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

[Palmerston]

No-if the Queen was not in favour she would simply not say anything at all-not openly commend and approve it as she has done

With all due respect that isn't how it works.

 

[Felica]

With all due respect-I have never heard Her Majesty go out of her way to commend legislation not yet drafted other than this...

 

[Lumutqueen]

I can assure you, absolutely, that this legislation will not pass; you're completely misreading British politics.

Sorry but you cannot assure of us anything. Nobody can. You seem to be hell bent on convincing us that this is down to politics, which says more about you than anyone else.

This legislation is a wait and see game, we have 14 countries that need to have reforms approved by parliament and then receive royal assent. If the PM's of 14 different countries think this could happen, ALL of the proposed changes that is, then I don't see how you can be so sure they won't.

 

[Palmerston]

Sorry but you cannot assure of us anything. Nobody can. You seem to be hell bent on convincing us that this is down to politics, which says more about you than anyone else.

This legislation is a wait and see game, we have 14 countries that need to have reforms approved by parliament and then receive royal assent. If the PM's of 14 different countries think this could happen, ALL of the proposed changes that is, then I don't see how you can be so sure they won't.

On the contrary, it says more about David Cameron than anything else. In the context of British politics, it's manifestly clear why Cameron embarked upon this flawed initiative.

What the Prime Ministers think in their respective countries is moot - they're not constitutional experts; the logistical nightmare of implementing these changes shouldn't be underestimated (assuming they’re still in office). I doubt this will ever be a principal concern and it will take a PM with a dogged fidelity to the idea to implement it. That's before you even begin to factor in the rest of the Conservative Party. I’m baffled how any monarchist could support such a move: is the Monarch a public servant, or do they transcend the mores and sentiments of the present? The answer to that question is the difference between royalism and republicanism.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

Why the first born? That's grossly unfair to later born siblings - why not elect the monarch from all available sons & daughters? The entire thrust of the argument is flawed. It isn’t logically cohesive.

I am not entirely sure, but I think you might have misunderstood me. Obviously the change should be made for all of William and Catherine's (and Harry's and their cousins) children, not merely for the firstborn. All I am saying is that it doesn't become relevant until William and Catherine actually have a daughter. I mean, it's a fairly complicated process (or at least it was in Denmark, with the change of our constitution) so why not wait with the change until it actually become relevant?

 

[Lumutqueen]

On the contrary, it says more about David Cameron than anything else. In the context of British politics, it's manifestly clear why Cameron embarked upon this flawed initiative.

What the Prime Ministers think in their respective countries is moot - they're not constitutional experts; the logistical nightmare of implementing these changes shouldn't be underestimated (assuming they’re still in office). I doubt this will ever be a principal concern and it will take a PM with a dogged fidelity to the idea to implement it. That's before you even begin to factor in the rest of the Conservative Party. I’m baffled how any monarchist could support such a move: is the Monarch a public servant, or do they transcend the mores and sentiments of the present? The answer to that question is the difference between royalism and republicanism.

I'm sorry but what?
I doubt this has been embarked upon lightly, it's taken enough years to get to the point of establishing a change that nobody's going to ignore the fact it might take years to actually put it in place. I have no idea what politics has to do with any of this, you're evidently using this to continually slate a government you do not like.

I'm a monarchist, and I support the changes 100%, in this day and age it's plain common sense. What do you have against the changes other than logistics? Looking at your posts in the Swedish thread it's evident what your issue is, IMO you're stuck in the past. If The Queen can accept her monarchy has to move through the times, so should you. Monarchs have no legitimate power anymore, they are there to serve as ambassadors for their countries and that is across the world. One day I imagine they will disappear, but I doubt in my lifetime.

All I am saying is that it doesn't become relevant until William and Catherine actually have a daughter. I mean, it's a fairly complicated process (or at least it was in Denmark, with the change of our constitution) so why not wait with the change until it actually become relevant?

I think because it's a fairly complicated process it should be started as soon as possible. This way it doesn't include any messing about when their first born is born.

 

[Kataryn]

The Catholic debarment will take theological legerdemain to rectify: I won't be holding my breath that they'll be able to remedy the issue. It really isn’t a pressing concern.

The issue of succession is altogether different: I'm not aware the Monarch has even been consulted or that the wishes of the Royal family will be considered; even if they are clandestinely consulted, I doubt they'll voice an opinion overtly - it isn't the done thing.

I guarantee you these changes will not be implemented. It's all hot air. It was part of Cameron's jolt towards the leftwing, his banal attempt to woo the metropolitan middle class. There are already signs even today that he's reneging that initiative.

After reading the discussion on the Swedish board I understand that you don't want to see a change in the order of succession of any country to equal primogeniture but a lot of courties decided to pass legismation and this process is ongoing within the Commonwealth at the moment as well.

As this change concerns the head of state of each country the constitution has to be amended in any of those countries according to their individual law - but that's work is in progress after all states who accept the British monarch as their head of state agreed with that aim. So backing out now would mean to get into a strange situation if William's firstborn is a girl. I don't think that will happen. Thus the change will come.

 

[Palmerston]

I'm sorry but what?
I doubt this has been embarked upon lightly, it's taken enough years to get to the point of establishing a change that nobody's going to ignore the fact it might take years to actually put it in place. I have no idea what politics has to do with any of this, you're evidently using this to continually slate a government you do not like.

I'm a monarchist, and I support the changes 100%, in this day and age it's plain common sense. What do you have against the changes other than logistics? Looking at your posts in the Swedish thread it's evident what your issue is, IMO you're stuck in the past. If The Queen can accept her monarchy has to move through the times, so should you. Monarchs have no legitimate power anymore, they are there to serve as ambassadors for their countries and that is across the world. One day I imagine they will disappear, but I doubt in my lifetime.



I think because it's a fairly complicated process it should be started as soon as possible. This way it doesn't include any messing about when their first born is born.

This is a political initiative therefore politics has everything to do with it. They aren't distinct.

If you have to invoke some banal appeal to the modern age then you're on thin grounds: why not abolish the monarchy altogether? Very anachronistic, no? It's beyond irony that you base an attack on me as being anachronistic, when the logical conclusion to any appeal to tradition is to scrap tradition altogether, and that means scrapping the Monarchy. This is why these changes are so illogical and irrational.

Monarchs are the Sovereign, they're not mere 'ambassadors' for Christ sakes; and indeed they will disappear because of the very changes you support. If the Monarch isn't rooted in the past as a changeless institution in a sea of constant change then it's very unlikely it will ever be impervious to slight fluctuations in the popular zeitgeist. If you shave off essential features of it because some folk think it’s ‘grossly unfair’, then you pave the way for future levellers to take the initiative one step further. Is the Monarchy there to serve you or the public as a mere public servant, or are they the Sovereign and the personification of the nation as rooted in tradition and the past? That’s the difference between royalism and republicanism.

After reading the discussion on the Swedish board I understand that you don't want to see a change in the order of succession of any country to equal primogeniture but a lot of courties decided to pass legismation and this process is ongoing within the Commonwealth at the moment as well.

As this change concerns the head of state of each country the constitution has to be amended in any of those countries according to their individual law - but that's work is in progress after all states who accept the British monarch as their head of state agreed with that aim. So backing out now would mean to get into a strange situation if William's firstborn is a girl. I don't think that will happen. Thus the change will come.

They will back out - the motion has to be instigated in the British Parliament first and foremost; many, many here and completely missing the political context in which this proposal was made, whilst completely underestimating the sensitivities of the Conservative Party at large. Britain isn't Sweden, Norway or any other social-democratic country.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Oh yep. You confirm my opinion, being stuck in the past will get you nowhere these days. Have fun talking to yourself because the majority of posters on here are open minded enough to see that change is an amazing thing.

 

[Iluvbertie]

If the monarchy doesn't change with the times then it will be swept away e.g. Russia where the monarch refused to move into the democratic age or learn from the experiences of the English in the 1600s or the French in the 1700s and so their throne was cast away.

In times past it wasn't possible for a woman to be a monarch in their own right but we accept that without any problems.

The idea of first born being the next monarch was muted when Diana was pregnant with William but when she had a son it was put on the back-burner for another generation.

I do wonder whether the push will continue if it isn't in place when Kate has her first child if that child is a boy but if it is a girl the law will be through very quickly as there is no way that the first born won't be the monarch in this day and age.

 

[NGalitzine]

The change in succession and rules regarding Catholic marriage is pretty much inevitable with time. It should not be the givernments top priority but it will happen and if Catherine's first child should be a girl it will happen sooner than later.
Monarchy only survives because of its ability to adapt to the times. That's how we developed from Divine Right to modern constitutional monarchy.

 

[MARG]

I know that equal primogeniture for the royal family is in line with Europe and I understand its necessity however, does this move cover the aristocracy, ie. will Beatrice be able to inherit her father's title or Lady Louise her father's?

If not and it only applies to the BRF crown then it's a political move and a pretty vain, empty and calculated one at that. Utter window dressing.

 

[Iluvbertie]

There is no intention for it to apply to the aristocracy and it only applies to Charles' descendents to if Beatrice has a girl first and then a boy the boy will still go ahead of his older sister in the line of succession. That, I believe, is to not upset the current line from The Queen with Anne and her descendents below her younger brothers. I remember when this was proposed back in the early 80s that there were reports that Anne was vehemently opposed to the idea if it moved her and her children above Andrew and Edward - probably because she wanted them to have a more normal life and as things have turned out they have had that as they aren't royal (as Anne herself has said 'My children aren't royal. They just have The Queen for a grandmother.')

 

[cepe]

To be clear (this is me checking facts): in the line of succession Beatrice will be followed by her sons first and then her daughters. However, the title of Duke of York will cease with the death of PRince Andrew and revert to the crown. I was not sure whether Marg was referring to the succession or the title.

Primogeniture is not a big question in the UK (in my opinion). Disinterest would pretty well sum it up. But somehow the question of the Church of England and Catholicism has been included and I have to say I was stunned when this occurred. This is MAJOR. This could lead to the dis-establishment of the church from the crown. Therefore if naive politicians wrap this up together then I think nothing will happen.

We have to remember that the enthronment of the monarch is a complex ceremony not just because it is the coronation of a British monarch but the enthroning of a Head of the Church of England.

 

[Mariel]

Yes Lumutqueen, this process needs to be decided before William has a child. These days, however, they can know the gender of a pregnancy in early months. It could be within a short time from now, so there may not be time to do anything about it.
I agree that the other royals should also share this gender bender. No one knows for absolutely sure that the younger royals will not be thrust forward by some wild happenstance of fate. Do you want Queen Louise or King James the III? Is it the III?
To be facetious, what if some weird stuff in the water makes a lot of people infertile by accident or even by attack from abroad? What if only some of the royals escape this disaster? I know this is far out, but who would ever have predicted that Queen Victoria would be the only remaining heir in a family with 12 children who lived to adulthood?

 

[Iluvbertie]

To be fair Victoria wasn't the only remaining heir - just the lucky one to have her father born first. Both the Dukes of Cumberland and Cambridge had sons about the same time as Victoria. George of Cumberland followed his father onto the throne of Hannover and it is his descendents who could still claim that title which was suspended by the Deprivations of Titles Act while George of Cambridge became Commander-in-Chief of the British army and was the brother of a certain Princess Mary who married a Prince of Teck and whose daughter became Queen Mary.

 

[NGalitzine]

To be clear (this is me checking facts): in the line of succession Beatrice will be followed by her sons first and then her daughters. However, the title of Duke of York will cease with the death of PRince Andrew and revert to the crown. I was not sure whether Marg was referring to the succession or the title.

Primogeniture is not a big question in the UK (in my opinion). Disinterest would pretty well sum it up. But somehow the question of the Church of England and Catholicism has been included and I have to say I was stunned when this occurred. This is MAJOR. This could lead to the dis-establishment of the church from the crown. Therefore if naive politicians wrap this up together then I think nothing will happen.

We have to remember that the enthronment of the monarch is a complex ceremony not just because it is the coronation of a British monarch but the enthroning of a Head of the Church of England.

Well the proposal only calls for allowing those in the line of succession to be able to marry Catholics without losing their place in the succession. It still insists the monarch be CofE, so I think most people would consider that quite fair and not too revolutionary.

As for disestablishing the CofE I am not sure that would not be a bad thing. It is not as if their pews are filled every Sunday. Membership seems more nominal than anything else these days. In the 21st century why should any Church have an official role in government, and more importantly why should government have to play a role in the Church?

As for the Coronation.......well it is organized by a Roman Catholic already and in this day and age maybe something a bit more ecumenical would be more in keeping with the times. Defender of Faith seems quite appropriate instead of Keeper of The Faith ( a distinction conferred on Henry VIII by a Pope).

 

[Mariel]

Thanks for the information about Victoria's cousins, Iluvbertie. That's really interesting the round-about which brought Mary of Teck "back". There is no inbreeding like that now. I think the royals sat down at some nice castle like Berg in Lux, and decided that everyone in the current young generation should marry a commoner, unless by chance they could find a dynastic spouse who was far enough away on the genetic chain, like Guillaume has found Stephanie. It will be all commoners until the gene pool is considered sufficiently purified, then back to the Gotha!

 

[Osipi]

Primogeniture is not a big question in the UK (in my opinion). Disinterest would pretty well sum it up. But somehow the question of the Church of England and Catholicism has been included and I have to say I was stunned when this occurred. This is MAJOR. This could lead to the dis-establishment of the church from the crown. Therefore if naive politicians wrap this up together then I think nothing will happen.

I really don't see where it would be such a huge deal. As I understand it (and I'm sure those that know more than I will correct where I am wrong), the proposal concerning those in succession to the throne pertains to abolishing the rule of marrying a Roman Catholic but it would remain that the monarch be in the CoE and raise all children in that faith. As it stands now, there is no restrictions on a monarch marrying someone from any of the other belief structures on Earth... just Catholicism.

 

[Kataryn]

? It's beyond irony that you base an attack on me as being anachronistic, when the logical conclusion to any appeal to tradition is to scrap tradition altogether, and that means scrapping the Monarchy. This is why these changes are so illogical and irrational.

I personally don't see it as irrational to change the rules of succession so that the closest relative of a monarch is the heir. It is a very old tradition that the closeness to the current monarch determined the place in line and that older siblings come before their younger ones, only that over the centuries women did not count as much as men . So it's just adapting the very old tradition to modern generell belief that there is an equality between genders but more. We#re not talking about selecting a completely new Royal family or chose just anybody from the line to become William's heir - which would in fact allow for the question why this should be done at all and if it is not better to abolish the monarchy. What's done at the moment is just that the first-born child of the souverain is the heir, no matter what the gender.

 

[BeatrixFan]

In the UK, we're fairly resigned to the fact that we have a monarchy and at the moment, it's popular. Few people fancy a republic (even less so when we look at the candidates!) so monarchy is here to stay. Because of that, both monarchy and people look at ways of making it more adaptable to modern viewpoints. That's why these changes haven't been hugely controversial here, the reaction seems to have been "Well if we have a monarch, it shouldn't be men first and women second. So do it". And the Catholic ban should have been dropped years ago. I'm in no doubt that in time, we'll even see other changes take place but the question of "Why do we need a monarchy anyway?" never comes up in any serious form.

 

[LadyGabrielle]

In my opinion, not that it really matters, I think that a monarch should be a monarch because that person is the best one for the job and not because of male or female. I know traditions are appreciated by many but sometimes traditions get a little old after a while. In this respect I think the heirs should be all the children and who ever is best qualified for the job should become the next monarch. Kind of silly I know, but sort of makes sense. Anyone else think so or am I just crazy?

 

[NGalitzine]

In my opinion, not that it really matters, I think that a monarch should be a monarch because that person is the best one for the job and not because of male or female. I know traditions are appreciated by many but sometimes traditions get a little old after a while. In this respect I think the heirs should be all the children and who ever is best qualified for the job should become the next monarch. Kind of silly I know, but sort of makes sense. Anyone else think so or am I just crazy?

Well at some point during the life of the monarch the heir has to be in place and trained up to succeed. What criteria do you have in mind to determine who is best qualified , at what point does the decision get made and who gets to make that decision? We are talking about a hereditary monarchy after not which is not like electing a President.

 

[Felica]

Well it works that way ( though limited to men only) in some of the Arab monarchies I believe - but no couldn't work here- who would choose ? When? Limited how?

 

[cepe]

The dis-establishment of the Church of England would be a big issue. Consider Northern Ireland and also (to a lesser degree and mostly in Glasgow) Scotland and the impact on devolution. If the politicans stick with the Monarch being CofE then this will all happen and I think it would be a good thing.

Regarding "best for the job" - what is the criteria? As someone said (?) the Monarchy is not a popularity contest. Nor is it a competition.

 

[HRHThePrince]

Tell me what do you guys think about my assumption to royal styles and titles once full primogeniture is enacted. I believe the title of Prince of Wales should be changed to that of, The Crown Prince of Wales for a male heir apparent, or Crown Princess of Wales for a female heiress. And the entitlement of princely titles for male line grandchildren should be abolished completely, allowing it to die out. The latter titles should be reserved for "the male and female line grandchildren of the British monarch whose son or daughter is the heir/ss apparent and the eldest child of the eldest child of the Crown Prince or Crown Princess of Wales. This would limit the entitlement to princely rank because the children of the Sovereign's sons would not (as male line grandchildren) be eligible for those titles unless their father was the heir apparent. And the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales should be changed to the "eldest child of the eldest child of the Crown prince or Crown princess of Wales". What do you guys think?

 

[Artemisia]

I could agree with the second of your suggestions - that the style of Royal Highness and title of a Prince/Princess should be limited to the children of the Monarch, plus the children of the Heir Apparent. In fact, I'd say what with the tendency to downsize the Royal Family, that's increasingly likely. Alternatively, the style and title can be limited to, say, first 5 people in the Line of Succession (for scenarios when the Monarch is childless, which would mean there would be no Princes and Princesses at all).

However, I strongly disagree in regards to the effective "abolishment" of the Prince of Wales title; the tradition for the Heir Apparent to the Throne being invested at some point as the Prince of Wales is almost a thousand years old. Moreover, it creates a strong bond with Wales. What could be done in regards to the soon-to-be-adopted Equal Primogeniture rules is to allow an Heiress Apparent to be invested as The Princess of Wales in her own right. No changes in law will be required: a female can in fact be a Princess of Wales in her own right (there are no rules against that) - it's just that had never happened before.

 

[NGalitzine]

"Crown Prince of Wales" implies there is a King or Queen of Wales that the Crown Prince is heir to. That is not the case. The person titled Prince of Wales is heir to the British monarch ( and in an earlier age heir to the Kings of England).

 

[Mirabel]

Well, I say that if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Once you start messing with centuries-old traditions, the traditions themselves don't just change, they disappear!

And where do you then draw the line?
Shouldn't equal primogeniture also apply to the aristocracy? If not, why not?
(See, once you start there's no end to it).

(Take Sweden, for example; that was changed to equal primogeniture and now people are questioning whether to even have a monarchy at all. I know Victoria is quite popular, but still the question is there. Same with Norway recently.)

 

[Madame Royale]

(Take Sweden, for example; that was changed to equal primogeniture and now people are questioning whether to even have a monarchy at all. I know Victoria is quite popular, but still the question is there. Same with Norway recently.)

The relevance of the Swedish and Norwegian monarchies has been questioned in those respective countries long before the question of Equal Primogeniture became a hot topic.