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
 
  #401  
Old 12-13-2012, 09:02 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,169
And if W&C have a first born son Nick Clegg will have to find a new pet project because all of this will be for naught. Our next three sovereigns after the Queen will be men. I'll be long dead by that time

Canada will have no issue as long as the king or queen and their children remain Anglicans
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #402  
Old 12-15-2012, 03:18 AM
AnnEliza's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Seattle, United States
Posts: 330
Maybe all the realms will pass it and then W&C will have two girls like George VI did, and it will all be for nothing!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I have actually read it the other way round - initially this was only to affect Charles' descendents but now it is to apply to all descendents born after 2011.
More changes to come I imagine.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #403  
Old 12-15-2012, 04:16 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,424


Perhaps. Then again, maybe we'll have the Swedish scenario when the King had a girl first and then a boy, which resulting in Prince Carl Philip being born as Heir Apparent to the Throne only to be downgraded to second-in-the-line (after his elder sister, Crown Princess Victoria) once Equal Primogeniture was adopted.

I think if the law has been unanimously agreed upon by all Commonwealth Realms, they should proceed with it sooner rather then later.
Reply With Quote
  #404  
Old 12-15-2012, 01:36 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,498
Succession to the Crown Act 2013

SUCCESSION TO THE CROWN ACT 2013

A BILL TO Make succession to the Crown not depend on gender; to make provision about Royal Marriages; and for connected purposes.

Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1 Succession to the Crown not to depend on gender

In determining the succession to the Crown, the gender of a person born after 28 October 2011 does not give that person, or that person’s descendants, precedence over any other person (whenever born).

2 Removal of disqualification arising from marriage to a Roman Catholic

(1) A person is not disqualified from succeeding to the Crown or from possessing it as a result of marrying a person of the Roman Catholic faith.

(2) Subsection (1) applies in relation to marriages occurring before the time of the coming into force of this section where the person concerned is alive at that time (as well as in relation to marriages occurring after that time).

3 Consent of Sovereign required to certain Royal Marriages

(1) A person who (when the person marries) is one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown must obtain the consent of Her Majesty before marrying.

(2) Where any such consent has been obtained, it must be—

(a) signified under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom,
(b) declared in Council, and
(c) recorded in the books of the Privy Council.

(3) The effect of a person’s failure to comply with subsection (1) is that the person and the person’s descendants are disqualified from succeeding to the Crown.

(4) The Royal Marriages Act 1772 (which provides that, subject to certain exceptions, a descendant of King George II may marry only with the consent of the Sovereign) is repealed.

(5) A void marriage under that Act is to be treated as never having been void if—

(a) neither party to the marriage was one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown at the time of the marriage,
(b) no consent was sought under section 1 of that Act, or notice given under section 2 of that Act, in respect of the marriage,
(c) in all the circumstances it was reasonable for the person concerned not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to it, and
(d) no person acted, before the coming into force of this section, on the basis that the marriage was void.

(6) Subsection (5) applies for all purposes except those relating to the succession to the Crown.
... ...

5 Commencement and short title


(1) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.
(2) The other provisions of this Act come into force on such day and at such time as the Lord President of the Council may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.
(3) Different days and times may be appointed for different purposes.
(4) This Act may be cited as the Succession to the Crown Act 2013.



__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #405  
Old 12-15-2012, 03:10 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Los Alamos, United States
Posts: 1,034
As far as I know from past experience, a Roman Catholic who marries a Protestant or a person of another religious faith must promise to raise his or her children Catholic, and the non-Catholic prospective spouse must agree to this. That is the way it was decades ago in the U.S. when I was familiar with it, but possibly this changed. Princess Michael of Kent is Catholic but her two children by Prince Michael are said to have been raised Protestant. Likewise with Caroline, the Princess of Hanover, who is Catholic but is raising her Hannover child as a Protestant.
As far as I am concerned, there should not be this legal divide between Protestant and Catholic, as both pledge allegiance to Jesus Christ even above allegiance to their respective churches. However, if this still exists, the Catholic party to the Catholic-Protestant marriage could be accused of hypocrisy and even of lying, if they promised to raise their children Catholic when they wed. if they did not promise, then this is moot. If they made this promise in bad faith, then I think they should feel insincere, but probably they have resolved the matter within their own consciences.
Reply With Quote
  #406  
Old 12-15-2012, 03:20 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,169
Our Sovereign Queen took an oath on June 2 1953 and when you read this oath you will realise that there will never be a catholic monarch on the Maple Throne of Canada

Coronation Oath, 2nd June 1953

PM Cameron and PM Harper have said that the Sovereign of the Realms will be an Anglican and that's it.

Article 37 from the BCP states The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England
Reply With Quote
  #407  
Old 12-16-2012, 01:33 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,266
" (3) The effect of a person’s failure to comply with subsection (1) is that the person and the person’s descendants are disqualified from succeeding to the Crown. "

That's worded interestingly. It seems to apply to all of the person's descendants rather than just the ones who are born in the disqualifying marriage. Hopefully it would never be an issue, but it would seem possible for a parent who has become unmarried through one means or the other to spite his or her children by remarrying without permission.
Reply With Quote
  #408  
Old 12-16-2012, 04:22 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,229
To my reading of this there are two interesting points in that clause:

1. The person themselves lose their inheritance rights by undergoing this illegal marriage - not just their children.

Say Harry gets drunk one night and undergoes a marriage ceremony which his mates witness and the officiating person was a licencsed marriage celebrant he would immediately lose his place.

That hasn't been the case in the past - e.g. George IV underwent a marriage ceremony with Maria Fitzherbert but because he didn't have consent from the monarch he was able to later marry and remained in the line of succession although any children from Maria would have had no claim - like William IV's descendents have no claim (unless they have married someone with a legitimate claim).

Children born out of wedlock have never had inheritance rights to titles and their descendents can't claim due to an illegitimate ancestor.

2. It does seem strange that the wording implies that if William and Catherine divorced and then he married without consent that this current unborn child would also lose its rights.

Hopefully this confusion will be picked up in the committee stages and reworded before the law is past.
Reply With Quote
  #409  
Old 12-16-2012, 06:15 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,233
You make two interesting points, Bertie.

As for the first one, it is indeed a marked departure, and one of which I approve. The State should not "own" the heir. If the heir chooses to give up their place in the line of succession that way, they should have the right to do so. With respect to your hypothetical example, a person who is so silly as to get married while drunk shouldn't be in line to be monarch anyway. As for the second point, I read it the same way, and agree that it needs to be amended.
Reply With Quote
  #410  
Old 12-19-2012, 02:19 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 465
This 6-persons-next-in-line thing is not logical at all. It means that, after the Duke of Cambridge's child is born, Princess Beatrice of York will be excluded if she marries without a permission regardless of who her spouse is, while her younger sister will be able to marry a drug lord and remain in the line (provided that Eugenie's marriage takes place before Beatrice's). In fact, in that scenario, Princess Eugenie of York and her children sired by a drug lord would become closer to the throne.

I wonder where they got that idea from. No other monarchy has marriage approval requirements like that. Normally, all people in line have to obtain consent.
Reply With Quote
  #411  
Old 12-19-2012, 02:29 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
This 6-persons-next-in-line thing is not logical at all. It means that, after the Duke of Cambridge's child is born, Princess Beatrice of York will be excluded if she marries without a permission regardless of who her spouse is, while her younger sister will be able to marry a drug lord and remain in the line (provided that Eugenie's marriage takes place before Beatrice's). In fact, in that scenario, Princess Eugenie of York and her children sired by a drug lord would become closer to the throne.

I wonder where they got that idea from. No other monarchy has marriage approval requirements like that. Normally, all people in line have to obtain consent.
This coalition government in Britain makes it up as they go along. I think there are at least a couple of clauses or sections that will have to be re-written
Reply With Quote
  #412  
Old 12-19-2012, 02:56 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 2,441
I knew this would happen! Once you start messing with tradition, it's impossible to stop.

My daughter is the victim of a flawed system - Telegraph
Reply With Quote
  #413  
Old 12-19-2012, 03:06 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
I knew this would happen! Once you start messing with tradition, it's impossible to stop.

My daughter is the victim of a flawed system - Telegraph

Of course. There won't be an estate left in Britain after the lefties go through with their agenda
Reply With Quote
  #414  
Old 12-19-2012, 03:32 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
I knew this would happen! Once you start messing with tradition, it's impossible to stop.

My daughter is the victim of a flawed system - Telegraph
How disgustingly hypocritical! As I said in another thread, her poor daughter is what she is and where she is precisely thanks to the flawed system by which female heirs are skipped and which thus enabled her father to inherit the title. But poor rich heiress won't get to be a countess, how unfair!
Reply With Quote
  #415  
Old 12-19-2012, 03:39 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Los Alamos, United States
Posts: 1,034
I read the article you linked, Mirabel, and your comment, Duke of Earl, that "there won't be an estate left in Britain after the lefties go through with their agenda." I, like the author of the article, am not an extreme feminist. I think her suggestion is good, that at least a woman should inherit a title if there is no male heir. (This has Biblical support in the law set forth by Moses that the five daughters of Zelophehad, without a brother, should inherit their father's estate if they married within their tribe--and I think England still is a Bible-revering country).
The author remarks that Scotland has had this type of inheritance for a long time, i.e., daughter inherits title and land if there is no brother. In fact it goes back to the Middle Ages, when Muriel, Lady of Rothes, inherited her father's castle in Rothes when her father, Peter de Pollock, had no sons. Muriel's daughter Eva, likewise had no sons, and passed the title on to her daughter (nameless in records). Down to the twentieth century, the title Lady of Rothes continued if there was no direct male heir. My cousin (many times removed) Georgiana Maxwell, was the last Lady of Rothes. I am descended from Robert de Pollock, Lady Muriel's uncle, who had at least one son, and thus never created a similar descent for his heirs.
I am not aware that the Pollock family were "lefties." They were Jacobites willing to give all for the ascension of the Stuart family. But of course one might say that Peter Pollock was a leftie because he left his castle to Muriel. I think probably he was not a leftie, being a staunch monarchist, but that WAS a long time ago.
Reply With Quote
  #416  
Old 12-19-2012, 03:44 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,169
My reference is to the politics of today, so how about Labour/Lib-Dems instead of lefties?
If the Tory party had a majority, none of this equal-primogeniture debate would be discussed.
Reply With Quote
  #417  
Old 12-19-2012, 03:45 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariel View Post
I read the article you linked, Mirabel, and your comment, Duke of Earl, that "there won't be an estate left in Britain after the lefties go through with their agenda." I, like the author of the article, am not an extreme feminist. I think her suggestion is good, that at least a woman should inherit a title if there is no male heir. (This has Biblical support in the law set forth by Moses that the five daughters of Zelophehad, without a brother, should inherit their father's estate if they married within their tribe--and I think England still is a Bible-revering country).
Why? Titles are very rarely created with an intent to prevent their extinction. Sometimes titles just need to go extinct. Imagine Princess Beatrice becoming Duchess of York and thus ending the five centuries long tradition of granting the Dukedom of York to the second son of the sovereign. And what does Bible have to do with this? Are you seriously invoking it? I doubt it gives males and females equal inheritance rights, yet nobody mentions Bible when discussing abolishing male-preferance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariel View Post
The author remarks that Scotland has had this type of inheritance for a long time, i.e., daughter inherits title and land if there is no brother. In fact it goes back to the Middle Ages, when Muriel, Lady of Rothes, inherited her father's castle in Rothes when her father, Peter de Pollock, had no sons. Muriel's daughter Eva, likewise had no sons, and passed the title on to her daughter (nameless in records). Down to the twentieth century, the title Lady of Rothes continued if there was no direct male heir. My cousin (many times removed) Georgiana Maxwell, was the last Lady of Rothes. I am descended from Robert de Pollock, Lady Muriel's uncle, who had at least one son, and thus never created a similar descent for his heirs
I have no idea which Rothes title you're referring to. There is an earldom of Rothes which was never held by a Georgiana Maxwell. There is a barony de Ross which was held by Georgiana Maxwell. Neither title is extinct so "Georgiana Maxwell" cannot have been last holder of either title.
Reply With Quote
  #418  
Old 12-19-2012, 03:50 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
Why? Titles are very rarely created with an intent to prevent their extinction. Sometimes title just need to go extinct. Imagine Princess Beatrice becoming Duchess of York and thus ending the five centuries long tradition of granting the Dukedom of York to the second son of the sovereign.

I personally am in total agreement with you. I just mean this entire 'debate' in government regarding equal-primogeniture is being driven because of a coalition government.
Reply With Quote
  #419  
Old 12-19-2012, 04:13 PM
Archduchess Zelia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 2,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
Imagine Princess Beatrice becoming Duchess of York and thus ending the five centuries long tradition of granting the Dukedom of York to the second son of the sovereign.
Had she been a boy it would have ended that "tradition" too.
I wouldn't call it a tradition, rather a series of unexpected events which through two generations have caused the Duke of York to eventually become King. Should we be sad to see the Duchy of Kent or the Duchy of Gloucester be continued through the next generations too?
__________________
"Blessed be god, the king, the queen and all our sweet children be in good health."
— Lady Margaret Beaufort, April 1497

Reply With Quote
  #420  
Old 12-19-2012, 04:17 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 2,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariel View Post
I read the article you linked, Mirabel, and your comment, Duke of Earl, that "there won't be an estate left in Britain after the lefties go through with their agenda." I, like the author of the article, am not an extreme feminist. I think her suggestion is good, that at least a woman should inherit a title if there is no male heir.

But it will never stop there; what happens if there is a male heir but he isn't the eldest child? Or the other children decide they want their cut?

We may think it unfair, but male primogeniture is the reason so many of these large estates have endured throughout the years.
__________________

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 Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change GrandDuchess Royal House of Sweden 306 05-24-2015 05:14 AM
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession Elise,LadyofLancaster British Royals 942 03-09-2015 10:32 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
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 best outfit bourbon-parma brussels carl philip crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events death denmark fashion fashion poll funeral infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king juan carlos abdication king philippe king willem-alexander letizia maxima official visit photo session picture of the week poland president gauck president hollande president komorowski prince carl philip prince daniel prince henrik princess astrid princess caroline princess charlene princess madeleine princess mary princess mette-marit princess of asturias queen fabiola queen letizia queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima fashion queen maxima style queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sonja royal fashion sofia hellqvist spain state visit stockholm sweden the hague visit wedding willem-alexander william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:17 AM.

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]