The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1101  
Old 05-03-2015, 10:59 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 7,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spheno View Post
it's absolutely new territory. All previous British abdication included renouncement of succesion rights for all descendents. So, indeed, Andrew would succeed Charles.
In modern world Charles' or William's abdication will require new laws.
Very good point. I didn't stop to think that an abdication by Charles would affect his own descendants' right to the throne. We're veering off topic here but I don't think this issue will ever be a cause for worry. Nil. Never. Uh-huh. No way, no sir, no ma'am. Charles is prepared, able and more than willing to step up to be King
__________________

__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
Reply With Quote
  #1102  
Old 05-03-2015, 02:30 PM
Ana Von Cleves's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Our Town, United States
Posts: 97
Please forgive my not going back and reading all 55 pages of this thread. I am coming late to the discussion. My question is: Is the Catholic barrier now removed and if so, are all those who were removed because of this, mainly Kents, now back in? I thought so, but I have read some things that make me not so sure and I know you guys will know.

Thanks, Ana
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1103  
Old 05-03-2015, 02:46 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ana Von Cleves View Post
Please forgive my not going back and reading all 55 pages of this thread. I am coming late to the discussion. My question is: Is the Catholic barrier now removed and if so, are all those who were removed because of this, mainly Kents, now back in? I thought so, but I have read some things that make me not so sure and I know you guys will know.

Thanks, Ana

The barrier to those who marry Catholics is removed. The barrier to those who are Catholics is still in place. So, Prince Michael of Kent is back in the succession, as is the Earl of Saint Andrews, however the Earl's elder children are still barred on account of being Catholics.
Reply With Quote
  #1104  
Old 05-03-2015, 02:54 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 1,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spheno View Post
it's absolutely new territory. All previous British abdication included renouncement of succesion rights for all descendents. So, indeed, Andrew would succeed Charles.
In modern world Charles' or William's abdication will require new laws.

Actually, it is up to Parliament to decide. Th order of succession can be officially changed only by an act of Parliament. When Edward VIII abdicated, he had no children and was suceeded by his brother (the present queen's father). The act of Parliament that gave effect to the abdication also removed any future descendants of King Edward VIII from the line of succession to prevent any future challenge to the King George VI's legitimacy should Edward VIII ever had issue. In William's case, I cannot imagine a scenario where Parliament would also remove him from the line of succession if his father abdicated.
Reply With Quote
  #1105  
Old 05-03-2015, 03:18 PM
Ana Von Cleves's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Our Town, United States
Posts: 97
Ok, that clears up my confusion. Thanks!!
Reply With Quote
  #1106  
Old 05-03-2015, 03:45 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spheno View Post
it's absolutely new territory. All previous British abdication included renouncement of succesion rights for all descendents. So, indeed, Andrew would succeed Charles.
In modern world Charles' or William's abdication will require new laws.

This isn't absolutely new territory, and the idea that an abdication is for an entire line in every situation is false.

Edward VIII's descendants were barred from the succession because his abdication was officially directly related to his choice of wife. John Balliol and Richard II both abdicated without their descendants being explicitly barred from the succession, but their heirs were displaced by usurpers. Mary of Scots and Edward II were both forced to abdicate and were succeeded by their heirs, while James II kind of abdicated and Parliament chose which of his children got to be the heir.

Abdications that explicitly bar a line from succeeding tend to be done because there is some apparent problem with the line - wrong religion, wrong heritage - or because there is a political upheaval and a line is being overthrown.

If Charles were to abdicate it wouldn't displace his sons or grandchildren from the line of succession in any way - no more than Juan Carlos I or Albert II abdicating prevented their sons from inheriting their thrones.
Reply With Quote
  #1107  
Old 05-03-2015, 07:06 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,277
Exactly Ish.


If Charles abdicated, unless there were serious reasons to also remove William, George, Princess and Harry, the succession would carry on as normal.


Abdications, now require legislation in all the various realms as well and there is no way that they would approve the removal of someone who is a known person, unless that person also wished to be removed so even if Charles and William asked to be removed they couldn't remove George until he is 18 and old enough to ask for himself. They could remove any future children but not those already here.


With Edward VIII a major reason for removing future children was exactly that - they weren't already born to a legitimate marriage. Charles' heirs are here and from a legitimate marriage, able to take over etc.


As for the new law and those married to Roman Catholics - yes they are now back in the line of succession but not those who are actually Roman Catholics. That means Prince Michael is back in but not Lord Nicholas who converted to Roman Catholicism.


The DM line of succession I saw yesterday was missing a number of people - not to mention had Mr Michael Tindall in the line rather than Mrs Michael Tindall.
Reply With Quote
  #1108  
Old 05-03-2015, 07:18 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,254
Look at the Romanov family of Russia. Lots of sticky points there due to (sometimes forced) abdications.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #1109  
Old 05-03-2015, 07:51 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,277
You can't compare one country to another though as there are different laws in place to cover different eventualities. What may be able to happen in one country could very well not be allowed in another.
Reply With Quote
  #1110  
Old 06-01-2015, 02:54 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Regina, Canada
Posts: 361
Succession changes being challenged in Canada

British royal succession law will be contested in Quebec court Monday
Reply With Quote
  #1111  
Old 06-01-2015, 04:50 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,671
Quote:
MONTREAL — Two law professors are going to ask a Quebec court Monday to quash the Harper government’s move to change a federal law dealing with succession in the British monarchy.

In 2011 the leaders of 16 commonwealth countries agreed to change the succession rules to allow the eldest heir to take the Throne whether male or female.

Before the change, if the eldest child was a woman, she would have been passed over in favour of her brother.

The Harper government made the change by a simple federal law in 2013.

But University of Laval law professors Patrick Taillon and Geneviève Motard said it was a change to Canada’s constitution that should have required the consent of the provinces, which Prime Minister Harper never sought
More: Quebec law profs declare federal monarchy succession law ‘unconsitutional’ | Globalnews.ca
Reply With Quote
  #1112  
Old 06-01-2015, 05:30 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 1,830
We have to wait and see what the Canadian courts will say, but, in the worst case scenario, Canada will have a different line of succession for a while ( at least until the Succession Act is passed "properly", i.e. with the consent of all 10 provinces). The first person affected by the new rules is, however, currently number 29 in the line of succession. In practical terms then, there will be minimal impact if the new law does not apply immediately to Canada.
Reply With Quote
  #1113  
Old 06-01-2015, 09:49 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
We have to wait and see what the Canadian courts will say, but, in the worst case scenario, Canada will have a different line of succession for a while ( at least until the Succession Act is passed "properly", i.e. with the consent of all 10 provinces). The first person affected by the new rules is, however, currently number 29 in the line of succession. In practical terms then, there will be minimal impact if the new law does not apply immediately to Canada.

In the worst case scenario the courts allow Harper's disregard of the constitution to stand....

Best case scenario is the courts agree that the way the law was passed violates the constitution and the Canadian federal and provincial governments implement the change in a way that doesn't invalidate Canadian sovereignty while also not pushing Canadian republicanism.
Reply With Quote
  #1114  
Old 06-09-2015, 08:59 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,671
Quote:
The current hearing in a Quebec Superior Court over how someone gets to be King or Queen of Canada is a case that monarchists, such as myself, find fascinating, but would rather not by taking place in the public spotlight.

If the court decides that the Harper government acted correctly two years ago when it changed the succession rules with a simple act of Parliament to say that Canada will do what the British do, people who think the monarchy in Canada is no more than an ongoing, unacceptable relic of our colonial past will say, “Aha!”

If the court says — as ultimately I hope it does — that the monarchy in Canada is not the same as the monarchy in Britain or anywhere else, and the succession rules for this country can only be changed in this country by a constitutional amendment requiring the assent of Parliament and all 10 provincial legislatures, we will trigger the four most paralyzing words in our political lexicon: opening up the Constitution. In this case, too, the republican hounds will be unleashed in a dreary, baying debate over whether Canada should retain the monarchy at all.
More: Michael Valpy: Who takes the Crown? | National Post
Reply With Quote
  #1115  
Old 03-12-2016, 06:55 AM
eya eya is online now
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: -, Greece
Posts: 6,022
Heirs in line to succeed the Queen include 'miracle worker' who talks to angels | Daily Mail Online
Reply With Quote
  #1116  
Old 03-12-2016, 07:35 AM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,318
Well, it seems like the only one on this list, who has any chance of getting near a throne, must be Märtha Louise. And even with her, we're talking about the Norwegian throne and not the British one. It is very interesting though to see how little you have to care of your "royal reputation", when you end up so low down on the list.
Reply With Quote
  #1117  
Old 05-20-2016, 02:19 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 4,590
I think that the text about Succession on the royal.uk site has been updated from the old royal.gov site.

In any case, the discussion of Parliament's role is lucidly and emphatically explained. https://www.royal.uk/succession

The Mrs. Michael Tindall made me chuckle.
Reply With Quote
  #1118  
Old 05-20-2016, 07:18 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
It might make you chuckle, but it makes me fume and swear and want to throw things.

Isn't that archaic notion of a married woman's identity being subsumed within that of her husband long past its use-by date? Why do women tolerate it any longer?
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #1119  
Old 05-20-2016, 07:36 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,277
If it is that way for the wife of an untitled person why allow wives of peers to take their husband's titles?

It is the formal way of doing it of course but if it changes then we have to take away all references to a wife's status coming from her husband so Kate goes back to being Ms Catherine Middleton as HRH The Duchess of Cambridge is simply her style as the wife of HRH The Duke of Cambridge - different styles but same principle.
Reply With Quote
  #1120  
Old 05-20-2016, 07:45 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Make the changes across the board. That would be fine with me. It's all archaic and unjust. The whole system of royalty and peerage is archaic and unjust, but my main grievance is with the way married women lose their own identity and are treated differently than married men, and - particularly - how readily most people so readily accept it. This all goes back to the outdated doctrine of coverture that I rattle on about so much.

Coverture is no longer a part of the law, so why do women, for formal purposes, still lose their own identity when they marry? And why is it fair for a woman who marries a royal to become an HRH princess automatically when a man who marries a royal woman is not treated the same way. If the elevated status were due to marriage alone, it would work both ways, but it doesn't. It's unjust and unfair. In this respect, Philip and Henrik are right. But, of course, the sort of woman who marries a prince, or, perhaps, the sort of woman a prince is going to be prepared to marry, will not be a feminist who will reject the "HRH Princess" style and all that goes with it.

It's all about a married couple becoming the one legal person on marriage, and that person is the husband, not the wife. That is no longer the case under the law; it only lives on in social tradition. Women now have complete equality under the law, so why on earth do they allow themselves to lose their identity this way, and be formally referred to as Mrs (husband's name). It's high time that a married woman was at least able to be known as Mrs (if she chooses) (her first name) (husband's surname, if she chooses to use it). That form should not be reserved only for divorced women, but would give a woman the option to take her husband's surname but retain her own first name as part of her formal name. And why should a woman's name indicate her marital status? Married men use the same style they had when they were single; they are not tagged as married, so why should a woman be tagged that way with "Mrs"?
__________________

__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
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
Prince Frederik and Princess Mary's Official Visit to Australia: November 19-26, 2011 Princess Robijn Crown Prince Frederik, Crown Princess Mary and Family 302 01-19-2017 09:29 AM
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 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
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion current events current events thread duchess of cambridge duchess of cornwall's fashion and style dutch state visit e-mail fashion poll greece haldane hereditary grand duchess stéphanie kate middleton king abdullah ii king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand norway november november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles prince leka princess eugenie outfit princess marie princess mary princess mary fashion princess victoria fashion queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen mathilde fashion queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania casual outfit queen rania daytime fashion queen rania fashion queen rania in the un queen rania style royal weddings september 2016 sheikha moza state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden swedish royal family summer portraits 2016 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


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 01:54 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises