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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
:previous: This is excellent news on both counts. About time! :clap: I thought some Commonwealth countries might refuse to approve the changes.
 
That's fantastic! When will it truly be in effect in all 16 realms? I believe Iluvbertie said Australia needed a referendum on the matter so when would all referendums, signatures, etc. be completed?

Again, fantastic news and I hope Spain follows soon!
 
Well, that was quick and not too much hassle.
 
That's fantastic! When will it truly be in effect in all 16 realms? I believe Iluvbertie said Australia needed a referendum on the matter so when would all referendums, signatures, etc. be completed?

It seems this consent did not require a referendum. The question of whether or not Australia becomes a republic is a different matter though, and that will certainly require one as that will mean a change to the constitution.
 
It seems this consent did not require a referendum. The question of whether or not Australia becomes a republic is a different matter though, and that will certainly require one as that will mean a change to the constitution.

Ah understood, thanks for that.
 
According to the DM article it will apparently not be retroactive so the current line will not change. The article only mentions William and Kate's children but it'll obviously affect all children born in the line of succession from this point on.
 
Last edited:
Part of me is just giggling inside thinking, it'd be rather amusing if Catherine and William have a boy now. :ROFLMAO:
 
According to the DM article it will apparently not be retroactive so the current line will not change. The article only mentions William and Kate's children but it'll obviously affect all children born in the line of succession from this point on.

To be exact, this apply to all of the offsprings from the current Prince of Wales. Hence Prince Harry and his offsprings, if any, will also be affected.

If by some extremely unlikely reasons, both William and Harry don't produce offsprings and the heir to Prince Wales becomes Prince Andrew and his family or any of Charles' sibling--would the old succession rules come back into play?

Guess we have to wait and see what the exact legislation say.

Part of me is just giggling inside thinking, it'd be rather amusing if Catherine and William have a boy now. :ROFLMAO:

Indeed!! Wouldn't it be funny if the next few generations has first-born sons--it'd be a century or two before a first-born daughter ascend the throne over her younger brothers.

Come to think....it seems like the last few generations more often than not has sons as the first born? The last time a daughter was first-born was when Queen Victoria gave birth to Princess Victoria? Since then every generation with a King/Queen has a boy as the first born. So if this keep up, it may be quite a while before a girl is first-born.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Girl power indeed, as the article says! And, yes, it would be ironic if after all this the first-born child is a boy, but at least legislation will be in place for future monarchs. And I'm also glad that the ban against the heir marrying a Roman Catholic will be lifted. It was interesting to read how the course of British monarchy and history would have been changed if females were allowed to inherit the throne. A very exciting time right now.
 
Last edited:
We now wait for the legislation which has to come from the UK first. But I doubt they'll waste time now they've got agreement. I'm glad to see the Catholic ban dropped as well.
 
I like that - but I wonder, what they do about the Titels "Prince of Wales" and "Duke of Cornwall"? Because they are restricted to males only till now.

Very interessting. Also how fast they could move, if they want.

But after Tony Blair abolished the House of Lords there isn't much I believe, they will not change.
 
:previous:I'm sure the question of the heir's titles may now have to be addressed. I was wondering how this will be handled as well.
 
Last edited:
Very true. I've thought that if they really wanted to be "fair", that the wife of the reigning King should be titled "Princess Consort", or even use the "Princess Royal" style (I think it's only a style and not a title constrained by LPs?) since it sound better than "Princess Consort". Naturally "Princess Royal" would not be used until the existing holder (Princess Anne) has passed away

Or we can just go with "King Consort", but people will just be a bit confused over who is the real monarch though, as up to now most of the monarches has been a King with the occasional Queen Regina.


The wife of a King is a Queen, not a princess, so I can't see why they would use the style "Princess Consort." Also, "Princess Royal" denotes the eldest daughter of the reigning sovereign, and has been used in that capacity since the 1600s. I doubt very seriously they're going to up and change it to now reflect that of the wife of the King.

I don't see how people would be confused over who is the sovereign and who is not; the word "consort" pretty much says all that needs to be said about that person's relationship to the sovereign. Queen consort = consort to the King. King consort = consort to the Queen. People are smarter than you give them credit for.
 
The wife of a King is a Queen, not a princess, so I can't see why they would use the style "Princess Consort." Also, "Princess Royal" denotes the eldest daughter of the reigning sovereign, and has been used in that capacity since the 1600s. I doubt very seriously they're going to up and change it to now reflect that of the wife of the King.

I don't see how people would be confused over who is the sovereign and who is not; the word "consort" pretty much says all that needs to be said about that person's relationship to the sovereign. Queen consort = consort to the King. King consort = consort to the Queen. People are smarter than you give them credit for.

Yes, I'm aware of the history of Princess Royal. It was just a wild idea that I merely threw out, if we really wanted to be politically correct and be "fair" with respect to titles. I'm not actually advocating we change all that, as there's a lot of history behind the titles we have now. I was just pointing out what one can do if we really wanted to go down that road. :flowers:

And as for giving not enough credit, fair enough--you're probably right. :flowers:
 
To be exact, this apply to all of the offsprings from the current Prince of Wales. Hence Prince Harry and his offsprings, if any, will also be affected.

If by some extremely unlikely reasons, both William and Harry don't produce offsprings and the heir to Prince Wales becomes Prince Andrew and his family or any of Charles' sibling--would the old succession rules come back into play?

Guess we have to wait and see what the exact legislation say.

I doubt it. I think it's being reported the way it is because it is William who it most affects but it would be ridiculous if the rule didn't apply straight through, what's the point then? It is still possible that the crown could drop to the Yorks, if Beatrice has a girl and then a boy how are they supposed to explain that the boy will be King?

"Yes, you see what happened was that we went through all that hubbub not expecting William and his brother to both be sterile so we're going back to the old system. Or better yet we'll go through all the hubbub again."
 
At least all the whining will stop re: this subject. So a new tradition is born, no one gets hurt, If the Wales boys are sterile, the Yorks and Wessexes decide to give up their places to earn money, Peter Phillips becomes King and then we'll have Queen Autumn, which will make me giggle a bit.
 
I think this is wonderful and LONG overdue. Good for the Queen for not caring in the sense of if they have a girl then a boy, the boy gets to be ahead in the line. It is 2011, this should have been changed a long time ago.

Now, I will give you Brits credit for this. In this country, we have a saying about family fortunes, houses, wealth, etc. The grandfather builds, the son lives off of it, the grandson destroys it. Hence why the Vanderbilts, as an example, no longer have the immense wealth.

BUT, with your aristocracy....what impresses me, is that many, many of them have been able to maintain their properties, wealth, etc., for hundreds if not thousands of years. I like to read about them online...and as an American to see this, wow. Granted some of the homes have been sold, contents, jewels, etc...but a ton of these families have been able to keep it intact due to primogeniture. I am not trying, as a woman, to sounds sexist...but that is impressive.

As for the ban on Catholics...simply do this, make it clear the sovereign MUST be Anglican...no matter the religion of the parent who is not. This is not difficult to do IMO..and I am a Catholic...lol.
 
Royal_Eagle said:
Indeed!! Wouldn't it be funny if the next few generations has first-born sons--it'd be a century or two before a first-born daughter ascend the throne over her younger brothers.

Come to think....it seems like the last few generations more often than not has sons as the first born? The last time a daughter was first-born was when Queen Victoria gave birth to Princess Victoria? Since then every generation with a King/Queen has a boy as the first born. So if this keep up, it may be quite a while before a girl is first-born.

Now you may not count this but, wasn't Queen Elizabeth II a first born daughter who ascended the throne? :)
 
Yes, I was thinking of Queen Elizabeth as a prime example, myself. And, if one looks at HM's four children's offspring, they are a good example of the fact that, on average, boys and girls are born at roughly the same rate. Prince Charles has a male firstborn, Princess Anne has a male firstborn, Prince Andrew a female firstborn, and Prince Edward has a female firstborn. 50/50

But there are so many interesting thought experiments here. Had this law been passed years ago, before Charles married Diana, and he had married someone else who did not have children or if Diana had not had children, then when Charles died, Princess Anne would become Queen? Fascinating to think about.

Seems they chose a stable moment to make this change, when it seems sure that Charles will ascend the throne upon the death of his mother, and if he predeceases her, he has two male heirs next in line, so plenty of time to get used to the change (if anyone needs time!)

So now the rumors in the tabloids that Kate is already pregnant with a girl will ramp up even more. I wonder if, when she does get pregnant, they'll do as so many celeb couples do these days and announce the sex of the child when it becomes known. I wonder if they have a girl, will they name her Elizabeth??

They could name her Catherine...or Willa.
 
This is indeed wonderful news. The fact that it all came around the time of the Diamond Jubilee makes it all the more significant and exciting. As Baroness of Books stated, 'Girl Power indeed' :D.
 
I'm so pleased that this was approved! :)
 
Last edited:
Now you may not count this but, wasn't Queen Elizabeth II a first born daughter who ascended the throne? :)

You're quite right--I was thinking of families where babies of both g enderwere born, but didn't say that. It *seems* like the last few generations has seen more boys than girls being born, although with the Queen and her sister, as well as the Yorks seems to offset that somewhat.

Maybe if I have time, I might try to determine the gender frequency and see if there's some to my impression.
 
I hope the changes go as smoothly as everyone seems to suggest but somehow I don't think it will quite that easy.. Remember these changes not only have to be passed by Westminster but also by several Commonwealth parliaments. I hope this doesnt open more questions on the continuation of the monarchy than just changes in succession rules. Each country will have its own rules on how the changes need to be implemented, and some national governments may change before legislation can be passed.
 
Women's liberation, that is what this is all about! This is at the top of Cameron's agenda?! THIS! What nonsense! What a maniacal waste of time. The Duke and Duchess do not even have a child yet. Victoria and Carl Philip were born before Sweden adopted absolute primogeniture. To do so on assumption is insane. What if William and Catherine's first born child is a son? This is a political stunt to regain popularity and why not include dukes, earls and barons?
 
Queen Diana someday? That would certainly give the Royal Forums a lot to talk about and mull over for the next few decades.
 
Back
Top Bottom