The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession

[wbenson]

Edit: Removed. Was a response to a post of a now banned (thanks be) user.

[Leslie2006]

Originally Posted by SIDOROFF

It is so in many ways:

1) Power is the art of men. When women try to rule, it is usually a disaster.
2) The Y-DNA is inherited only through the male line.
3) In normal circumstances, a family name is inherited in the male line.
4) Male primogeniture is the law in most monarchies.

Catherine II was a great ruler, as was Empress Elizabeth. Both expanded the Russian Empire, and Elizabeth I of England did the same for her country---she fought off invaders and remained committed to helping her people til the end of her life....and her reign lasted 45 years, to her death. Also, I think QEII has done a pretty good job of ruling for over the last 50 years on her own. And England needs a change. They're one of the few European monarchies with the male primogeniture still in place for this generation of royals.

Other current Queen Regants:
Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands
Queen Margarethe II of Denmark

They've done a pretty good job so far as well.

[LadyCat]

Whew! Mandy closed this thread just in time to send my response to Neanderthal man to TRF cyber heaven! I might have ended up banned myself!

I'm sorry but male preference primogeniture has no place in the 21st century. I'm sure it originated sometime in the Middle Ages when women were still considered chattels but in today's world, women can be just as effective as men.

Cat

[Principessa Cano]

I agree. There is no logical reason to deny the right to female heirs. Take CP Victoria. Is she any less her father's child than her brother because she is female? No. Will her children be any less her father's grandchildren? No. Her blood is as much Bernadotte as her brother's and the idea that the house name should have to change because she has XX and he has XY is ridiculous and antiquated.

[PrincessDianafan]

Question, if this change takes place it would only apply to William's generation or would it apply to Prince Charles as well? I mean would it be a retroactive change and Anne would replace Andrew in the line of succession etc?

[Principessa Cano]

I think that it would not change the current line but only effect those still to be born. For example, if William had a girl and then a boy, the girl would be the heir. However, Anne would not move ahead of Edward or Andrew nor would Louise move ahead of her little brother.

[Shikha Pal]

Originally Posted by KingCharles

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.

so does that mean that now Princess Anne and Lady Louise are 4 and 11 in Line to the British Throne?

[Elspeth]

No, they probably won't make it retroactive. Since Princess Anne and Lady Louise are so far down the line of succession, there's no need to make the law apply to them. It'll probably be worded so that the first generation it'd apply to would be William's children.

[PrinceOfCanada]

the idea that the house name should have to change because she has XX and he has XY is ridiculous and antiquated

It's actually even sillier than that, for two reasons:

1) Mitochondrial DNA is only replicated in the female line, so the whole thing about the Y chromosome is moot.

2) It's actually impossible (prior to modern DNA & paternity testing) to determine whether any given child is actually the child of their father. Conversely, one always knows who the mother is. This is the basis of historically matriarchal societies. Look at Judaism, for example; if one's father is a goy but one's mother is Jewish, the child is Jewish under Talmudic law. But not the other way around.

So for both of those reasons, female-preference primogeniture would actually be the preferable solution.

Question, if this change takes place it would only apply to William's generation or would it apply to Prince Charles as well? I mean would it be a retroactive change and Anne would replace Andrew in the line of succession etc?

Categorically not. Laws of that sort aren't ever made retroactive--how far back would you go? The previous version of this bill said something to the effect of 'this will not affect current line of succession, and will only affect children born after the bill enters into law'. Or something like that.

[Princess B]

sounds like a more modern idea....

dunno how it works

i think the ammendment where the eldest child of the sovereign irrespective of gender succeeds to the throne wont be implemented...

[PrincessofEurope]

im not in favour of changing the aspect of the Act of Settlement that would royals in the line of succession to marrry a Catholic and not give up their right to the throne - it may not be very 21st century of inclusive but the UK is a Protestant nation and if say William married a Catholic then that afffects and heirs

[wbenson]

Most of the UK isn't Protestant, though. Two-thirds of people don't claim a religion or attend any religious services. Even in another survey in which 53% of Britons identify as Christian, enough of them were Catholic to bump the protestant number down below 50%.

[Elspeth]

As long as England has an established chuch, it's probably going to be necessary for the monarch to be in communion with that church. They could require that the spouse also be a member of the church, which would be fair enough. However, to say that the spouse can be a member of any other church or any other religion, but not Roman Catholic, is simply discrimination.

[BeatrixFan]

I think that we're at a stage now where we really can't justify such blatant discrimination in such a public institution. The ban against Roman Catholics worked at the time it was passed but now it's archaic and unfair. It doesn't mean that suddenly the Pope will be moving to Buckingham Palace but it does mean that the UK is moving with the times, making old-fashioned institutions a little more modern. What will be interesting is how the new rights for female Royals will work. For example, does it mean that it affects the peerage too giving women the right to inherit a title from a parent though she isn't male? And will we see representatives of other faiths alongside the Bishops forming the Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords? Are we going to see the Lords go entirely? Will those cut out of the line of succession for marrying Catholics get their position back? Will Michael and Marie-Christine be welcomed into the fold and start performing Royal duties? It's a bit of a can of worms but I'm glad it's being opened.

[Amelia]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

may I say that the Republic of Ireland has been ruled for over 25 years by a woman and it's been a total success. Same thing for Switzerland.

We have never had a female Taoiseach in Ireland

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Amelia

We have never had a female Taoiseach in Ireland

Isn't Mary McAleese President of Ireland ? And wasn't Mary Robinson president too ?

[Amelia]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Isn't Mary McAleese President of Ireland ? And wasn't Mary Robinson president too ?

Yes but it is the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) that does the ruling not the President.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Amelia

Yes but it is the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) that does the ruling not the President.

Yes, you're right. Sorry about that.

We have the same system in France. But the President still have some power anyway.

[PrinceOfCanada]

For example, does it mean that it affects the peerage too giving women the right to inherit a title from a parent though she isn't male?

I think that would be wonderful... but imagine how enormous the scope of that law would be. It would have to affect all Letters Patent which created all hereditary peerages since the year dot. And despite such an act presumably not being retroactive, one wonders the can of worms that would open with extinct titles.

And will we see representatives of other faiths alongside the Bishops forming the Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords?

That would be wonderful. The only difficulty would be in how they would set the criteria for inclusion. Bishops from CoE make sense for obvious reasons, but the only other religion with that sort of centralized power structure is the Catholic church. How would you include Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists?

Are we going to see the Lords go entirely?

I hope not. I think the reform in 1999 was a terrible idea. Or, more accurately, it was the wrong sort of reform. Just as the Sovereign provides apolitical continuity in government, I think something like Lords should provide a neutral and continuous oversight of the politicized Commons. I'm not sure how such a reform would or should work...I'll need to noodle on that for a bit. I guess the bottom line for me is: the Lords are now elected, but they can't really do much beyond scrutinize. They can introduce legislation, but it must be passed by the Commons. A middle ground needs to be found.

[BeatrixFan]

Well, I suppose you'd get an Imam, a Buddhist spokesperson and a Rabbi. (Sounds like the start of a joke but you know what I mean). I think if they're going to end religious discrimination in the monarchy then they probably should in the Lords.