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 01-22-2013, 01:57 PM
EIIR's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Somewhere, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,621
I've been watching some of the debate on BBC Parliament. The usual politically correct nonsense from the typical suspects. Very few MPs have clearly thought about this in any depth at all.

Jacob Rees-Mogg is always good to listen to. He's a bit of a throwback to a bygone age, but he's a superb speaker in the Commons.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 01-23-2013, 10:18 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 203
Comparing the 2012-2013 Succession to the Crown Bill to Succession Debates in the reign of Henry I, Henry VIII and Queen Anne

Debating the Royal Succession | Carolyn Harris: Royal Historian
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 01-23-2013, 10:46 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarolynHarris View Post
Comparing the 2012-2013 Succession to the Crown Bill to Succession Debates in the reign of Henry I, Henry VIII and Queen Anne

Debating the Royal Succession | Carolyn Harris: Royal Historian
What an interesting piece, CarolynHarris.
To be honest, this is the first time I've looked at the current Bill through the prism of time, so to speak.

Once question from your wonderful article though. You wrote: "Crown Bill does not address the inheritance of the Duchy of Lancaster, which provides the monarch with his or her personal income." I'm not sure I understand what the issue is with the Duchy of Lancaster: isn't the Monarch (regardless of gender) automatically the Duke of Lancaster? If I am not mistaken, that should remain unchanged in any case.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 01-23-2013, 11:49 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: McKean, United States
Posts: 1
I personally have the feeling their most likely going to hold off on this until its' "essential" in their opinion. Alot of events like this most people dont like to mess around with changing if they can help it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 01-24-2013, 01:42 AM
PrincePatrick's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemisia View Post
What an interesting piece, CarolynHarris.
To be honest, this is the first time I've looked at the current Bill through the prism of time, so to speak.
Hear, hear! Loved that little walk down the lane of British royal history! :)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 01-24-2013, 03:43 AM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,225
Yeah, that was an interesting read.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 01-25-2013, 03:12 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
" (3) The effect of a person’s failure to comply with subsection (1) is that the person and the person’s descendants are disqualified from succeeding to the Crown. "

That's worded interestingly. It seems to apply to all of the person's descendants rather than just the ones who are born in the disqualifying marriage. Hopefully it would never be an issue, but it would seem possible for a parent who has become unmarried through one means or the other to spite his or her children by remarrying without permission.
As it happens, this issue has been resolved. The bill was recently amended to read:

" (3) The effect of a person’s failure to comply with subsection (1) is that the person and the person’s descendants from the marriage are disqualified from succeeding to the Crown.
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 01-28-2013, 07:38 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
Canada's royal baby bill risks constitutional complications - Politics - CBC News

Things could get complicated.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 01-28-2013, 07:39 PM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 7,403
Peter Hunt‏@BBCPeterHunt
The bill which will ensure that if William and Kate's first child is a girl she will be queen has cleared the Commons. Next stop the Lords.

Peter Hunt‏@BBCPeterHunt
The House of Lords will debate the bill which'll allow a first born daughter to become queen on the 14th February.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 02-01-2013, 01:22 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
Royal baby bill delivered in House of Commons - Politics - CBC News

The process to change the succession in Canada has begun. The Federal governments position is that they do not need to consult the provinces and they have not done so. This could get complicated if the provinces decide they should have been consulted and launch a court challenge. Quebec is already saying they should have been consulted.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 02-04-2013, 09:48 PM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 7,403
Joe Little‏@MajestyMagazine
Canada: amendments to Royal Succession Bill pass House of Commons without debate. To Senate next for Royal Assent.

That's a (unisex royal baby) wrap!:
That's a (unisex royal baby) wrap! - Inside Politics
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 02-05-2013, 12:25 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: MO, United States
Posts: 99
I see no reason to limit the succession to descendants of someone other than Electress Sophia. It's a good contingency. When you look at the Swedish line, for example, it's awfully thin.

I think the gender-neutral succession is a good change (would be funny if they have a boy though, it would effectively render it all for naught :P) and I'm okay with the ban on Catholic marriages being lifted, but I don't get the whining over Catholics not being able to inherit the throne. So long as the Monarch is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England (whether you agree with the title/position or not), it makes sense that the monarch should be Anglican.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 02-05-2013, 12:41 AM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,225
Quote:
I see no reason to limit the succession to descendants of someone other than Electress Sophia. It's a good contingency. When you look at the Swedish line, for example, it's awfully thin.
I know what you mean. We only have four people in the Swedish succession, while there are hundreds in the British one. Right now, I think it would suffice to keep the queen's own descendants (her children, grandchildren and great grandchildren) in the line to the throne.

Quote:
I'm okay with the ban on Catholic marriages being lifted, but I don't get the whining over Catholics not being able to inherit the throne. So long as the Monarch is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England (whether you agree with the title/position or not), it makes sense that the monarch should be Anglican.
I see your point. The possible future monarchs will still have to be Anglicans for the time being, and I see no problem with that. But I don't like how Catholics were specifically targeted by the law. I know this has historical reasons, but I don't understand how it took three hundred years to change it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 02-05-2013, 02:19 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,421


There are actually thousands of people in the Line of Succession to the British Throne. I agree it would make sense to apply, say, the same three-degrees-of-kinship rule as the Netherlands.

In regards to the ban on marriages to Catholics, it's pretty hard to change a law, especially if there is no pressing reason for it. The ban on royals marrying Catholics was specified in the Act of Settlement - one of the most important legal acts in Britain. As is evident by the current process, it is not by no means an easy one.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 02-05-2013, 03:19 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: MO, United States
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemisia View Post


There are actually thousands of people in the Line of Succession to the British Throne. I agree it would make sense to apply, say, the same three-degrees-of-kinship rule as the Netherlands.
Might not be a bad idea to cull it down though there's no pressing need for it, and it could (theoretically) create a succession crisis where there wouldn't need to be one. The highest ranked non-British national is King Harald V at around 75ish.

The chances of the throne passing to a non-HRH is slim and the chances of it passing to a foreign royal are almost nil (and those are probably the two most undesired outcomes), barring some sort of calamity that would likely have ended the United Kingdom anyway, if not the world. So no real need to mess with that part, IMO. Plus, the Dutch kinship system is really confusing.

Quote:
In regards to the ban on marriages to Catholics, it's pretty hard to change a law, especially if there is no pressing reason for it. The ban on royals marrying Catholics was specified in the Act of Settlement - one of the most important legal acts in Britain. As is evident by the current process, it is not by no means an easy one.
I don't think there should be an issue with marrying Catholics nowadays, so long as the children are raised Protestant or the Church of England is disconnected from the monarchy. But the chances of a high-ranking Catholic member of the BRF is also quite slim. I know republicans have so much faux-concern about how "unfair" it is that a non-Anglican cannot succeed the throne, but there you go.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 02-05-2013, 10:20 AM
Paulchen's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Dudley, United Kingdom
Posts: 3
What interests me are the implications with respect to the titles of the Heir to the Throne, all the legislation regarding The Prince of Wales, etc being, to cut a long story short, the eldest son, the title of the husband of a Princess of Wales in her own right? Will the entitlement to Prince/Princess be extended to the female line? Would a female third in line, as in eldest granddaughter of a monarch [equivalent to Prince William at the moment] be granted a Dukedom on marriage? Would her children be made HRH and Prince or Princess by Letters Patent? How will royal heraldry be affected?

Will the terms Heir Apparent and Heir Presumptive be abolished?

All these other knock-on effects... I'm sure there are many more and that they will be dealt with in the age old British fashion: As and when the matter arises...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 02-05-2013, 10:34 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,421


In regards to the Prince of Wales title, there is absolutely no reason why a female cannot be a Princess of Wales in her own right: the title must only belong to the Heir Apparent to the Throne, whether female or male. It has never been done before, but it certainly could be.

Some of the other titles will be rather trickier to deal with. For instance, the Duke of Cornwall title must belong to the Heir Apparent to the Throne who is also the Sovereign's eldest surviving son. In order for a female to become Duchess of Cornwall in her own right (and consequently, enjoy the income from the Duchy of Cornwall), laws will need to be changed.

I strongly doubt the husband of a female Princess of Wales will be a Prince of Wales though: most probably, he'll be created a Duke in his own right or perhaps a Prince of the Realm but not Prince of Wales.


I don't see why the terms Heirs Apparent and Heirs Presumptive should be abolished. Even when Equal Primogeniture is adopted, there will always be Heirs Presumptive at some point. For instance, right now and until the birth of his first child, Prince William's Heir Presumptive is Prince Harry. When William has a child, that child will be his Heir(ess) Apparent.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 02-06-2013, 08:39 AM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemisia View Post
In regards to the Prince of Wales title, there is absolutely no reason why a female cannot be a Princess of Wales in her own right: the title must only belong to the Heir Apparent to the Throne, whether female or male. It has never been done before, but it certainly could be.
The queen was practically a princess of Wales in her own right, even though she didn't use that title.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemisia
I strongly doubt the husband of a female Princess of Wales will be a Prince of Wales though: most probably, he'll be created a Duke in his own right or perhaps a Prince of the Realm but not Prince of Wales.
Which is weird. If we're going for equality between the sexes, there should be no difference here either. Shouldn't both wives and husbands be able to share a title?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemisia
I don't see why the terms Heirs Apparent and Heirs Presumptive should be abolished. Even when Equal Primogeniture is adopted, there will always be Heirs Presumptive at some point. For instance, right now and until the birth of his first child, Prince William's Heir Presumptive is Prince Harry. When William has a child, that child will be his Heir(ess) Apparent.
I was thinking the same thing.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 02-06-2013, 08:44 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
The queen was practically a princess of Wales in her own right, even though she didn't use that title.
The same could be said about Princess Mary (future Mary I) who was, for many years, considered Heiress to Throne and was even referred to as The Princess of Wales unofficially. However, legally neither the Queen and Mary I, nor any of the other future English/British Queens Regnant ever held the title.

There had been some talks about granting Princess Elizabeth the title Princess of Wales in her own right but George VI disagreed, stating that the tradition dictates Princess of Wales is the wife of the Prince of Wales. Although again, unlike the Duke of Cornwall or the Duke of Rothesay titles there is absolutely no reason why Heiress Apparent to the Throne cannot be Princess of Wales.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 02-06-2013, 11:31 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
The queen was practically a princess of Wales in her own right, even though she didn't use that title.


Which is weird. If we're going for equality between the sexes, there should be no difference here either. Shouldn't both wives and husbands be able to share a title?
If we're going for equality between the sexes, why should the wife of the Prince of Wales lose her own identity on marriage and take on his style and title? Husband and wife are no longer one person in the eyes of the law, so they should have separate styles and titles.

The Prince of Wales' wife could be made a Princess in her own right. In William and Kate's case they could be called TRHs Prince William, The Prince of Wales, and Princess Catherine. Likewise, if their firstborn is a girl named Diana, her future husband would be made a Prince in his own right and they could become, in due course, TRHs Princess Diana, The Princess of Wales, and Prince (first name). This proposition also provides for the couples to eventually be HM King William and HRH Princess Catherine and HM Queen Diana and HRH Prince (first name) respectively. Perhaps the consort could have the style of "Majesty" rather than "Royal Highness" to distinguish them.

Radical, but more in line with modern trends towards equality of the sexes.
__________________

__________________
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 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
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession Elise,LadyofLancaster British Royals 926 04-15-2014 11:41 PM
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 Royals 4 07-25-2012 03:17 PM




Popular Tags
belgium carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:08 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
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]