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
 
  #421  
Old 04-20-2008, 01:14 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,231
I'm surprised they're considering doing it without an urgent need to. I had assumed that such legislation wouldn't come about until a female first-born.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #422  
Old 04-20-2008, 01:18 PM
LadyCat's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: WM, United States
Posts: 371
I think perhap to avoid being accused of having archaic laws better suited to the Middle Ages......

Cat
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #423  
Old 04-21-2008, 12:36 PM
morhange's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Springfield, United States
Posts: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
A 300-year-old law which gives males precedence in the royal line of succession is to be abolished.

BBC NEWS | Politics | Royal succession law change due
Well I hope they also issue something that restricts the line of succession to the descendants of George V, otherwise there's going to be a huge jumble of people getting new spots in the LoS. Will this act like Norway's where everyone will just stay put, and only new additions will be treated this way, or will it be like Sweden, where everyone immediately goes into their new spot? In any case, it won't have any effect on the first three spots, but I'm wondering about the latter 2000 or so who are in line through Electress Sophia.
__________________
His sense of responsibility is not less than yours or mine. How could we tell right from wrong as simple people in any kind of situation? How could we know that our courage, loyalty and lives were not misused for evil purposes?
Reply With Quote
  #424  
Old 04-21-2008, 01:57 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
I wonder if this will only affect girls born after the new bill has passed or all living females in line? In fact, as Charles and William are both the first-born child of their parents, it won't change much in reality. Okay, let's face it: I'd prefer Princess Anne and then her son Peter (he is older than Zara, isn't he?) as spares of heir and spare Wiliam and Harry to Andrew and Beatrice any time - so doing it backwards would be my choice.

Will that mean as well that daughters get their own peerages as automatically as the sons get it on marrying?
So far, it seems to have been made clear that it will not affect the present line, whether they mean Charles then Andrew we would have to wait for the precise wording. Unless something untoward were to happen to William and Harry, I don't foresee questions being raised.

I don't know that it will affect females getting peerages in their own right, or the totally unfair system of the estate automatically going to eldest son!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #425  
Old 04-21-2008, 05:25 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,231
I doubt it would switch everyone around, considering that Victoria's first child was a female, and if her descendant (or someone else farther up) suddenly became the heir, we'd be in for a surprise. (I don't even know who it would be.)

The heir of Princess Victoria would be Princess Felicitas of Prussia.

Edit: It wouldn't be her, but I can't find good enough records.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #426  
Old 04-21-2008, 05:46 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 113
Maybe, in due course, people who are in the line of succession will become more limited to people who are descending from the Queen Elizabeth II or something for there are so many people who are descending from her already. In Spain or else where, people who are in the line of succession to their thrones seem to be more immediately related to the current reigning monarchs of their countries by their newly adopted laws and regulations.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #427  
Old 04-21-2008, 08:20 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
I'm probably missing something, but I don't see any wording in the Act of Settlement that says that younger brothers have precedence over older sisters. This is something that was in force for years before the Act was written, because it's the order the children of Henry VIII succeeded, but I don't know which law it would have been.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #428  
Old 04-21-2008, 09:33 PM
LadyCat's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: WM, United States
Posts: 371
Can you provide a link to the Act of Settlement? I would love to read it.

Cat
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #429  
Old 04-21-2008, 10:46 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
I'm probably missing something, but I don't see any wording in the Act of Settlement that says that younger brothers have precedence over older sisters. This is something that was in force for years before the Act was written, because it's the order the children of Henry VIII succeeded, but I don't know which law it would have been.
I could have sworn that male-preference primogeniture was encoded there, or in the act of succession 1689. If not, it's probably because male-preference primogeniture (as opposed to strictly agnatic succession) is enshrined in English (later British) common law.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #430  
Old 04-21-2008, 11:55 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
If not, it's probably because male-preference primogeniture (as opposed to strictly agnatic succession) is enshrined in English (later British) common law.
I'm pretty sure it's that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyCat View Post
Can you provide a link to the Act of Settlement? I would love to read it.
As in force today, after various amendments.

As originally passed
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #431  
Old 04-22-2008, 12:26 AM
LadyCat's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: WM, United States
Posts: 371
The Act of Succession of 1689 was to declare one of Henry VIII's daughters a "bastard" and move another in line to inherit the throne, wasn't it? Since Henry set aside wives with alarming regularity in order to find one to give him a male heir to his throne, I would think male preference primogeniture predated 1689.

I am curious as to why the Act of Settlement would be amended to remove the male preference when there is nothing in the Act that states any gender preference at all. Perhaps that was Elspeth's point?

Cat

And thank you for the links wbenson. It was interesting to read.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #432  
Old 04-22-2008, 02:03 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,231
I think it wouldn't be so much as removing the male preference as it would be adding a specific neutral preference as an Act of Parliament, which would override any uncodified common law.

And I'll be very interested to see how this works in Canada. Will the government just approve such a change in a meeting of the Canadian Privy Council, will it require an Act of Parliament, or will it require a Constitutional Amendment (which is a real chore)?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #433  
Old 04-22-2008, 04:07 AM
KingCharles's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 31
Succession Law Changes - NEWS!

I have been reading the newspapers recently and there has been some debate on a certain matter of royal succession.

Apparently the Act of Settlement is to be amended to acquire to a more modern society.

Obviously, The Queen, would have to give the go - ahead for something as constitutionally important as this to be discussed in Parliament, but some of the changes proposed are:

The eldest child (first born) should be heir to the throne whether they are a boy or girl. This means that everyone is equal within the royal family with regards to succession. I think the system of men over women is a little out-dated by say - forever. I think this is a much better proposal than having men always taking the throne regardless.

Another proposal is that the whole situation about Catholics on the British throne be scrapped. The idea is you can be King/Queen and be married to a Catholic without losing your right to be the monarch. A much better system which infused equality and less division amongst other people and their beliefs. I also believe I read that the monarch themselves be allowed to believe in what they like - which could create problems with the monarch's role as the Head of the Church of England.

Other proposals were mentioned but they weren't as important and I have forgotten them haha.

Be aware however, that this enactment may not happen for months, even years - only because even if Westminster passes this law, all the other governments in which Her Majesty is sovereign will have to debate this law also and decide whether or not they also agree. I think every country can have their own independent views on the situation but if one country dis-agrees with any of the proposals then it's back to the drawing board as the Act of Settlement is a law in all the countries the Queen is Head of State. Therefore, all countries must agree on the change.


What are your thoughts?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #434  
Old 04-22-2008, 09:46 AM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Let me do some looking around:

Quote:
41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province; (b) the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time this Part comes into force; (c) subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language; (d) the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada; and (e) an amendment to this Part.
(from here: Constitutional Act, 1982)

That's in the section dealing with amendments. As an aside, I wonder if we will run into any future problems because they used 'Queen' specifically and not 'Sovereign' or 'Monarch'.

Moving on...

Quote:
Besides the two countries having symmetrical Acts of Settlement, there is no provision in Canadian law that states the King or Queen of Canada must be the same person as the King or Queen of the United Kingdom; thus, if the United Kingdom were to breach the convention set out in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster and change the line of succession to the British throne without Canada's consent, the alteration would have no effect on the reigning sovereign of Canada or his or her heirs and successors
Seems to indicate that if Westminster changes the law to strictly agnatic succession, Ottawa can safely ignore it unless/until the Heir to the throne becomes a girl with a younger brother, or the monarch dies childless. At that point we'd have to do something.

However, this seems to be definitive:

Quote:
Succession to the throne is by male-preference primogeniture, and governed by the provisions of the Act of Settlement, 1701, as well as the English Bill of Rights; these documents, though originally passed by the Parliament of England, are now part of Canadian constitutional law, under control of the Canadian parliament only. As such, the rules for succession are not fixed, but may be changed by a constitutional amendment.
Yes, it's Wikipedia, but the article seems fairly accurate in all other respects.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #435  
Old 04-22-2008, 09:57 AM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCharles View Post
Apparently the Act of Settlement is to be amended to acquire to a more modern society.
That's debatable. The idea has been floated and defeated before.

Quote:
Obviously, The Queen, would have to give the go - ahead for something as constitutionally important as this to be discussed in Parliament,
The only time Her Majesty needs to give (or deny) assent to debate is when the debate affects (as in, limits) the Royal Prerogative. Seeing as this wouldn't, Parliament is free to debate and pass the bill; Her Majesty wouldn't be (officially) involved until she gives (or denies) Royal Assent.

Quote:
The eldest child (first born) should be heir to the throne whether they are a boy or girl.
Yes.

Quote:
Another proposal is that the whole situation about Catholics on the British throne be scrapped. The idea is you can be King/Queen and be married to a Catholic without losing your right to be the monarch.
The concern is that the Pope is also the Head of State for Vatican City, in much the same way that the Dalai Lama is the head of Tibet-in-exile. On paper, when one is Catholic one owes one's allegiance to the Pope. This is obviously an impossibility when one is the monarch--one owes one's allegiance to one's people, and not to another authority.

The issue gets somewhat stickier when it is the spouse of the monarch, as they should probably owe their allegiance first and foremost to the Queen (or King).

Quote:
I also believe I read that the monarch themselves be allowed to believe in what they like
That's absolute twaddle, and would never happen.

Quote:
Be aware however, that this enactment may not happen for months, even years - only because even if Westminster passes this law, all the other governments in which Her Majesty is sovereign will have to debate this law also and decide whether or not they also agree.
Actually no, because:

Quote:
Besides the two countries having symmetrical Acts of Settlement, there is no provision in Canadian law that states the King or Queen of Canada must be the same person as the King or Queen of the United Kingdom; thus, if the United Kingdom were to breach the convention set out in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster and change the line of succession to the British throne without Canada's consent, the alteration would have no effect on the reigning sovereign of Canada or his or her heirs and successors
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #436  
Old 04-22-2008, 04:07 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
The concern is that the Pope is also the Head of State for Vatican City, in much the same way that the Dalai Lama is the head of Tibet-in-exile. On paper, when one is Catholic one owes one's allegiance to the Pope. This is obviously an impossibility when one is the monarch--one owes one's allegiance to one's people, and not to another authority.

The issue gets somewhat stickier when it is the spouse of the monarch, as they should probably owe their allegiance first and foremost to the Queen (or King).
Oh, I see. However, the King of Spain is a Roman Catholic and the King of the Belgians is also Roman Catholic. The Grand Duke of Luxembourg, too, is Roman Catholic, so is the Prince of Monaco and the Prince of Liechtenstein but this allegiance to the Bishop of Rome business does not seem to matter in their countries' affairs. What matters most in this regard seems as though our monarch is tied to the faith of the Church of England by the Act of Parliament. However, if the Church of England is disestablished as in the cases of the Church of Scotland and the Church in Wales in Communion with the See of Canterbury, then, things may become much easier for the sovereign to be an Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist or a Roman Catholic or a member of the Old Catholic Church of Utrecht or whatever, I reckon.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #437  
Old 04-22-2008, 04:33 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
The only time Her Majesty needs to give (or deny) assent to debate is when the debate affects (as in, limits) the Royal Prerogative.
And even then, that's most likely given on the advice of the government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
The concern is that the Pope is also the Head of State for Vatican City, in much the same way that the Dalai Lama is the head of Tibet-in-exile. On paper, when one is Catholic one owes one's allegiance to the Pope. This is obviously an impossibility when one is the monarch--one owes one's allegiance to one's people, and not to another authority.
The same could be said for Catholic politicians, though, and they, for the most part, seem quite capable of separating the Pope from their duties. It's hypocritical and patronizing to assume that certain people can't separate their duty from their religion when others prove that it can be done every day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
The issue gets somewhat stickier when it is the spouse of the monarch, as they should probably owe their allegiance first and foremost to the Queen (or King).
Why is that incompatible with being a Roman Catholic? If Catholic politicians do it every day, why can the monarch or their consort not?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #438  
Old 04-22-2008, 04:36 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
That's in the section dealing with amendments. As an aside, I wonder if we will run into any future problems because they used 'Queen' specifically and not 'Sovereign' or 'Monarch'.
There's a section covering that somewhere. I think it's in the 1867 Act.

Not in the 1867 Act, but I know I've seen a provision somewhere talking about that.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #439  
Old 04-22-2008, 04:43 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
And even then, that's most likely given on the advice of the government.



The same could be said for Catholic politicians, though, and they, for the most part, seem quite capable of separating the Pope from their duties. It's hypocritical and patronizing to assume that certain people can't separate their duty from their religion when others prove that it can be done every day.



Why is that incompatible with being a Roman Catholic? If Catholic politicians do it every day, why can the monarch or their consort not?
Oh, here, Roman Catholics are not supposed to take the office of Prime Minister because our PM has to appoint all the bishops of the Church of England.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #440  
Old 04-22-2008, 05:05 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,231
I would imagine that the PM would simply let another minister advise HM on CofE appointments in that case.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
act of settlement, catholicism, line of succession, succession


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





Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events duchess of cambridge style fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta cristina infanta elena infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg ottoman pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince laurent prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess elisabeth princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia spain state visit wedding william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:46 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]