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

[Iluvbertie]

Fascinating...an heir apparent, and I mean this in theory only, would be able to wed who ever he chooses, but a heiress apparent would be restricted to only "certain" individuals. Theoretically of course...

Do you think that if Prince William had wanted to marry Crown Princess Victoria that would have been allowed? I doubt it as one of them would have to renounce their rights - no difference to the situation if Vicky had always been the heir instead of for only about one year.

 

[Sherlock221B]

Do you think that if Prince William had wanted to marry Crown Princess Victoria that would have been allowed? I doubt it as one of them would have to renounce their rights - no difference to the situation if Vicky had always been the heir instead of for only about one year.

I agree, in theory, it would be highly unlikely for Prince William and Crown Princess Victoria to marry one another, she would have more likely married his cousin Peter. William most likely Victoria's sister Princess Madeleine. Sticking with the British-Swedish match making method. Nevertheless, neither William nor Victoria would be required to have their eligibility to inherit the thrones of their respective countries rescinded...that wouldn't be necessary unless it was deemed so as a result of their marriage, which most likely would occur.

Hence, in theory, the introduction of equal primogeniture, would unfairly place "spousal restrictions" on a heiress, such as Crown Princess Victoria, due to the heiress' status as the eldest daughter and eldest child, whilst none would be placed on a heir that is the eldest son and eldest child, such as Prince William. The heir's eligibility would not be questioned under equal primogeniture or male primogeniture no matter who he married.

 

[NGalitzine]

I am unclear why you think equal primogeniture would place more restrictions on a female heiress as opposed to a male heir. Why would a female heir's eligibility be questioned with equal primogeniture?
Its doubtful in this day and age that any 2 independent nations would want to be linked by shared monarchs, but I supposed William could have decided he preferred the role of Prince Consort of Sweden to reigning King in the UK, just as easily as Victoria giving up Sweden to being consort in the UK.

 

[Sherlock221B]

I don't recall mentioning that under equal primogeniture a heiress apparent's eligibility to a throne could be questioned. Just so happens that I agree with you that in this era it is highly unlikely for two nations to be linked by shared monarchs or even seek to do so.

 

[Thena]

Of course Vicky would never have been allowed to marry the Crown Prince of Prussia if she had been heiress apparent to the British throne.

Fascinating...an heir apparent, and I mean this in theory only, would be able to wed who ever he chooses, but a heiress apparent would be restricted to only "certain" individuals. Theoretically of course...

I recall reading somewhere (probably in "Victoria's Daughters") that Prince Albert raised the girls with the specific goal of sending them to marry princes on the continent so they could spread his ideals. He accomplished that with Vicky and Alice, but wasn't there to manage the marital prospects of Helena, Louise and Beatrice.

The fact was that boys superseded at the time, so the older girls matured in an environment where they were expected to marry foreign princes and leave the country of their birth. After Albert's death, Victoria insisted on having her younger daughters remain in Britain to support her. If Vicky had known from birth that she would stay in Britain to become queen, she probably would have married a second son who would have relocated. But we can only guess what might have happened if the law had been different then.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

So much would have changed had this happened sooner, it's fascinating to think about. Such different expectations of girls - and now, finally (but of a sudden), a very different system. It'll be very interesting to see what happens if the Cambridges have a girl first (I surely hope they do!)

 

[mackdread]

New rules of succession

I have a question about the new rules that are intended to treat men and women equally when it comes to the Royal succession. Does Anne, the Princess Royal now move up from being only tenth in line for the Crown, ahead of Andrew and Edward and their lines?

 

[HRHHermione]

I have a question about the new rules that are intended to treat men and women equally when it comes to the Royal succession. Does Anne, the Princess Royal now move up from being only tenth in line for the Crown, ahead of Andrew and Edward and their lines?

No- it's not retroactive. It only applies to babies born in the royal family from now on.

 

[DukeOfAster]

My understanding the new rules apply to the decendents of the Prince of Wales not the current royals so the Duke of Cambridge and Prine Harry children will be the first to be affected. The official laws that have been on place will have to be updated for it to become official as well. I believe that the UK will start the law changes followed by New Zealand.

 

[Royal_Eagle]

No- it's not retroactive. It only applies to babies born in the royal family from now on.

That's what I've heard too. What I'd like to know is how would they handle IF for some unforesseable reason, all of the descendants of the PoW pass away and the Throne goes to a descendant of Prince Andrew or any of the other siblings of PoW? Would the old rules only apply to them?

Going to be interesting to see how they deal with that, if ever.

 

[Warren]

Equal primogeniture will apply if and when the legislation becomes law. Assuming that occurs in the near-term, the Line of Succession following your scenario of the Wales line becoming extinct is quite straightforward...

Beatrice follows the Duke of York; her issue, if born after the introduction of equal primogeniture, will be placed in order of birth regardless of sex.

If her line fails, succession falls to Eugenie. Again, any children born to her are most likely to be in the Line of Succession according to their date of birth.

Following the York princesses comes the Wessexes. Viscount Severn, although younger, will continue to precede Lady Louise because he was born under the existing law. Any children of his would be subject to the revised law of equal primogeniture.

 

[Royal_Eagle]

OH, I see my mistake. I misread HRHermione's posting to mean it apply only to PoW's children. Earlier, there was some talk that it would apply only to PoW's descendants--hence my too hasty reading of her posting.

Of course, if it apply to all royal babies after a date, then my question is moot as it will never be a problem.

Thanks for clearing and reminding me to read more carefully next time!
.

 

[AnnEliza]

But with the new laws that allow the Monarch to be the first born will that not change that.So if that is a woman will she not out rank the men so then the King title out ranking the Queen will be gone to correct.

I have a (no doubt dumb) question about the new laws. Do these affect the current heir? In other words, hypothetically let's say something happened to Charles, William, and Harry, and William was still childless. Would Princess Anne then become Queen, since she is the second eldest child of HM?

 

[Zonk]

There are no dumb questions

The new law will not be retroactive.

So if William dies childless the rest of the sucession remains the same: Harry, Andrew, Beatrice,Eugenie, Edward, James, Louise and than Anne, Peter and than Zara.

THe new law would affect the next generation....if William has a daughter and than a son with the current law the son would replace the daughter as soon as he is born, with the new law that is no longer the case. And this isn't just for William but everyone....so if the new law is passed before Peter's second child is born...than Savannah will retain her place in line if she has a brother or a sister whereas in the past, if little Peter/Jonas or whomever is born...he would replace her.

 

[Iluvbertie]

What will be interesting is if William has a daughter is say two years and then a son in four years but the legislation still hasn't passed all 16 realms, because until it passes in all 16 it won't be in effect.

 

[AnnEliza]

The new law will not be retroactive.

Thanks for your answer. Does this affect other titles, that is, the nobility, or only the royal family?

 

[Baroness of Books]

I understand that due to the complexities of the peer system, there will be no changes in that area.

 

[yvr girl]

The legislation has not been written yet, so we do not know specifics. My understanding is the plan is to have it effect new heirs only. My guess is they will do something like Norway. Everyone born in from January 1, 2012 onwards will fall into the new rule.

 

[Daria_S]

And so it begins.

Hark what discord follows when you meddle with the monarchy - Telegraph

 

[TheManWhoSpoke]

I must say that the news of Primogeniture Succession strikes me as cold and unwanted, not that Australians are too concerned with such details about the monarchy. But when it comes to Primogeniture Succession, I do take issue.

The problem is essentially that whilst HM is a capable and competent head of state, and also a very fine Queen by all standards. HM can lead us in all ways bar one - she cannot lead by example, because she is not a King. It is my opinion that being soverign bears with it some exemplary responsibility, as we not only require a head of state; we also require both King and Queen. For this reason, I believe the realm should have a king AND queen - whenever possible. Primogeniture Sucession will ensure, that the realm will have no king at all - whilst a female heir is in power, even though there is a male candidate able to fill the role.

We are currently a kingdom without a king, the experience is almost entierly absent from living memory. It is a loss that recent events have provoked me to feel keenly aware of. It is as though that portion or the realm that is male are leaderless, on some spiritual level... Futhermore, the disclosure that we would enter into this arrangement by choice underlines the message of this age - that a man is nice to have, but an unnecessary extra. He is an expendable item.

If the monarchy were not already irrelevant - I fear that this move to Primogeniture Succession will ensure that it may soon be so.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Hang on, are you saying that because the Queen is a woman, she's not as good as a King?

If you look we'll be having two or maybe three Kings following Her Majesty depending upon whether William has a boy or girl, so living memory will resurface. A child born first whether boy or girl so have equal rights to reign. A Queen has never had a King as a King outranks a Queen. There is room to have a Prince Consort.

Would having Prince Philip as King Philip make any difference to the perception of the monarchy and how they do what they can or have done in the past? I think not.

 

[Roslyn]

@ TheManWhoSpoke

Err.......no.........we are a Constitutional Monarchy. We don't need a King and a Queen; our Constitution only provides for a monarch, not a King and Queen. When we have a King, his Queen is only a Queen Consort and she has no constitutional role here.

A King is not "better" than a Queen Regnant; each is a monarch. And as for the leadership abilities of each, Queens Elizabeth I and Victoria each acquitted themselves rather well.

 

[TheManWhoSpoke]

"Err.......no.........we are a Constitutional Monarchy. We don't need a King and a Queen;"

@Rosylin: Indeed you are correct in the litigious sense. As far as governance is concerned, we need neither king nor queen - all we need is a head of state. For instance, if in Australia the Governor General were to be made head of state, and all ties to the British Monarchy severed, this functional role would still be adequately discharged. Coupled with some provision for selection and appointment within the constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. The Monarchy would be made entierly redundant.

But if you will review my logic more carefully, you will find I was refering to three distinct roles. King, Queen and Monarch. I was maintaining that the exemplary nature of King and Queen go beyond the simple discharging of executive powers. There is some manner in which the royal couple lead "by example".

"Hang on, are you saying that because the Queen is a woman, she's not as good as a King?"

@LumutQueen: No. What I am saying is that a woman cannot be a King, she can only ever be a Queen (pretty straightforward really) ... I am also saying that when it comes to exercising leadership, a Queen cannot be a leader of men - because she isn't one. No more then can a King exemplify proper behaviour to women - because he isn't one. So in this sence, both King and Queen together make a complete unit.

"A Queen has never had a King as a King outranks a Queen. There is room to have a Prince Consort."

But that is of course the confusing part: The Prince Consort does outrank the Queen - because he is her husband (it is afterall a christian marriage). Thus the Queen herself is in submission to her husband, who is at the very same time one of her subjects. You say that calliing the Prince Consort a King would cause conflict. But the truth is, that siduation already exists.

"Would having Prince Philip as King Philip make any difference to the perception of the monarchy and how they do what they can or have done in the past? I think not."

And that is a pitty. That you would think in this way is precisely the reason why King Philip is needed.

 

[Lumutqueen]

No. What I am saying is that a woman cannot be a King, she can only ever be a Queen (pretty straightforward really) ... I am also saying that when it comes to exercising leadership, a Queen cannot be a leader of men - because she isn't one. No more then can a King exemplify proper behaviour to women - because he isn't one. So in this sence, both King and Queen together make a complete unit.

Well er no. When you use the word "cannot" it's sort of wrong. As The Queen is a representative of the men and a King is a representative of women. Neither Kings nor Queens are leaders, as they have nothing to lead. I think your 'theme' is that a man cannot do a womans job and vice versa, which in this era is ridiculously old fashioned and sexist IMO.

But that is of course the confusing part: The Prince Consort does outrank the Queen - because he is her husband (it is afterall a christian marriage). Thus the Queen herself is in submission to her husband, who is at the very same time one of her subjects. You say that calliing the Prince Consort a King would cause conflict. But the truth is, that siduation already exists.

Well again no. Where in a christian marriage does it say that the women is subservient to her husband? You do make the Queen sound very much a slave in her own marriage. The Prince Consort does not exist as Prince Philip is known as The Duke of Edinburgh. In the monarchy the Prince Consort does not outrank the Queen as he has no constitutional power, just like a Queen Consort to a King. Maybe you should check out the reality before making something up.

"Would having Prince Philip as King Philip make any difference to the perception of the monarchy and how they do what they can or have done in the past? I think not."

And that is a pitty. That you would think in this way is precisely the reason why King Philip is needed.

He is not 'needed'. If you want to take a look at the last 60 years of Her Majesty The Queens reign, i think you'll fine she's done a pretty damn good job on her own.

However, as your posts are clearly those of an old fashioned, slightly ignorant and sexiest male. I'll leave you be in future.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

Only St. Paul (whose contributions to early Christianity are dubious at best) makes this claim about female submissiveness, within Christianity. Indeed, for Anglicans and Episcopalians everywhere, this is old doctrine, not Christian truth. Egalitarianism in marriage has always been a tenet of some Christian groups and now is central to Anglicanism and Episcopolianism - although I'm sure everyone knows some Old School couples.

But even Paul said "there is no male or female" before God - we are all equal.

Nevertheless, Pauline scripture is not the word of the Lord Jesus, he's simply like the rest of us - working to understand divine principles.

To apply one's own religious dogma to the Queen and the Prince is fallacious at best.

I will say TheManWhoSpoke has a name that I won't soon forget either, LumutQueen.

 

[Sherlock221B]

Currently why doesn't the oldest child, hence an older daughter vs. a younger brother, become the heir apparent?

 

[Lumutqueen]

Currently why doesn't the oldest child, hence an older daughter vs. a younger brother, become the heir apparent?

Seriously? Because the United Kingdom has in place male preference cognatic primogenture. Once upon a time, the UK preferred male heirs. And as two monarchs and a future monarch have either had no boys, or a son who had a son there has been no reason to change it. Perhaps you are posing the question in reference to a previous posters comment about men being better than women?

 

[Nice Nofret]

. HM can lead us in all ways bar one - she cannot lead by example, because she is not a King.
We are currently a kingdom without a king, the experience is almost entierly absent from living memory. It is a loss that recent events have provoked me to feel keenly aware of. It is as though that portion or the realm that is male are leaderless, on some spiritual level..
. Futhermore, the disclosure that we would enter into this arrangement by choice underlines the message of this age - that a man is nice to have, but an unnecessary extra. He is an expendable item. /QUOTE] So, Women has been an 'unnecessary extra' for the most part of the last 2000 years, because there where kingdoms and not 'queendoms'? And now, because for like the 5th time in Englands history there has been a Queen ... oh dear, your selfesteem must be low .
And in what way excactly is she not able to lead?

 

[Baroness of Books]

Ummm, anyone hear of Elizabeth I, just to name one highly effective female monarch?

 

[Sherlock221B]

Currently why doesn't the oldest child, hence an older daughter vs. a younger brother, become the heir apparent?

Seriously? Because the United Kingdom has in place male preference cognatic primogenture. Once upon a time, the UK preferred male heirs.

In other words the UK and the Commonwealth in a broad sense practices male chauvinism...especially when it comes to the royal family, correct? The adoption of equal primogeniture would put an immediate end to such a practice in the UK and the Commonwealth.

And as two monarchs and a future monarch have either had no boys, or a son who had a son there has been no reason to change it.

In the first circumstance I believe you are speaking of either William IV or Edward VIII or George VI while the future monarch would be the Duke of Cambridge? Whilst your second example refers to Queen Victoria, Edward VII, George V, and Queen Elizabeth. And the reason to change it now is because it is the ultimate representation of male chauvinism providing a legitimacy for its existence...correct?

Perhaps you are posing the question in reference to a previous posters comment about men being better than women?

And equal primogeniture will definitely prove such an ideology to be complete madness; especially if the oldest child is a daughter.