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
 
  #961  
Old 07-19-2013, 08:43 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,328
And we may be about to find out whether that eldest child is a girl or not. I believe the debate will heat up a little bit more if the baby is a girl.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #962  
Old 07-19-2013, 08:54 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,272
As long as the heiress apparent receives the income from the Duchy I cannot see a major case for also giving her the ducal title. Charles only uses it when in the duchy but there is no real reason for it.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #963  
Old 07-19-2013, 10:00 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi View Post
And we may be about to find out whether that eldest child is a girl or not. I believe the debate will heat up a little bit more if the baby is a girl.
I can't see there being a huge debate about the future titles of a newborn's husband or children, or for that matter the titles of said newborn after 2 people die.

But then, we seem to be having such a debate now, so...

For the Duchy of Cornwall, it doesn't become an issue until the Queen and Charles die. The Cambridge Baby, regardless of gender, cannot hold the title until William is king. I can see the issue being discussed under Charles' reign (if Cambridge is a girl), but not sooner. I do think it's likely to be changed so that a daughter of the monarch can hold it, but not until such a time as it becomes more relevant.

For the spouse and children of a female Baby Cambridge: we already know that in the case of a female heir LPs can be issued, and will likely be issued, to allow their spouse and children to have an HRH and princely titles. That happened with Elizabeth (I doubt a repetition of the spouse being an HRH but not a prince will happen). It only seems logical that in the future, if Baby C is female then when she gets married LPs will be issued to cover her spouse and children. At that time, they may even issue LPs that are broader, allowing for all female heir apparents to have their spouses and children be HRH Prince(ss). Female Baby C is covered in this department.
Reply With Quote
  #964  
Old 07-19-2013, 10:25 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Queensland has been arguing that each of the states [of Australia]...is a separate Crown in its own right.
Further to the question of separate [Australian] state Crowns, I'll quote part of a handout the local State MP has letterboxed to constituents:

"In 2011 Commonwealth countries agreed to enact laws to remove discrimination against female heirs to the throne...In the [NSW State] Parliament I raised concerns that the Succession to the Crown (Request) Bill could reduce the argument that NSW has its own Crown separate to the Commonwealth because it only refers to the 'Crown of Australia'. Monarchists and republicans concerned about State rights share this view.

Since the Australia Acts of 1986, the Queen can only act on the advice of the [State] Premier on State matters. It remains unresolved whether this means she is Queen of NSW separate to being Queen of Australia. NSW should have adopted a similar bill to Queensland, which specifically protected the possibility of a separate Crown."

Note that the issue is irrelevant to a monarchy/republic debate, it is about that perennial of Australian politics, "States Rights". While the Federal Constitution of 1901 gives the Commonwealth Government relatively limited and strictly defined powers, the tendency of Federal administrations of both sides of politics has been to seek expansion of those powers, such attempts generally meeting strong resistance by the States.
.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #965  
Old 07-21-2013, 02:18 PM
Lenora's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Riga, Latvia
Posts: 2,288
Britain could have two rival monarchs if Commonwealth fails to agree primogeniture law change - Telegraph

Britain could have two rival monarchs if Commonwealth fails to agree primogeniture law change


A failure by Commonwealth states to change the primogeniture rule could lead to a first-born daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge becoming monarch in the UK – but a later son being king in other countries. Many Commonwealth countries have failed to agree to the new law, which would allow a first-born daughter of Kate and William becoming the monarch even if they later have a son.

Without this agreement, a situation could arise where a first-born daughter becomes queen in Britain and some Commonwealth realms but, in countries where the law has not been given assent, a younger brother becomes king – creating rival monarchs. To avoid the prospect of Britain having different sovereigns in different countries, the Succession to the Crown Act has to be accepted in each of the 15 Commonwealth realms where the Queen is head of state. But just three of the 15 have so far given assent.

The delay to the new rules, championed by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, has caused such concern that Lord Tankerness, a member of the House of Lords and a barrister, was sent in May on a tour of some of the realms to urge them to bring in the change and offer advice on how they might do so.

The act will come into force only once the law is altered, but it will be backdated to include any children born after October 2011, the date when Commonwealth leaders first agreed to end the primogeniture rule. The countries that need to approve the change are: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Papua New Guinea, St Kitts and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Barbados, Tuvalu, Grenada, Solomon Islands, St Lucia and the Bahamas.

The three that have approved the change are St Kitts and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines and Canada, although Ottawa's decision simply to give assent to the British law, rather than creating its own bill, has sparked an appeal.
.
Reply With Quote
  #966  
Old 07-22-2013, 04:47 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,272
Royal baby bill challenge joined by Quebec attorney general - Canada - CBC News

This is what happens when governments rush things along without necessarily following the right process. The government of Quebec is joining a lawsuit challenging the federal governments right to make changes in the succession, which they view as a constitutional change, without consulting the provinces. In this I agree with the government of Quebec. Note that no one is challenging the law itself or the need for the change, this is all about correct constitutional process.
Now that we have a new baby prince and there is no need to rush things anymore, hopefully all of the Commonwealth realms will take the time to follow there own correct constitutional processes so there could not be future challenges. Always better to take the time to do things right the first time.
Reply With Quote
  #967  
Old 07-22-2013, 04:48 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 18,123
I was just about to post that I imagine this will all be forgotten for another time.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #968  
Old 07-22-2013, 04:52 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenora View Post
Britain could have two rival monarchs if Commonwealth fails to agree primogeniture law change .
This of course is total rubbish - as the agreements at CHOGM was that the change would only take effect once ALL the realms had passed the necessary legislation so there was no split.

Of course it is irrelevant now - and can wait another 30 or so years before anyone has to worry about the situation - when The Prince of Cambridge is about to become a father.
.
Reply With Quote
  #969  
Old 07-22-2013, 05:02 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 3,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
I was just about to post that I imagine this will all be forgotten for another time.
I think it has gone too far already to stop. The bill is already being voted on and agreed to. It's not at the talking stage or proposal stage, they have already taken costly steps to start the process. It seems foolish to stop it now, even with a Prince.

Sad to say, but even with modern medicine, there is a chance little Prince C won't see the throne, and a younger sibling would.
Reply With Quote
  #970  
Old 07-22-2013, 05:08 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,952
It's not going to be stopped, but it's not going to be rushed anymore. Some states which haven't passed it yet may out it on the backburner and (hopefully) the government of Canada will be forced to redo how they did it.
.
Reply With Quote
  #971  
Old 07-22-2013, 05:13 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 18,123
Until there's a spare, of course it's in doubt. But this bill isn't a priority and never really has been. If it had been it would have been sorted out years ago.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #972  
Old 07-22-2013, 05:18 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 4,940
It is still good to know that if William and Catherine have a girl next time she will still remain high up in the line of succession rather than disappear down the line like Princess Anne!
Also, by the time events come to pass where the new succession rules will come into play, said new rule will have been established for decades!
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #973  
Old 07-22-2013, 05:20 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,197
She would only go down further if they had a second son after a first girl.
Reply With Quote
  #974  
Old 07-22-2013, 06:36 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 4,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
She would only go down further if they had a second son after a first girl.
Is it not correct that after the change of succession rules, if W&C have a girl next time she will be ahead of any subsequent sons therafter?
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #975  
Old 07-22-2013, 06:59 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacknch View Post

Is it not correct that after the change of succession rules, if W&C have a girl next time she will be ahead of any subsequent sons therafter?
After the change of the rules children will be in the line of succession according to the order of their birth, regardless of gender.
Reply With Quote
  #976  
Old 07-22-2013, 08:19 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,304
The change, when/if it goes into effect, will mean that any girl, anywhere in the line of succession (not just the descendants of Charles), will not be displaced by a boy born after October 2011.

In this hypothetical family:
  • Margaret, born 2006
  • George, born 2008
  • Mary, born 2012
  • John, born 2013

they would be ordered George-John-Margaret-Mary before the change comes into force, but George-Margaret-Mary-John afterwards. (George and Margaret were born before 2011 and stay in their sex-determined order, but John was born afterwards and won't come before his elder sisters.)
Reply With Quote
  #977  
Old 07-22-2013, 08:25 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 3,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
It's not going to be stopped, but it's not going to be rushed anymore. Some states which haven't passed it yet may out it on the backburner and (hopefully) the government of Canada will be forced to redo how they did it.
There was never a rush to start. It has been agreed, the new laws apply to any children born after 2011. If the little Prince had been a princess, Will and Kate could have had a further 6 sons, 12 grandsons and so on and so on, and this little Princess would still be heir when the law was changed. We would just see an occurrence like in Sweden, where CP went from being the heir, to the spare. As long as the queen, Charles and William don't all die before it is passed, there was never any rush.

Why move it to the backburner? Do it and get it done with. Putting it on the back burner is the same as stopping it. Why waste all the time and effort put into it so far, just to set it aside now, even if temporarily?
Reply With Quote
  #978  
Old 07-22-2013, 08:28 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,197
Why should the other realms waste the time and effort now when it isn't necessary? We have better things to do with our parliamentary time then worry about this issue.
Reply With Quote
  #979  
Old 07-22-2013, 08:33 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: MO, United States
Posts: 99
I think that eventually the laws will come into force, but I agree: any urgency whatsoever to enact this law has been scrapped because functionally, it doesn't change anything.

Even if the Duchess has a daughter, I think it will take a third pregnancy (and the possibility of the "spare" daughter being superseded by a younger brother) for the changes to be considered important.

It's nice to remove codified sexism from the laws, but it can wait since it may very well not have any real effect on succession for the next 100 years, just like the changes wouldn't have changed anything in the previous 100 years.
Reply With Quote
  #980  
Old 07-22-2013, 08:37 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: bedford, United States
Posts: 1,365
real matters need attention not hypothetical daughters and changes most people won't live to see take effect...we have monarchs lined up for the next 60 or 70 years barring the unthinkable.
__________________

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 455 07-19-2015 09:05 AM
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession Elise,LadyofLancaster British Royals 942 03-09-2015 11:32 PM
Prince Frederik and Princess Mary's Official Visit to Australia: November 19-26, 2011 Princess Robijn Crown Prince Frederik, Crown Princess Mary and Family 295 08-28-2014 09:34 PM
Prince Frederik and Princess Mary's Official Visit to Brazil: September 16-21, 2012 ricarda Crown Prince Frederik, Crown Princess Mary and Family 81 10-05-2012 05:15 PM
The Third Succession Act (Henry VIII, 1543) Daz_Voz British Royal History 4 07-25-2012 04:17 PM




Popular Tags
albania ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit brunei catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events duchess of cambridge dutch state visit e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king abdullah ii in new york 2016 king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathilde fashion queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats wreathoflaurels


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- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:36 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises