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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Except it won't be another 70-80 years before the child is born. If you wait until William is on his death bed to change the legislation for his child, they won't have enough time. This process could take years, to finalise all the wording, work out the problems with existing legislation. It's not going to happen tomorrow, but if it's changing it needs to start soon.
That is true.
Honestly I don't see the succession law changing any time soon. It's not like it was in the 16th century where people thought women couldn't rule at all and there was the overwhelming pressure to produce a son. I think most people feel if there are only girls and one reigns fine but if there's a boy and he reigns ahead of any older sisters that's fine too.
Truthfully, outside of these boards no one I talked to in England, when I was there last year, seemed to care one way or the other (funnily it seems to be a bigger topic of conversation here in the US. Interesting cultural difference there). And that ambivalence in general will do more to kill the topic than anything else could.
 
Honestly I don't see the succession law changing any time soon.

It won't change anytime soon because the legislation that is being written up, debated over, worked out will take a few years. But it is happening, it was decided at the CHOGM meeting in Perth last year. They will need to be approved by 14 of the 16 commonwealth parliaments and then receive royal assent.

A bill placed before the Prime Ministers in Perth stated that

The changes would replace male preference primogeniture with absolute primogeniture for descendants of the current Prince of Wales, end the ban on marriage to Catholics, and limit the requirement for those in line to the throne to acquire permission of the sovereign to marry. However the requirement for the sovereign to be in communion with the Church of England would remain
 
Like I've said earlier, I sure welcome a change, so that Roman Catholics aren't discriminated anymore. But I'm less sure about what to think about the first-born, reguardless of gender, being the heir appearent. I don't want women to be discriminated, but monarchy is so full of old traditions anyway, that I don't mind male primogeniture, even though it would seem awfully dated these days in many other situations. And like Graham Smith said, one of the children would still be the most privileged.
 
Last edited:
How many times does the government think they can announce the same policy? Once is enough.

This really annoys me, though. The government are choosing to tinker with the constitution - royal succession, House of Lords - when those things are not priorities for the electorate. They should just leave this issue alone until such times as William and Kate have their first child. If it's a girl, then go ahead and change it; if it's a boy just leave it alone for a generation and concentrate on the things that really affect the lives of ordinary people.

It's not as if we don't have enough problems to keep the politicians busy.
 
Male Preference Primogeniture to Survive?

The reform I have read about would apply to descendants of Prince Charles. Of course it is highly likely that William's children or, failing that, Harry's will eventually succeed to the throne. Yet there is still some chance that these lines will die out. So does that mean for those next in the succession, i.e. Andrew, his daughters and their eventual children, male-preference primogeniture would survive? So if Beatrice has a daughter before a son her son is still ranked higher in the line of succession than his older sister? The same question could be asked about the thousands of descendants of every one else in line after Charles' sons from Elizabeth's other children and grandchildren all the way down to various obscure Germans. This seems rather sloppy, but that is the logic of the proposal under discussion.
 
The proposed legislation is expected to be retrospective to 2011; those born prior to that date will remain subject to male primogeniture; those born after will be subject to equal primogeniture succession. Thus any child born to Princess Beatrice will be subject to equal primogeniture.

The principle and application is straightforward: no person currently living will be personally affected by the new arrangements.
 
Like I've said earlier, I sure welcome a change, so that Roman Catholics aren't discriminated anymore. But I'm less sure about what to think about the first-born, reguardless of gender, being the heir appearent. I don't want women to be discriminated, but monarchy is so full of old traditions anyway, that I don't mind male primogeniture, even though it would seem awfully dated these days in many other situations. And like Graham Smith said, one of the children would still be the most privileged.

Those in line for the throne won't lose their place if they wed a Roman Catholic. An RC could be prince or queen consort, but never the monarch.
 
I always understood that in the UK if a Royal marries a Catholic they must give up their place in the line of succession.


LaRae
 
I always understood that in the UK if a Royal marries a Catholic they must give up their place in the line of succession.
LaRae

That's accurate right now, and in accordance with the Act of Settlement 1701.

However, one of the proposed (but not yet accepted) changes allows those in the Line of Succession to marry Catholics without giving up their succession rights. Those in the Line of Succession cannot be Catholics themselves though, and the Monarch must belong to the Church of England.

Basically, it means that, for instance, Prince Harry could marry a Catholic and remain in the succession line, but he could not convert himself. His children would also be raised in Anglican faith (or any other but Catholic, really) to have succession rights.
 
Last edited:
The sticker in the change to marriage to a Catholic is this: The Catholic partner would have to agree to have her/his child raised outside the Catholic faith. Any "good Catholic" will not agree to this. Catholic law is that a person cannot marry a non-Catholic until the non-C spouse agrees to raise the children Catholic. A priest would not participate in the marriage ceremony with this impediment. That is the way it is unless any changes have been made recently.
Some Catholics are willing to give up their place in the Church by allowing their children to be raised Protestant. Princess Michael of Kent is a Catholic whose children were raised Protestant. She is therefore not a member in good standing of the Catholic Church.
It's different with Princess Caroline of Monaco. When she married Ernst August, she was not married in the Catholic Church, as she was with her first two marriages. Her daughter is being raised Protestant. Therefore she never had to promise to raise her daughter Catholic, and didn't break a promise made in her marriage.

I do not think one could find a Catholic who would marry into the British Royal Family if he/she had to raise children outside the faith; that is, unless that person wanted to leave the Church anyway. It's a sticker that hasn't been talked about, but a big one. Can you imagine, for instance, if Princess Alexandra of Lux were tapped to be married to Prince Harry? She would NOT agree to the stipulation on children, so no marriage.
The Lux family takes their faith seriously, for the most part.

The title Lady of Rothes was semi-salic since the 12th century. Peter Pollock who built the castle of Rothes in northern Scotland left it to his daughter Muriel, as he had no sons.
Muriel had no sons, and left it to her daughter Eva. Eva had no sons, but her daughter married a powerful knight and we don't even remember her name. However, that title went to any girl descending from Peter if there were no boy in the way. This title remained until late in the 20th century, with the last Lady of Rothes being Georgiana Maxwell.
I am a descendant of Peter Pollock's brother Robert. Darn, I missed my chance by being a descendant of the second son, who had his own castle in Renfrewshire. I believe the title was put in abeyance anyway, why I don't know. I didn't know anything about this until 16 years ago when I looked for my ancestors.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Unless it's different in Europe than it is here in the US, the requirement to raise the children in the Church has been relaxed to something along the lines of doing their best to see they are raised in the faith, so one could be a Catholic in good standing and have a 'mixed marriage' situation where it would cause a division in the marriage if the Catholic spouse insisted the children be raised in the Catholic Faith. The non-Catholic spouse no longer has to sign a statement or agree that the children must be raised Catholic.


LaRae
 
I always understood that in the UK if a Royal marries a Catholic they must give up their place in the line of succession.
Just to clarify this, there is no "they must give up their place" (as there may be with a formal deed of renunciation or abdication). They don't have to do anything - the instrument is set in law enacted by the Parliament. The moment they marry a Roman Catholic the Act of Settlement comes into play and the person is automatically and instantly "made forever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown and government of this realm..."
 
Remaining discriminatory rules

As you are all no doubt aware, some time in the not so distant future, legislation will be brought about converting the rule of succession to the British throne from male-preference primogeniture to absolute primogeniture.

This decision has met, near as I can tell, with zero resistance and appears to be in keeping with modern ideas about the sexes.

There will always be a balance between tradition and modernity with regard to a constitutional monarchy: it is important not to be completely out of touch with public sentiment, but at the same time the link with the past is a very valuable commodity for a royal family.

There are of course a number of "sex-specific" titles, and it is hard to imagine for instance the Dukedom of Cornwall suddenly being a unisex office, or that someone will come up with a Prince Royal title to balance the Princess Royal...

But it does occur to me that some remaining and avoidable elements of sexual discrimination that a modern minded monarchist might criticise. Two are spelt out in King George V's letters patent of 1917. They could be considered separate issues.

1/ that the Sovereign's daughters' children are not RH, and are not princesses or princes

2/ that the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (and no other great grandchildren of the Sovereign) are RH and have the style Prince

The other issue is a more general one and I don't know what piece of legislation covers it, to be honest:

3/ wives take their husband's style and not vice versa.


To my mind, the removal of the restriction 1/ above (ie establishing that all grandchildren of the Sovereign are RH and style Prince or Princess) would be unlikely to face much resistance or put anyone's nose out of joint.

On the other hand, the traditions connected to the direct male line succession to the Prince of Wales are highly valued by some and one could imagine there would be an objection to the removal of the special case 2/ above.

But Number 3/ : this is a very deepseated tradition, connected with common ideas about what "wife" and "husband" mean, probably. It's hard to imagine people would have accepted Philip as Elizabeth's King Consort in 1952, or even a fresh Prince Mark in 1973. Would they, in the coming decade, be ready to accept that someone with no title could be elevated to the status of a Prince by marrying Eugenie or Beatrice?

I would like to hear your ideas on these things, and to learn more about these traditions and rules.
 
There is an existing thread to discuss the primogeniture changes and titles and styles. When it comes to the letters patent, IMO it's going to change a lot that doesn't need changing. The Primogeniture issue didn't even need sorting out now, there is a lot better things the government should be concentrating.
 
Last edited:
Well yes but these questions are not about the primogeniture changes.
 
I can guarantee you that this proposed legislation will not be effected. Not only are there more pressing concerns than David Cameron bludgeoning our constitution, the ratification of all constituent realms with their respective constitutions will be logistical nightmare, with our without verbal agreement being made. Add to the mix that backbench conservatives will never support this motion and you have an idiotic recipe that’s doomed to failure – God knows why Cameron thought it opportune to make such a foolish and, unconservative, statement.

Britain isn’t Sweden or Norway or any other quasi socialist hotspot – conservatives & monarchists will not stand for the complete inversion of the monarchy and our constitution.

I don't know how quickly this issue will proceed because at the moment it's a nonissue really. The next two heirs to the throne are male not matter what. If William and Katherine have only girls or a girl first then I can see how it might become more pressing but since it could be a good 70 - 80 years before that child succeeds to the throne there is loads of time to deal with this issue if that's what the UK decides it wants.

Why is it pressing? Nobody cares about it apart from the Guardian and evidently David Cameron, much to the chagrin of the Conservative's core vote. I can guarantee you that this legislation will not be passed. It's all hot air.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry but the line of succession and the catholic issue will be altered. If The Queen agrees with the changes, why on earth should any monarchist disagree with their monarch?

There are more pressing issue right now, but as far as I know steps are already in motion for these changes to be applied. It's not going to be forgotten.
 
Sorry but the line of succession and the catholic issue will be altered. If The Queen agrees with the changes, why on earth should any monarchist disagree with their monarch?

There are more pressing issue right now, but as far as I know steps are already in motion for these changes to be applied. It's not going to be forgotten.

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.
 
But it is potentially a pressing issue-the clock starts ticking the moment Kate becomes pregnant
 
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.

Not only was the Queen consulted, Her Majesty has given her approval to the proposal. And in a very public venue, the meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of State back in October. I believe that this was even reported on in the national news here in the US. IIRC, the theme of the meeting was centered around women and their potential in the Commonwealth.

The manner in which the proposal is being acted upon -- discussions to assure the language of the legislation is acceptable to all realms that need to approve it -- bodes well for its eventual passage and enactment. I believe it is simply a matter of time.
 
Bear in mind---the Queen is a woman of course!!!
 
Not only was the Queen consulted, Her Majesty has given her approval to the proposal. And in a very public venue, the meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of State back in October. I believe that this was even reported on in the national news here in the US. IIRC, the theme of the meeting was centered around women and their potential in the Commonwealth.

The manner in which the proposal is being acted upon -- discussions to assure the language of the legislation is acceptable to all realms that need to approve it -- bodes well for its eventual passage and enactment. I believe it is simply a matter of time.

Absolute rubbish - if the Prime Minister has decided upon legislation of this sort then it behoves the Monarch to accept the proposal whether or not she agrees with it, to say otherwise would invoke a constiutional crisis. I can assure you, absolutely, that this legislation will not pass; you're completely misreading British politics.
 
I definitely think that there should be equal primogeniture, but that the Brits can do what we did in Denmark and wait until the subject becomes relevant. Say that William and Catherine's first couple of children will be boys, they don't really need to change it until there comes a girl (or even, until the girl might get a baby brother). I don't know if this made sense. That said, if their firstborn is a girl, it should be changed right away.
 
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
 
I definitely think that there should be equal primogeniture, but that the Brits can do what we did in Denmark and wait until the subject becomes relevant. Say that William and Catherine's first couple of children will be boys, they don't really need to change it until there comes a girl (or even, until the girl might get a baby brother). I don't know if this made sense. That said, if their firstborn is a girl, it should be changed right away.

Absolutely not. The arguments for equal primogeniture are facile - there are no satisfying intellectual arguments to restructure the rules of succession. This is a minority project wishing to impose their bizarre quest for egalitarianism on something that is inherent inegalitarian. 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 have never seen any evidence that the majority of backbench Conservatives, especially the Conservative right, would ever support these proposals. This is very much a Cameroon idea that smacks of desperate politics to 'modernise' the Conservative Party. If it can’t get rid of the remaining hereditary peers, what hope of this monumental constitutional change? What was said in the Queens Speech might as well have been said last decade for all the relevance it has given the current economic climate.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
 
Back
Top Bottom