Succession to the Crown Act 2013, Part 1: 2011 - Sep 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Well of course this is a 'political stunt' - as you choose to call it. But do we talk politics in this forum ;) ?
 
It's certainly a victory for gender politics and religious ones as well, but I'm not a total fan. The media landscape has changed a lot since QEII took the throne. Any little girl today who would be destined to become Queen is going to face a lot of criticism from her looks to her behavior--looks, especially. She will not get the same pass her father did for youthful hijinks: clubbing, looking drunk in public, and any other sort of behavior that looks messy. I think for a girl, it won't be as easy on her psyche.
 
It's certainly a victory for gender politics and religious ones as well, but I'm not a total fan. The media landscape has changed a lot since QEII took the throne. Any little girl today who would be destined to become Queen is going to face a lot of criticism from her looks to her behavior--looks, especially. She will not get the same pass her father did for youthful hijinks: clubbing, looking drunk in public, and any other sort of behavior that looks messy. I think for a girl, it won't be as easy on her psyche.

Very interesting point....one of the thing that has always impressed me about the Queen was she seem to be always very dignified even in her childhood, as if she has been preparing to be Queen since birth. Granted she knew at about age 10 that she would eventually become Queen, but even so, she seemed to have projected an attitude of responsibility and maturity from childhood onward.. Of course that could be because the press were very respectful of the Royal Family back then though and didn't report anything that would cast a shadow on them.

The Prince of Wales has also seemed to have taken himself seriously (maybe too seriously sometimes) in his growing up. At least that has always been my impression of him while growing up in the 70s--that he was very careful about what he was doing, etc. I see the similar traits in the Duke of Cambridge, although not as uptight as his father. I think if he has a daughter (or son) as the heir apparent, he'll use his and his father's experience to help prepare her/him. I think he'll be a wonderful father and whoever first-born will have a strong foundation to build on from him. :flowers:
 
No referendum was required in Australia after all? Interesting.

I toast HM the Queen on this; I firmly believe that it is her life-long example of Queenship, service, and devotion to country, as much as any political expediency, that made this possible.
 
It's interesting to me to know something deeper on this law.If they've adopted the equal law,will this law apply to the British nobility as well?
 
:previous:From reading a couple of previous posts, I don't think it does. Prehaps someone will make it a bit clearer.
 
:previous:From reading a couple of previous posts, I don't think it does. Prehaps someone will make it a bit clearer.

Some Lord earlier had indicated that this would not extend to nobility, only the succession to the Throne.
 
Hummm...there are lots of nobles in the succession. Or is everyone outside the Windsors disqualified?
 
It doesn't mention anything in today's news, but I remember reading in the British press leading up to this law that the nobility is excluded because of vast complications in the peerage system.

BTW, I wonder how the Middleton family must be reacting to this news? I'm sure they're most likely proud and happy that their daughter/sister is an instrumental part of the change in the monarchy.
 
Last edited:
Hummm...there are lots of nobles in the succession. Or is everyone outside the Windsors disqualified?

Only descendants of Electress Sophia of Hanover are eligible for the Throne, as set down in the Act of Settlement 1701, and of course must meet other requirements (which will be adjusted soon to allow equal gender primogeniture and remove the restriction on marrying Roman Catholics).
 
It's interesting to me to know something deeper on this law.If they've adopted the equal law,will this law apply to the British nobility as well?

No, it won't. This only affects succession to the throne. Succession to peerages is a different issue.

As I know,Lord Mountbatten's title passed to his eldest daughter,as exception done in this way.

That was done as a special remainder to his two daughters. No other women are able to succeed to that earldom. (It will descend to the heirs male of the current Countess, then if they are exhausted to her sister Pamela and her heirs male.)
 
It's certainly a victory for gender politics and religious ones as well, but I'm not a total fan. The media landscape has changed a lot since QEII took the throne. Any little girl today who would be destined to become Queen is going to face a lot of criticism from her looks to her behavior--looks, especially. She will not get the same pass her father did for youthful hijinks: clubbing, looking drunk in public, and any other sort of behavior that looks messy. I think for a girl, it won't be as easy on her psyche.

There's going to be an immense amount of focus on a daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge whether she's the firstborn and heir or not. Especially if she's good looking and "glamorous." If anything, I think the tone of the attention focused on a future queen would be more positive as she would be the future head of state and therefore be seen as more than a decorative royal doll. Although I don't think this is just a gender issue - there's always been a difference in tone between the press coverage of Prince William and that of Prince Harry, for example.
 
First draft of Agreement in Principle among the Realms | chogm2011.org

The Prime Ministers of the sixteen Commonwealth nations of whom Her Majesty the Queen is Head of State have agreed during their meeting in Perth to work together towards a common approach to amending the rules on the succession to their respective Crowns. They will wish unanimously to advise The Queen of their views and seek her agreement.
 
It'll be interesting to see if they have girl if shed became Princess of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall herself or what'll happen with that.....

As for the Queen's husband, nothing has to change in my opinion bc Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth ate perfect example of a husband beside a Queen....and isn't a King higher then a Queen and no one can be higher or not equal to monarch....?
 
A King Consort role could be created (and, I believe, has been, in other monarchies) and defined as lower than the Queen Regnant. I don't see exactly why anyone would want to do that. Seems to me that a man willing to marry future Queen Willa/Catherine/Diana would have to be content with becoming a Prince.

The firstborn child of anyone so close to succession to the throne is likely to be brought up to be a responsible sort of person anyway, girl or boy. I'm not sure that girls' psyches are so nonresilient or troubled by public scrutiny. The various crown princesses and queens of other nations seem to get along all right. Queen Elizabeth has done more than just all right.

Lots of girls look to their fathers as examples of how to go about being the leader of a large business, as it's often men who accomplish those positions, and if the Cambridges have a girl first, she will grow up looking to her father as an example (and her mother will show her how to deal with being scrutinized, as a female, in public as by then she should be somewhat expert at it). Personally, I think Kate is doing just fine already.

By the time this infant becomes Queen (if she ever exists), she is (hopefully) going to be middle-aged. If Charles reigns until he's in his 90's, won't that make William in his late 50's/60's when he is crowned? This daughter, if she's born soon, will be in her late twenties or even 30 years old when she becomes Princess of Wales. Maybe even older. And she may well be 60 before she's Queen. Lots of time to learn the ropes.

In fact, it's rather amusing to suggest that a female would be less likely to learn how to do this than a male, I see absolutely no reason why that would be so.
 
What is the purpose of going through this political stunt and done when William and Catherine don't even have a child yet? IMHO The Monarchy is above the 'party politics' of Parliament. Male primogeniture is outdated, is it? In the last 100 years has an eldest daughter been superseded by a younger brother for the throne? If male primogeniture is so out dated, according to Mr. Cameron, then why legislation just for who inherits the throne why not every hereditary title? Proof of his political vanity. If "We need to get on and do it" why hasn't he done it in his family already? Why doesn't he insists his children use his wife's surname instead of his own? This is political theater. What damage to the throne has male primogeniture caused? Otherwise what is the need for the hurried change other than meaningless political posturing, a desire to look ‘modern’. This is a piece of political vanity for which future generations may pay a high price. Absolute primogeniture did not produce Queen Elizabeth I or Queen Anne or Queen Victoria or HM Queen Elizabeth II. This so called "out dated" method, male primogeniture, is responsible for these great queens.
 
Last edited:
Elizabeth though was born as a member of the House of Windsor and so there would have been no change in 1952. Any change would take place with the accession of Charles - just as in 1901 Victoria was the last monarch of the House of Hannover and Edward VII became the first King of the House of Saxe-Coburgh Gotha. Same with Mary II who reigned as a member of the House of Stuart and not the House of Orange - although if they had had a child then the royal house would presumably have changed to Orange. Mary I reigned as a Tudor not a Hapsburg despite being married to one - but again if they had had a child then the royal house would have changed to Hapsburg.

Indeed, though Wikipedia lists Prince Charles as a Windsor, so I don't know what that means when he succeeds...
 
It's much better, from a human perspective, to do it before the child is done and more mannerly, in my opinion.

And I'm totally confused about the transmission of this "House" thing - got into a discussion with another editor on Wikipedia about it recently. The woman stays her own House (whatever she was at birth, which she took from her father unless the mother is a queen regnant? What?) but her children are their father's house (unless the father is lower ranking than the mother? Is that it?)
 
This is great news! :D

It has potentially saved The British Monarchy from a very sudden decline in popularity, and it's a victory for Gender equality.

The lifting of the Catholic ban hasn't come a moment too soon either.
 
Last edited:
It's much better, from a human perspective, to do it before the child is done and more mannerly, in my opinion.

:previous:And what if William and Catherine's eldest child is a son, what would have been the purpose for going through all of these changes? One might say "You don't know if a son or a daughter will be born first." Exactly! At least wait and see and stop this political nonsense! Even if the oldest child is a daughter, what if their second child is a daughter as in the case of the last king. There's still no need to go through with this political pageantry, that is not even remotely relevant to the pressing issues concerning the UK today.


And I'm totally confused about the transmission of this "House" thing - got into a discussion with another editor on Wikipedia about it recently. The woman stays her own House (whatever she was at birth, which she took from her father unless the mother is a queen regnant? What?) but her children are their father's house (unless the father is lower ranking than the mother? Is that it?)

:previous:A wife usually joins the House of her husband whether her mother is queen regent or her father is king regent. She usually keeps her royal title. That is an aspect of male primogeniture. Will this dissolution legislation affect this? Who knows? It might. Did it harm the monarchy in the past in terms of gender discrimination. Well, let's see. Queen Victoria became a member of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha as queen regent after she married Prince Albert despite beloning to the House of Hanover when she became queen regent. Her children were members of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha despite Victoria being the queen regent and Albert only a prince consort. The monarchy as it exists today is of direct lineage of Queen Victoria's reign:ermm:

...you decide
 
Women's liberation, that is what this is all about! This is at the top of Cameron's agenda?! THIS! What nonsense! What a maniacal waste of time. The Duke and Duchess do not even have a child yet. Victoria and Carl Philip were born before Sweden adopted absolute primogeniture. To do so on assumption is insane. What if William and Catherine's first born child is a son? This is a political stunt to regain popularity and why not include dukes, earls and barons?

:lol: A political stunt? Seriously? It's an outdated legislation that needed changing, it's been changed. It's not like Cameron has anything better to do at the moment while he's selling this country down the swanny. Do you think he's going to be more popular because he changed some royal law? Doubtful seeing has probably 95% don't actually understand it or won't know what it is.
 
Well done by the British government for instituting changes to keep up with the 21st century. The issue of peerage inheritance should be addressed as well, and may very well be in the future, but at least this is a good start.
 
Last edited:
The issue of peerage inheritance should be addressed as well, and may very well be in the future, but at least this is a good start.

As long as the Royal family (or better: the queen) does not start with that within their Royal peerages, I don't see any reason to change the system for the others. Most titles go back to times when the king/queen granted them as he or she thought it should be. At some times daughters could inherit, at other times this was out of the question. But that's how it is and it was indivually decided for each title. See eg the Mountbatten-title.
As the queen did not decide to introduce gender equality with the titles she bestowed on Andrew, Edward and William, even restricted the inheritance of them to the "heirs male", she obviously has no interest in changing anything in the aristocracy. And IMHO the relation souverain/peers is nothing a democratic government should tamper with. They either accept that as part of the British society or they end it but I don't think you can modernize it.

Of course the government could advise the queen to change the Letter Patents of peerages if the current holder of the title asks for it. So any current peer could himself decide how he and his family handle the inheritance of their peerage in the future. After all today not many estates are entailed, so they can already distribute the financial inheritance as they want. Why not be able to do the same with the title if the appeal to the souverain?
 
Last edited:
The most recent case of an elder sister being superseded by a younger brother is Victoria, Princess Royal, Empress of Germany, Queen of Prussia and Edward VII. Princess Victoria passed away the same year her mother Queen Victoria passed away. Had absolute primogeniture been applied to the monarchy at that time the Princess Royal's son Wilhelm, who was already Emperor of Germany and King of Prussia, would have become the King of the UK. Wilhelm II, Emperor of Germany, King of Prussia, King of the United Kingdom and British Dominions and Emperor of India...now that's a mouthful. Fascinating...there would've been no Edward VII, no George V, no Edward VIII, no George VI and no...oh my gosh:eek:...no HM Queen Elizabeth II! However, at that time male primogeniture was in place so upon the death of Queen Victoria her son Edward became king, the his son George V, his son Edward VIII, his brother George VI, his daughter...daughter:ermm:? I thought male primogeniture discriminated against women becoming sovereign, what gives?

Whatever, it's important to resolve gender discrimination in the monarchy because it's the last remnant of gender discrimination in the Commonwealth. There's no more gender discrimination in the military...in the workplace...in the education system...male primogeniture in the monarchy is the last obstacle to total gender equality! Plus it casts a shade of nostalgia over the monarchy preventing the light of modernity of the 21st century. You know like horses and carriages, sentries posted outside palaces, ceremonial uniforms, parades created hundreds of years ago and all that other old stuff we've gotten rid of...what's that, we haven't got rid of that stuff yet. Come on! This is the 21st century what's taking them so long!

You know any type of primogeniture, gender or age, is discriminatory? Perhaps there ought to be an examination among the children of the monarch, along the lines of the old civil service exams? Or maybe set up an interview panel to see who would be the best candidate? Why not award the Crown to whoever got the best GCSE results? I mean the ultimate goal this dissolution legislation is neutrality right? Treating the monarchy as though it is just another public-sector job subject to anti-discrimination legislation is ludicrous. The obvious truth is that the whole concept of monarchy – with its, ancient traditions and customs and usages – is simply not logical in the modern business sense. Attempting to legislate it, rationally leads to absurdities

I am against almost all types of discrimination...gender, religious, disability, cultural, ageism (scratch that last one, it's irrelevant;))...in almost any circumstance...housing, education, employment, military, medicine...but with the world in a cataclysmic economic meltdown, this Prime Minister has chosen to put forward this proposal that the presently Duke and Duchess' as-yet-unborn children should be allowed to marry Catholics without losing their right to the Throne, and should themselves inherit on the basis of age rather than gender. IMHO this is quite a deranged set of priorities for Mr. Cameron, quite apart from the inherent weakness of the arguments themselves?
 
The idea of the government allowing the current holder of a peerage to decide how to handle inheritance on an individual basis is certainly a sound idea. Naturally, it all depends on if the noble wishes to adhere to the traditional method of primogeniture or decides to go with the flow, in a manner of speaking, with equal status. It would be good to introduce such flexibility in the system, although it might end up a big headache for the peer if any daughter pesters him for equal rights if she has a younger brother! :lol:

So in this scenario of peer equal primogeniture, would a title now be inherited by a daughter rather than passing to the nearest male relative if she's the only child? Would it still die out? I'm a bit unclear about this.
 
I cheered when I heard this news yesterday. About time is right!!

And I don't think we should compare HM's upbringing/childhood/teenage years w/those of today. Not only was it a different time, but she was also a child of WWII. Going through something like that can certainly speed up a child's maturity.

Just something to keep in mind... :eek:)
 
Back
Top Bottom