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
 
  #421  
Old 12-19-2012, 05:03 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 522
And in the end what would actually happen is that a govt. will decide to abolish titles altogether. Read the comments section and you get an idea of what many people think about the idea of titles.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #422  
Old 12-19-2012, 06:45 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archduchess Zelia View Post
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?
But she is not a boy and it's not just two generations. There have been seven dukes of York and three dukes of York and Albany since the Wars of the Roses. None of them passed the title.

The Queen could have given Andrew the title with remainder to his daughters, but she didn't. Nothing prevented her from making the title hereditary by and through females. Yet she chose to limit it to heirs male, as usual. Is she sexist? Did she dislike her granddaughters before they were born? Or is it possible that she is wiser than us and that she had a reason to do so?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #423  
Old 12-19-2012, 06:52 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,044
Kotroman, your hypothetical scenario, while accurate, is unlikely, IMO. I can't imagine consent being withheld if Beatrice wants to marry any reasonably suitable person, and I have Dave in mind here. And would Eugenie really be likely to marry a drug lord? Possible, yes, but probable, no. Considering the hot house environment in which these people are reared, such things are unlikely for those so close to the throne, and if one of them really does go off on a mad frolic of their own and marry someone totally unsuitable, the rules can always be changed.

I think it's a good idea to restrict the number of people who have to seek permission to marry. Any figure selected is going to be arbitrary.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #424  
Old 12-19-2012, 07:09 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 464
But legislators are supposed to take every possibility into consideration. They shouldn't think what's likely and what's not when the future of the state is in question. In my scenario, Beatrice doesn't seek consent at all and gets married fully aware that she is forfeiting her rights, while her sister, who had recently married a drug lord, gets closer to the throne.

I don't see why the number of people who have to seek consent should be restricted. If approving the marriages is too much of a hassle, then limit the line of succession. Cut people out. It's better than making it possible, however unlikely, that someone unsuitable ascends the thrones.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #425  
Old 12-19-2012, 07:37 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
But legislators are supposed to take every possibility into consideration. They shouldn't think what's likely and what's not when the future of the state is in question. In my scenario, Beatrice doesn't seek consent at all and gets married fully aware that she is forfeiting her rights, while her sister, who had recently married a drug lord, gets closer to the throne.

I don't see why the number of people who have to seek consent should be restricted. If approving the marriages is too much of a hassle, then limit the line of succession. Cut people out. It's better than making it possible, however unlikely, that someone unsuitable ascends the thrones.
If its not restricted you end up with an unwieldy situation not unlike the current one where persons so far down the Order of Succession that they are irrelevant still have to seek the Queens permission.

Under the current system Prince Ernst of Hanover had to request permission yet the prospects of him succeeding are negligible. Likewise, Lord Nicholas Windsor still needed permission to marry even though he cannot succeed for religious reasons.

Even restricting the order of succession would make no difference. In effect the only people the succession affects now are Charles, William and Harry (until William's children come of age) yet there is a long list of persons in the order. There would still be some arbitrary cut off as someone slips further down the list when children are born to those ahead of them.

When the Queen succeeded Princess Anne was second in line and would have been in any order if succession. Even had equal primogeniture applied she would now be about to slip to 5th and by the time her brother inherits would probably be lower. When should she no longer be in the order of succession?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #426  
Old 12-19-2012, 08:27 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 2,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by fearghas View Post
And in the end what would actually happen is that a govt. will decide to abolish titles altogether. Read the comments section and you get an idea of what many people think about the idea of titles.
Exactly!

And it wouldn't surprise me if the Monarchy soon follows.
(People are already talking about ending monarchies in Spain and Sweden.)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #427  
Old 12-19-2012, 11:19 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Los Alamos, United States
Posts: 1,032
Kotroman, you know more about Georgiana Maxwell than I do, I expect. I'm rather new to this digging into the past. When I read a news story that Georgiana Maxwell was the Lady of Rothes (some time in the 1990's) I thought she must be a distant cousin of mine, because my Scottish family of Pollock is considered to be "one family" with the Maxwell family, and have a near-identical tartan. I know that my distant uncle Peter Pollock left the castle of Rothes to his daughter, but Georgiana Maxwell, as you say, must not be of that Rothes line, but instead of Ross.
One reason why Pollock and Maxwell are considered to be one family is because of their interbreeding habits, needless to say. Maxwell was especially wretched in the inbred hobby, much worse than Pollock. I researched that particular part of the problem, the Maxwell inbreeding with cousins to retain estates. In more than one generation a Maxwell married a cousin Maxwell to preserve the estate, then divorced the wife on the grounds of "consanguinity", which was against church law. Then the ruthless Maxwell spouse would marry whomever else he chose, and of course had custody of the heir or heirs. Ugly ugly business. I would love to see relics of such barbarity end. But my Pollock ancestors were not as ruthless and hence lost their power and lands. Good for them! (I am only l/4 Scottish and only found this history in recent years when looking at genealogy threads).

I bought my son and grandsons Pollock tartan ties for Christmas. May seem absurd to them, but it's time for them to get introduced to that part of their history.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #428  
Old 12-20-2012, 06:49 AM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 464
The new law will limit the line of succession anyway. Not all descendants of Electress Sophia of Hanover will be in line anymore.

The reason people very far down the line still have to seek consent is that the lack of consent renders their marriage completely non-existent, thus disabling their spouses and/or children from using/inheriting their titles and property and rendering their children illegitimate. Ernest applied for permission in order to faciliate his and Caroline's children's claim to inheritance of any property he may have in the UK.

Under new law, the lack of consent would remove the person ad his/her descendants from the line, but the marriage itself would be valid. Thus, someone very far down the line wouldn't have to seek consent at all; they could just marry and say goodybe to the 0.00001% chances they had of succeeding to the throne.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VictoriaB View Post
When should she no longer be in the order of succession?
How about once William's king? In Norway and Monaco, the line of succession is limited to the reigning monarch's descendants and siblings and descendants of the reigning monarch's siblings. In the Netherlands, this is even more complex but perhaps better: the limit is three degrees of kinship from the reigning monarch. If such system were to be adopted, Anne would remain in line after William's accession but her descendants would drop out and would only gain succession rights if Anne were to somehow become Queen Anne II. That said, there are a number of solutions better than the 6-people-next-in-line thing.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #429  
Old 12-20-2012, 11:52 AM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,228
I find it funny though, that there are hundreds of people, who have a place in British succession (even though most of them hardly have any chance at all at reaching the throne). Here in Sweden, it's like it is in Norway and Monaco. Only close relatives to the king have a place in the succession. I believe only his three children, his granddaughter and one of his sisters are in line right now.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #430  
Old 12-20-2012, 05:51 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
The new law will limit the line of succession anyway. Not all descendants of Electress Sophia of Hanover will be in line anymore.

As those people currently excluded because they:

a) married a Roman Catholic e.g. Prince Michael of Kent, Prince Ernst of Hanover

b) lower than 6th have married without permission

are going to be back in the line of succession how can you say the new law will limit the line of succession.

It will lengthen it not reduce it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #431  
Old 12-20-2012, 06:03 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,420


That is mostly my understanding as well, bar the consent to the marriage bit.

No provision of the Succession to the Crown Bill excludes any of Sophia's descendants who are currently in the line of succession. And the Catholic clause states that people who have been disqualified for marrying Catholics and are still alive when this clause comes into effect, regardless of when did the marriage occur, would regain their succession right.

I do disagree with your interpretation of the consent of the Sovereign requirement though. Those who married without the Sovereign's consent (regardless of their place in the line of succession) will not be reinstated in the succession line; they will still be excluded from the line of succession. However, while previously those marriages would have also been considered void under the Royal Marriages Act 1772, they (past, present and future marriages) will now be considered legal (among other things, giving full inheritance rights), provided neither party to the marriage was/is 6th in the line of the succession at the time of the marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #432  
Old 12-20-2012, 06:55 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,934
If they are being given 'full inheritance rights' how can that not include the right to inherit the throne - the ultimate in inheritance right.

If the situation arises where a child whose ancestor was illegitimate before this act and is now to be made legitimate was to be overlooked for the crown that would very soon be challenged in court.

To say 'your are excluded from the line of succession because your parents didn't seek permission to marry;' but now you can have full inheritance rights to all things - except the throne won't stand up in court.

The first people affected by this would be the Lascelles family with some outside the line of succession to throne and title but now in line for title but still not for throne - won't stand up in court if challenged.

Whether anybody would challenge is a moot point of course.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #433  
Old 12-20-2012, 08:30 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,420
When I said "full inheritance rights", I meant properties and (non-royal) titles. Until the Bills is enforced, all marriages conducted without the Sovereign's permission are void. That means, among other things, that children from such marriages are technically illegitimate in the eyes of the British law. That was one of the reason Ernst August of Hanover - who owns substantial estate in Britain - had to seek permission for either of his marriages.

Laws governing succession to the Throne are completely separate and independent, and differ from laws on succession of estate and even peerage titles.
Reply With Quote
  #434  
Old 12-20-2012, 09:36 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,256
Children born outside of marriage will still not be able to succeed to either the throne or a peerage even if their parents married at a later date. The bill does provide for the recognition of marriages that happened without royal consent and legitimizes the issue of those marriages but that is a different matter. I don't think the current Viscount Lascelles will be replaced by his elder brother in succession to the throne or the peerage as he was born before his parents married.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #435  
Old 12-20-2012, 09:51 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,420


Indeed. children born outside marriage would only be entitled to courtesy styles of younger children, even if they parents marry after they are born.

Right now, all children born from marriages conducted without the Sovereign's consent (obviously, children of those in the line of succession to the British Throne) are considered illegitimate in the eyes of law (Royal Marriages Act 1772). However, if the Bill is passed, then those children whose parents were married prior to their births but without the Sovereign's consent, would automatically be "legitimised", so to speak - but still will not be included in the succession line. In future too, consent is not required for marriages to be valid (other than the first six people in the succession line), but issue of such marriages will still be ineligible to ascend to the Throne.
Reply With Quote
  #436  
Old 12-29-2012, 09:25 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,169
Equality law means Duchess of Cambridge may never be our Queen | UK | Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express
Quote:
The Duchess of Cambridge may never become William’s Queen if an MP’s attempt to eradicate one of the last vestiges of sexism in the British constitution is successful.
Welcome to the insanity that is modern day, hyper-politically correct Britain
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #437  
Old 12-29-2012, 09:37 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,845
Good grief! Man's mad! Happily I shall be long gone by the time this could happen.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #438  
Old 12-29-2012, 10:26 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl View Post
Why is it insane? More and more women nowadays choose to be known by their maiden names, especially professionally. I see nothing wrong with abolishing the idea that a woman's identity is subsumed into her husband's on marriage. To me, that is the insanity.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #439  
Old 12-29-2012, 10:48 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ipswich, United Kingdom
Posts: 718
Quote:
Originally Posted by VictoriaB View Post
Why is it insane? More and more women nowadays choose to be known by their maiden names, especially professionally. I see nothing wrong with abolishing the idea that a woman's identity is subsumed into her husband's on marriage. To me, that is the insanity.
Because it would be inconsistent. It's unlikely to pass anyway.

They talk about The Prince of Wales meddling, but I wish parliment would stop meddling with the monarchy!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #440  
Old 12-29-2012, 11:29 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalistbert View Post

Because it would be inconsistent. It's unlikely to pass anyway.

They talk about The Prince of Wales meddling, but I wish parliment would stop meddling with the monarchy!
Inconsistent with what? With the past? It's inconsistent that when Sophie, Diana, Camilla etc married they became Countess, Princess and Duchess while Mark, Tim and Tony Armstrong-Jones did not.

As for Parliament meddling in the monarchy do you think male primogeniture is right? That those who marry Catholics should be barred from the throne (but not those who marry Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc)? That sleeping with the wife of the Prince of Wales should be punishable by death (I know it no longer is but only since Parliament recently "meddled")?
__________________

__________________
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 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 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 stockholm sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:39 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]