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
 
  #21  
Old 12-04-2012, 10:45 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,483
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
  #22  
Old 12-04-2012, 11:16 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
^^^^
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
  #23  
Old 12-04-2012, 11:24 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,181
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
  #24  
Old 12-04-2012, 11:50 PM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,669
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
  #25  
Old 12-04-2012, 11:53 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,483
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
  #26  
Old 12-05-2012, 12:05 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
^^^^
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
  #27  
Old 12-05-2012, 01:54 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 322
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
  #28  
Old 12-05-2012, 02:56 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Grundisburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,763
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?
__________________
J
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-05-2012, 04:26 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,106
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
  #30  
Old 12-05-2012, 05:03 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,425

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
  #31  
Old 12-05-2012, 01:26 PM
Dierna23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: -, Germany
Posts: 3,588
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
  #32  
Old 12-05-2012, 01:30 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,181
If the sovereign marries a RC and the children are raised in the Church of England, than personally have no problem with this
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-05-2012, 01:54 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 1,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl
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.
What about Queen Victoria changing the LPs(?) to allow a daughter to become the Duchess of Fife in her own right because there was no male heir? (late 1800s)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-05-2012, 03:10 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by casualfan View Post
What about Queen Victoria changing the LPs(?) to allow a daughter to become the Duchess of Fife in her own right because there was no male heir? (late 1800s)
Letters Patent of a peerage cannot be amended by the Monarch alone; that can only be done by an Act of Parliament.

Queen Victoria never changed the Letters Patent of the Duke of Fife title. Theoretically, she could have requested an Act of Parliament to be passed to allow female inheritance, but she just chose an easier way: she simply granted a second Dukedom of Fife to Alexander (Princess Louise's husband). The wording of the Letters Patent of the original 1889 Duke of Fife title contained the usual "heirs male of his body" remainder. When the Queen granted the second Dukedom in 1900, the Letters Patent of the new title contained a remainder that allowed the title to pass to daughters of the first Duke (in absence of male heirs). In other words, Alexander Duff, 1st Duke of Fife actually held two Dukedoms of Fife - the 1889 and 1900 creations (a side note: the 1900 creation was the very last hereditary dukedom created in the Peerage of the United Kingdom save for those created for consorts, sons and grandsons of the Sovereign). Basically, the first Dukedom of Fife became extinct and the second one was inherited by the Duke's daughter.



Quote:
Originally Posted by csw View Post
I often wonder if Edward and Wallis deliberately avoided having children. I wonder if they may have had children if he had kept the throne.
I guess it's possible but not sure I see the reasoning: the Duke of Windsor had forfeited all claims to the Throne for himself and any of his descendants so if he and Wallis had 15 kids, that wouldn't affect the Line of Succession in any way.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-05-2012, 04:34 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,449
I don't know where the 6th in line came from but that is going to be the new regulation so it does mean the Eugenie for instance doesn't even have to tell her family - she can elope legally if she so desired.

Whether Andrew and Sarah would like to remarry only they know but the fact that Philip wouldn't accept her means that Andrew would have to choose between his parents and Sarah (and he doesn't have the strength to stand up to them as shown when they forced him to divorce her in the first place).

The point I am making is that when Andrew drops to 7th in line he can remarry her without needing the monarch's consent first - whether that is his mother or his brother or nephew doesn't matter - he will be free to marry Sarah or Koo or ....
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-05-2012, 11:40 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
Taking the Andrew/Sarah re-marry a step further, I hope that the Queen (or someone) leaves him loads of money because if he marries without monarch's consent he will not be carrying out royal duties and those two are expensive! What would they live on?

The point is though that after the changes are made the monarch won't have that threat to hold over their heads as they will be able to marry legally.

Of course with a proposed future working royal family of Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, Harry, spouse, Andrew, Edward, Sophie and Anne those 6th and below will in time not be carrying out royal duties anyway.

The idea of Andrew and Sarah marrying was thrown in as a thought while what I was really commenting on was the change to the RMA itself.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-06-2012, 12:00 AM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I don't know where the 6th in line came from but that is going to be the new regulation so it does mean the Eugenie for instance doesn't even have to tell her family - she can elope legally if she so desired.
Aren't the first five in who have reached their 18th birthday usually Counsellors of State? That could be where 6th in line came from.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-06-2012, 09:00 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,449
First four in line over 21 are Counsellors of State unless they are the heir apparent who becomes one at 18.

Charles - aged 18.

William, Harry and Andrew all at 21 (as did Edward and Anne and the others before them such as Margaret, Richard of Gloucester, Edward of Kent etc)

When the Queen first became Queen the Counsellors of State were - Margaret, Henry of Gloucester, Princess Mary and the late Earl of Harewood.

As others ahead of these in the line of succession turned 21 the last one dropped off e.g. Edward of Kent replaced the late Earl of Harewood, in 1957, and the following year Princess Alexandra replaced Princess Mary.

The only Counsellors of State who isn't in the first four is the consort of the monarch and the consort of previous monarchs e.g. Philip and The Queen Mother.

When the Queen passes Beatrice will step up and be the fourth CoS until either this new baby turns 21 in Charles' reign or it turns 18 in William's reign but she may have to return to the position for a year or so at times as well, depending on when those ahead of her die, like Richard of Gloucester had to do in the 60s and early 70s.

Although Philip is eligible he has actually never served because everytime the Queen has gone overseas he has gone with her and so has been out of the country.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-07-2012, 04:24 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,377
This thread is supposed to be about the impacts and ramifications of the proposed changes to the Act of Settlement, Royal Marriages Act etc, and not a rehash of the ins and outs of the Andrew-Sarah relationship.

Posts discussing a York remarriage in terms of the characters of the Duke and his former wife have been removed.

Warren
British Forums moderator
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-07-2012, 05:28 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,377
A summary of the proposed changes

Abolition of male primogeniture relating to Succession to the Throne, backdated to 28 October 2011.

In the 15 other countries where the Queen is Head of State the laws must be changed. Legislation will be required in the Commonwealth nations of the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Jamaica, Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Grenada, Belize, St Christopher and Nevis, St Lucia, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, St Vincent and the Grenadines and Papua New Guinea.

Changes will involve amendments to some of Britain’s key constitutional documents, such as the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement.

The proposed legislation will refer to the descendants of the current Prince of Wales, meaning that younger sons will no longer take precedence over an elder daughter in the line of succession and William’s first child would follow him in the line of succession, whether a girl or a boy.

The barrier to the heir to the throne marrying a Roman Catholic will also be removed, but it will not affect the position of the Anglican Church as the established Church. The Queen and future monarchs will be Anglicans and Supreme Governors of the Church of England.

Members of the Royal Family who marry a Roman Catholic will also in future be able to succeed to the Crown.

An ancient and unused law requiring descendants of George II to gain the consent of the monarch to marry will only apply to the first six people in the line of succession.

The UK government will need to introduce legislation to change the Coronation Oath Act 1688,
the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Settlement 1701, the Act of Union with Scotland 1706 and the Royal Marriages Act 1772.

Succession relating to Peerages remains unchanged.

The new rules will apply only to descendants of the Prince of Wales born after 28 October 2011.

The two members of the extended Royal Family born after this date but not affected by the changes are:
Isla Phillips (March 2012) - has an elder sister and no brothers;
Tane Lewis (May 2012) - ahead of his elder sister in the line of succession

sources: various

__________________

__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
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
birth bourbon-parma charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta sofia jewellery jordan kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympics ottoman picture of the month pieter van vollenhoven pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:37 PM.

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]