. There is just no good reason for the government to involve themselves with something that has no impact on government or general society.
I am not so sanguine about the impact of continuing male-only rule on a more local level. Allowing men alone to rule a peerage, regardless of ability, desire, courage, etc. is not only silly - but a waste of talent. Tell a younger girl of interpersonal and financial skill in one of those families that it makes no difference that she has no say and that she gets to watch her family fortune flow down the toilet.

I find it odd that what is good for the country is of no consequence to the city, county, etc.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #354  
Old 12-05-2012, 12:05 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,256
^^^^
Well it is not like Downton Abbey. Family fortunes are not necessarily linked to the actual peerage. Indeed there are cases where the title went in one direction while the fortune went along the female line. Quite a few peerages have no family estates or great fortune. The existence of a hereditary peerage has nothing to do with governance of the kingdom so there is no reason for government to get involved.

I suppose if the government wanted to take a stand on female rights in the UK they would pass legislation forcing the CofE to allow female Bishops, since the CofE is the established church of the United Kingdom in response to the Synod recently voting down that revolutionary idea.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #355  
Old 12-05-2012, 01:45 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
Consent given for change to royal succession rules:
All Commonwealth realms have agreed to press ahead with a bill ending discrimination against women in the succession to the British throne-
BBC News - Consent given for change to royal succession rules
This was agree to in October 2011.

Since then there has been a committee working on the wording so it meets the needs of all 16 realms and yet after over a year they still can't come up with the wording that will work in all 16 nations.

It is possible that it could pass in say Britain and Australia next year and not pass in Canada meaning that a first born girl would be ahead of her younger brother to be the monarch of Canada so that at the time of accession Canada would have their own separate monarch.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #356  
Old 12-05-2012, 01:54 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 377
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS View Post
I am not so sanguine about the impact of continuing male-only rule on a more local level. Allowing men alone to rule a peerage, regardless of ability, desire, courage, etc. is not only silly - but a waste of talent. Tell a younger girl of interpersonal and financial skill in one of those families that it makes no difference that she has no say and that she gets to watch her family fortune flow down the toilet.

I find it odd that what is good for the country is of no consequence to the city, county, etc.
It is only the title that is passed down to the eldest male.

What happens to the land would depend on the circumstances of the holding of the property. I understand that some estates are now legally owned by trusts to avoid haing to pay huge sums in death duties. Who is a trustee and who is a beneficiary would depend on the terms of the trust.

In other cases ordinary succession law applies and an estate could be left to a daughter if she were deemed the most suitable to inherit. Until recently the younger son of the Duke of Marlborough was going to run the Blenheim estate on the death of the current Duke instead of the next Duke (currently the Marquis of Blandford) because of the Marquis' drug abuse problems.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #357  
Old 12-05-2012, 02:56 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The other impact of the proposed changes to the legislation is that when this child is born Eugenie will not need the Queen's permission to marry as the RMA is being modified to only apply to the first 6 in line (in a few years even Andrew will be able to remarry without needing the monarch's consent - will he then remarry Sarah???)
Thanks for the information Iluvbertie! Personally I would have set the limit to grandchildren of a monarch - I wonder where the 6th in line limit came from?
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #358  
Old 12-05-2012, 04:26 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,283
I don't really see that as an impact. If Andrew wanted to marry Sarah, he could have. Eugenie can marry whoever she likes because it's doubtful it'll have an impact on the family.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #359  
Old 12-05-2012, 05:03 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,420

I am inclined to agree with you.

Andrew and Sarah have close and friendly relationship but I doubt re-marriage is on the cards. And if they did want to re-marry, I'm pretty sure they would have done so by now. As for Eugenie, frankly, as long as her husband-to-be isn't a pole dancer or a mass murderer, I doubt anyone would have any objections, and certainly not the Queen.
Reply With Quote
  #360  
Old 12-05-2012, 01:26 PM
Dierna23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: -, Germany
Posts: 3,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl View Post
The sovereign is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, so he or she must be Anglican. That they cannot marry a Catholic is not discrimination, romanists require the children be raised Catholic, and to my first point, this isn't possible.
It is by today's standards.

I guess we all get it has historical reasons, but my god, we're not living in the middle ages anymore and the days of the grand empire are numbered too. With Prince and Princess Michael there was also the case that "by family law" - probably/certainly (?) stronger than any "romanist" influence - it was decided that the kids would be raised Anglican and they are until this day. So, where's the problem if an heir marries a Catholic who wishes to keep his/her original faith when the children get raised Anglican?

Anyway, this whole outdated rule will soon be abolished.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 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
abdication belgium brussels carl philip charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events death fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri 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 official visit ottoman poland president gauck president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess charlene princess haya 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 sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:05 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]