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

[Roslyn]

As well as Benazir Bhutto, who was twice (non-consecutively) elected Prime Minister of Pakistan, Megawati Sukanoputri (Indonesia), Khaleda Zia & Sheikh Hasina (Bangladesh), and Tansu Ciller (Turkey), were all elected leaders of their Muslim or Muslim-majority nations.

 

[Furienna]

Not to mention that I see no reason to believe, that the UK will be a Muslim majority country in fifty years anyway.

 

[Dman]

Clegg 'modernising out-of-date' royal succession rules:
Royal - ITV News

http://www.parliament.uk/

Video: Live-
Succession to the Crown Bill:
Second Reading Richard Drax
Player

 

[EIIR]

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.

 

[CarolynHarris]

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

 

[Artemisia]

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.

 

[Gaiar]

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.

 

[PrincePatrick]

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!

 

[Furienna]

Yeah, that was an interesting read.

 

[wbenson]

" (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.

 

[NGalitzine]

Canada's royal baby bill risks constitutional complications - Politics - CBC News

Things could get complicated.

 

[Dman]

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.

 

[NGalitzine]

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.

 

[Dman]

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

 

[monarchist-us]

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 ) 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.

 

[Furienna]

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.

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.

 

[Artemisia]

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.

 

[monarchist-us]

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.

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.

 

[Paulchen]

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...

 

[Artemisia]

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.

 

[Furienna]

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.

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?

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.

 

[Artemisia]

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.

 

[Roslyn]

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.

 

[DukeOfAster]

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.

But then by giving them the Majesty you are giving them the ID of their spouse and not their own. If they are to keep their own ID and the spouse has a title of their own and it has HRH next to it then until they are moved to a title in their own right with a Majest

The spouse should only get Majesty if they receive it in their own right. If the position they hold has a HRH with it then HRH is what they get until they earn the Majesty. They do not get it because the spouse holds it.

 

[Artemisia]

How exactly is a spouse supposed to "earn" the Majesty?
As far as I know, royal titles aren't earned: you get them because you were either born to the "right" people, or married them.

 

[NGalitzine]

If a woman is to retain her own identity, should it not then be a case of HM The King and Ms Donaldson for example......Donaldson of course being her own fathers name so that might be sexist as well, but even her own mothers name would of course have been that of her maternal grandfather so I guess there is no way around it.

 

[Roslyn]

As far as I know, royal titles aren't earned: you get them because you were either born to the "right" people, or married them.

No royal titles are "earned" these days. There was a time that a monarch was elected, and to that extent "earned" their title, but these days people get royal titles because of accident of birth or marriage to someone who has a title because of accident of birth.

I was hesitant to suggest a sovereign's spouse be made a "majesty", and I've changed my mind. "Majesty" refers to the position of sovereign and there is only one sovereign. I don't see why a woman who is married to a king gets to become a "majesty" and a man married to a queen doesn't. I think the sovereign's spouse should stay as HRH Princess or Princess (first name). Everyone will know they are married to the monarch so they will still have precedence over everyone else of their gender.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

I was just stating the facts that the palace released. The fuss over Camilla's future Queenship isn't something I'm looking forward to in the future.

I'm not looking forward to it either. I think it will seem rather petty and somewhat distasteful since the debate will arise as a direct and immediate result of the death of the much beloved Queen Elizabeth II. The moment HM is pronounced dead, Charles will become King, and people will not know what to call Camilla. Technically she will become Queen Consort at the same moment, but that's not what TPTB have said she'll be "known as". There won't be a transition period to allow the matter to be resolved with clear heads and no emotion. The issue will arise immediately, while everyone is in shock and grieving. As everyone who remembers what happened after Diana's death knows, it could get nasty.

 

[Mariel]

As state by Cepe and others, the issues of the monarch's religion and of equal primogeniture must be separated. If they are not, chaos and confusion will reign in the minds of parliaments who must vote on this issue.
To say that William's children will inevitably be C of E is to look askance from the glaring defection of the Duchess of Kent and several of her children from the C of E to the RC.
True, they aren't the direct line to the crown, but William's children might at some point decide they want to be RC. Or one of them might decide this, so it would be important which one was the first in line to the throne. If it was the second in line, maybe it would not matter.
As Cepe states, RC members are expected to raise children RC, and this becomes most explicit when an RC person (male or female) marries a non-RC. The non-RC person must swear to raise the children Catholic.
I do not know if Princess Michael thus was forced to swear...perhaps she was not. Perhaps this custom which was strong in the US is not as strong in England.
Having been a member of both RC and of C of E, I can tell you that there are strong dividing things between them, even if their liturgy is very very similar, and their core beliefs (as in the Nicene Creed) very similar. If this thing is mixed up with primogeniture, it will mean that the people voting on it do NOT take their religion seriously, either RC or C of E. Both are Christian, both should get along, but both will have trouble if a royal heir defects.

 

[DukeOfAster]

How exactly is a spouse supposed to "earn" the Majesty?
As far as I know, royal titles aren't earned: you get them because yotex sou were either born to the "right" people, or married them.

From my understanding the Queen did not have to give the heir to the throne title to Charles it was her choice. so he must have earned it. my point is that do not say lets make all the same and then say to make the spouse to the monarch special lets make them a Majesty. if you are going to let them be a prince or princess or a Duke or Duchess like Philip then let them be a HRH and only the Monarch is the Majesty.

No royal titles are "earned" these days. There was a time that a monarch was elected, and to that extent "earned" their title, but these days people get royal titles because of accident of birth or marriage to someone who has a title because of accident of birth.

I was hesitant to suggest a sovereign's spouse be made a "majesty", and I've changed my mind. "Majesty" refers to the position of sovereign and there is only one sovereign. I don't see why a woman who is married to a king gets to become a "majesty" and a man married to a queen doesn't. I think the sovereign's spouse should stay as HRH Princess or Princess (first name). Everyone will know they are married to the monarch so they will still have precedence over everyone else of their gender.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

I'm not looking forward to it either. I think it will seem rather petty and somewhat distasteful since the debate will arise as a direct and immediate result of the death of the much beloved Queen Elizabeth II. The moment HM is pronounced dead, Charles will become King, and people will not know what to call Camilla. Technically she will become Queen Consort at the same moment, but that's not what TPTB have said she'll be "known as". There won't be a transition period to allow the matter to be resolved with clear heads and no emotion. The issue will arise immediately, while everyone is in shock and grieving. As everyone who remembers what happened after Diana's death knows, it could get nasty.

agreed!!! i agree as well it is stupid not to make both male and female spouse the same. maybe it is as simple as His or Her Royal Highness The Prince or The Princess Consort is the Monarchs spouses title.

 

[Excalibur]

From my understanding the Queen did not have to give the heir to the throne title to Charles it was her choice. so he must have earned it.

Upon the death of George VI, Prince Charles became (along with several other titles) the Heir Apparent to the throne. The Queen did not give him this title, it was his as a matter of his birth. He did not earn it. The Queen did, however, create him The Prince of Wales, but this had no effect on his position as Heir Apparent.