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
 
  #101  
Old 11-17-2011, 09:14 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,476
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.
__________________

__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 11-17-2011, 09:20 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 176

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!
.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 11-29-2011, 02:19 PM
AnnEliza's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Seattle, United States
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by DukeOfAster View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 11-29-2011, 02:27 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,573
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.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 11-29-2011, 03:56 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,035
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.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 11-29-2011, 05:24 PM
AnnEliza's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Seattle, United States
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 11-29-2011, 05:29 PM
Baroness of Books's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 5,772
I understand that due to the complexities of the peer system, there will be no changes in that area.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 11-29-2011, 09:31 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 362
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.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 12-17-2011, 12:07 PM
Daria_S's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: My own head, United States
Posts: 7,257
And so it begins.

Hark what discord follows when you meddle with the monarchy - Telegraph
__________________
"My guiding principles in life are to be honest, genuine, thoughtful and caring".
~Prince William~


I'm not obsessed with royalty...I just think intensely about it.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 12-22-2011, 10:35 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 10
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.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 12-22-2011, 10:45 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,332
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.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 12-22-2011, 10:55 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,096
@ 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.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 12-23-2011, 07:07 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 10
"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.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 12-23-2011, 01:52 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheManWhoSpoke View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TheManWhoSpoke View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheManWhoSpoke View Post
[I]"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.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 12-23-2011, 02:02 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,324
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.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 12-23-2011, 02:12 PM
Sherlock221B's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 174
Currently why doesn't the oldest child, hence an older daughter vs. a younger brother, become the heir apparent?
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 12-23-2011, 02:14 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock221B View Post
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?
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 12-23-2011, 02:37 PM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 435
[QUOTE=TheManWhoSpoke;1349353]. 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?
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 12-23-2011, 02:39 PM
Baroness of Books's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 5,772
Ummm, anyone hear of Elizabeth I, just to name one highly effective female monarch?
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 12-23-2011, 03:57 PM
Sherlock221B's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock221B View Post
Currently why doesn't the oldest child, hence an older daughter vs. a younger brother, become the heir apparent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
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.
__________________

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 942 03-09-2015 10:32 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 carl philip charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events death duchess of cambridge fashion fashion poll grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg maxima nobility norway royals official visit ottoman picture of the week poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess ariane princess astrid princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess haya princess madeleine princess mary princess of asturias queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima fashion queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sonja royal royal fashion sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:13 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]