 |
|
12-07-2012, 04:41 PM
|
|
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 4,411
|
|
|
If the legislation is meant to apply to the heirs and descendents of the current Prince of Wales, why would the positions of the Duke of Gloucesters grandchildren (Tane Lewis) change at all?
|
12-07-2012, 04:45 PM
|
 |
Administrator
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 14,466
|
|
You're right, I've contradicted myself.
Tane Lewis can rest easy! 
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
|
12-07-2012, 04:49 PM
|
|
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 4,411
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
You're right, I've contradicted myself.
Tane Lewis can rest easy! |
Thanks. So if Peter and Autumn Phillips were to have a son would the current rules, male before females, apply? I have seen some say yes and some say no, but if the change only applies to the heirs of Prince Charles I would assume that for Anne and her heirs it is still males before females.
I have also see some write that succession will be limited to the heirs of QEII or perhaps GV but I havent seen anything about that in any government proposals and also can't see a benefit to it for anyone.
|
12-07-2012, 04:58 PM
|
|
Administrator
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 14,466
|
|
|
I think initially it was announced that male primogeniture would be abolished for those born after October 2011. Now that appears to have been tightened and limited to descendants of Charles only.
It's possible that other changes will be made to what the government has outlined as the legislation and legislative amendments are drawn up and debated in the Parliament.
It's also likely that various media reports will get things wrong and confuse the issue unnecessarily, eg limiting succession to the descendants of GVR or EIIR which serves no purpose whatsoever and to my knowledge hasn't been raised by any senior member of the governmenrt.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
|
12-07-2012, 05:25 PM
|
 |
Serene Highness
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,170
|
|
|
How close is this to passing? And if just the one Parliament passes, would there be (temporarily) different lines of succession in different places? Or can one country forestall the entire process? Is that even known?
|
12-07-2012, 06:24 PM
|
|
Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 6,999
|
|
|
Yes - if one government passes it and the others don't then yes there could be different heirs in the different realms.
|
12-09-2012, 02:22 AM
|
 |
Gentry
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Seattle, United States
Posts: 61
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie
Yes - if one government passes it and the others don't then yes there could be different heirs in the different realms.
|
It seems like that would cause an awful lot of confusion! There might be a Queen of the UK and her brother might be King of Jamaica, for example!
|
12-09-2012, 06:57 AM
|
|
Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 6,999
|
|
|
That is perfectly possible unless the various realms all pass the legislation at the same time - and that is only part of what the committee in NZ is working towards - a piece of legislation that can be passed in each realm at the same time so that the possibility of the realms having split monarchs is avoided.
|
12-09-2012, 06:58 AM
|
|
Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 6,999
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
I think initially it was announced that male primogeniture would be abolished for those born after October 2011. Now that appears to have been tightened and limited to descendants of Charles only.
|
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.
|
12-13-2012, 02:01 PM
|
 |
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,604
|
|
|
|
12-13-2012, 02:13 PM
|
 |
Serene Highness
|
|
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,062
|
|
Official version: Succession to the Crown Bill 2012-13 — UK Parliament
The bill is amazingly short and comprehensive. Well done.
Will there be such debate in Parliament over this matter? What's the current thought on dissent about the bill?
|
12-13-2012, 02:27 PM
|
|
Serene Highness
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,190
|
|
This bill is for the UK only but there will be similiar ones with similiar wording in the other realms.
Politicians can move fast when they have to 
__________________
|
12-13-2012, 02:38 PM
|
|
Gentry
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Washington DC, United States
Posts: 71
|
|
|
That is much more succinct than I expected! I like that they went for children born after October 28, 2011, as opposed to only the descendants of The Prince of Wales. It's much more tidy this way. So when this is passed, it would mean that Tane Lewis would move below his older sister Sienna, as he was born in 2012.
Also, I assume this means that Prince Michael, The Earl of St Andrews, etc will now be in the line of succession? I think that's great.
|
12-13-2012, 02:51 PM
|
|
Courtier
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 673
|
|
|
No. This law only covers gender. It doesn't cover the rule that heirs can't marry a Catholic or be a Catholic. Prince Michael married one, as did the Earl of St. Andrews.
|
12-13-2012, 04:31 PM
|
 |
Commoner
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jacksonville, Florida, United States
Posts: 36
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by suztav
No. This law only covers gender. It doesn't cover the rule that heirs can't marry a Catholic or be a Catholic. Prince Michael married one, as did the Earl of St. Andrews.
|
Section 2 of this bill concerns the "Removal of disqualification arising from marriage to a Roman Catholic" and specifically states that all persons previously excluded from the line of succession due to this disqualification will be reinstated to the line of succession, provided they are still alive. So they both are back in.
|
12-13-2012, 05:19 PM
|
 |
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 327
|
|
|
You might want to reread that bill. Papalist are in vogue again. Oh, poor Henry! Rattling in St. George's Chapel tonight.
|
12-13-2012, 05:24 PM
|
|
Serene Highness
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,190
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by padams2359
You might want to reread that bill. Papalist are in vogue again. Oh, poor Henry! Rattling in St. George's Chapel tonight.
|
Romanists will never be the sovereigns, only the sovereign's consorts
__________________
|
12-13-2012, 05:47 PM
|
|
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 327
|
|
|
Yeah, that is what I said.
|
12-13-2012, 05:48 PM
|
|
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 327
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by padams2359
Yeah, that is what I said.
|
The bill says 'Papalist". Do we need to contact the Vatican?
|
12-13-2012, 05:59 PM
|
|
Serene Highness
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,190
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by padams2359
The bill says 'Papalist". Do we need to contact the Vatican?
|
Romanist, papalist, they're all the same to me. 
__________________
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
Recent Discussions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional Links |
|
|
|
Chevy Camaro Forum
Ford Mustang Forum
Jeep Wrangler Forum
Volkswagen Touareg Forum
Land Rover Defender Forum
