The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   British Royals (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/)
-   -   Proposal for Equal Primogeniture Succession (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/proposal-for-equal-primogeniture-succession-19743.html)

Lady Ann 01-22-2009 01:16 PM

Proposal for Equal Primogeniture Succession
 
First-born daughters of the Royal Family could be allowed to become Queen??? Under plans to be proposed by a back bench MP, any daughter of Prince William would be able to succeed her father as Queen on the basis of age. What do my friends think????:eek:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ome-Queen.html

Rebafan81 01-22-2009 01:27 PM

I think it is a great idea, the child should be allowed to rule regardless of gender. The last 50 years of QEII reign should be proof enough that gender doesnt matter. By the time she is here, there will be a bunch of either reigning Queens or Crowned Princesses, she definitely won't be alone.:flowers:

Menarue 01-22-2009 01:47 PM

I am all for it, especially the rule about not being able to marry a Catholic, but then the sovereign would have to lose the title Defender of the Faith.

Kotroman 01-22-2009 02:30 PM

I am sceptical about introducing equal primogeniture in the United Kingdom. It's okay for countries like the Netherlands, where every monarch was the eldest child of the previous monarch anyway. In the United Kingdom, however, there is a 900 years long tradition that can't be broken so easily.

Another problem is succession to the peerage titles. It will be a lot harder to establish equal primogeniture in e.g. succession to the dukedom of Norfolk and other peerage titles which follow strict Salic law. The Duke of Norfolk is also the Premier Duke in the Peerage of England and that position was held only by males throughout history (indeed, when a woman inherits the highest title of a certain rank, the position of premier peer would go the male holder of the next highest title of the same rank). There is also a tradition that all daughters, regardless of age, have the equal succession rights to peerages created by writ. For 1000 years the youngest daughter has had as much righ to inherit a title created by writ as the eldest daughter. If equal primogeniture is introduced, this tradition would demise and there would no longer be abeyance since the eldest daughter would inherit the title.

Besides, equal primogeniture would not mean the ultimate equality among the genders in the UK. There would still be inequalities, such as woman's right to enjoy her husband's title although a man has no right to enjoy his wife's title, or the fact that the sovereign's sons become princes and princesses automatically by birth, while children of the sovereign's daughters don't become princes and princesses unless a special letters patent are issued.

Introducing equal primogeniture in the UK would cause such mess that, I'm afraid, monarchy and peerage could become pointless.

Al_bina 01-22-2009 02:36 PM

I would not be too surprised to learn that the equal primogeniture is introduced in the UK. After all, it is not Japan ... and there is no IHA that does not give in to the demands of the public at large.

kimebear 01-22-2009 02:45 PM

I don't like the idea that it will be done retroactively. If Princess Anne was now to pass her brothers in the line of succession, you would have Peter and Zara Phillips in line ahead of 2 HRHs, a Viscount and a Lady grandchildren of the sovereign.

Al_bina 01-22-2009 02:49 PM

That would have been an interesting development. However, I tend to think that Prince Charles would have fought for his right to succeed Her Majesty by employing all means available to him. Additionally the public at large might not have allowed to disinheret the sons of the late Diana, Princess of Wales.

Kotroman 01-22-2009 03:21 PM

Actually, succession of Charles and William is secured, as Charles is both the eldest son and the eldest child of The Queen.

As I said (and I have to stress it again), a person must take into account succession to the peerage titles. If equal succession is adopted, Beatrice will become Duchess of York on her father's death and who wants that the tradition of conferring the title of Duke of York to second sons of the British sovereigns ends with Beatrice? There are numerous other examples too.

Al_bina 01-22-2009 03:28 PM

Right you are.:flowers: I have had a senior moment ... :blush: The post has been changed to reflect the real state of affairs.

Skydragon 01-22-2009 05:43 PM

They have been bashing this about for simply ages. I do think it would be a great idea, especially if it also relates in some way to the first born daughters throughout the peerage. It is a gross miscarriage that the eldest, who happens to be a daughter is denied the rank and estates of their father, when we are normally well equipped to do our duty!

I see no problem with the husband taking the womans name when she marries, as we have no problem now with a woman taking her husbands name. :flowers:

wbenson 01-22-2009 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kotroman (Post 883247)
In the United Kingdom, however, there is a 900 years long tradition that can't be broken so easily.

It's not tradition that makes it hard. It is getting the other realms to agree. There is no different standard for an Act of Parliament overturning tradition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kotroman (Post 883247)
Another problem is succession to the peerage titles. It will be a lot harder to establish equal primogeniture in e.g. succession to the dukedom of Norfolk and other peerage titles which follow strict Salic law.

They don't have to change the peerages to change the monarchy. They are separate things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kotroman (Post 883272)
As I said (and I have to stress it again), a person must take into account succession to the peerage titles.

That's not the case. There is no reason to believe that an Act of Parliament changing succession would amend any letters patent, or have you seen something that indicates otherwise?

MBGGfvB 01-22-2009 08:09 PM

No problem here! I think if the family is so strong in support as to ask parliment's support, then it has been fairly thought through and vetted.

EmpressRouge 01-22-2009 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kotroman (Post 883272)
Actually, succession of Charles and William is secured, as Charles is both the eldest son and the eldest child of The Queen.

Quite right. If hypothetically, the law were in place before, it would have had to be done in Queen Victoria's reign for it to have any effect on today's monarch. Even then, Vicky, Princess Royal would probably given up her position as heiress by marrying the heir to the Prussian throne, paving the way for Edward VII. And even though many second sons ended up succeeding to the throne (George V and VI), they were also the second eldest children in the family.

Leslie2006 01-23-2009 12:11 AM

Well it's about time they change the succession law in England! As it stands, they're discriminating against women when there's a woman on the throne! I hope it gets changed to where the gender of a person no longer matters and is not what their status is purely based on. It's not right. I'm all for the change. The British monarchy should have followed in the footsteps of their fellow monarchies in Belgium, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands a long time ago.
Quote:

Originally Posted by kimebear (Post 883253)
I don't like the idea that it will be done retroactively. If Princess Anne was now to pass her brothers in the line of succession, you would have Peter and Zara Phillips in line ahead of 2 HRHs, a Viscount and a Lady grandchildren of the sovereign.

Well that's how it would work. They are also grandchildren of the monarch, reguardless of a title or lack there of. On top of that, Zara and Peter don't have titles at their parents' requests, otherwise they would've have receieved them at birth.

Jacknch 01-23-2009 04:30 AM

[I see no problem with the husband taking the womans name when she marries, as we have no problem now with a woman taking her husbands name. :flowers:]

Reading your comment above, Skydragon, I am reminded of the fact that several professional women I know retained their maiden names when they got married and the husband of one of them actually changed his surname to his wife's family name on marriage! I believe that it is only a custom that a woman takes on her husband's name and not a legal requirement.

Skydragon 01-23-2009 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leslie2006 (Post 883437)
Well that's how it would work. They are also grandchildren of the monarch, reguardless of a title or lack there of. On top of that, Zara and Peter don't have titles at their parents' requests, otherwise they would've have receieved them at birth.

1. Charles was /is the firstborn so Anne would not jump him or his children in the line of succession. 2. It would not be retrospective anyway from what I have read.
3. Andrew and Edward would retain their HRH, as William and Harrys' wives have children, the offspring of Anne, Andrew and Edward move further down the line anyway.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacknch (Post 883468)
I believe that it is only a custom that a woman takes on her husband's name and not a legal requirement.

It sounds correct, changing it back to a maiden name is also fairly easy. :flowers:

Nobody says that a husband would be entitled to take a place in the House of Lords (and that should be and Ladies)!

crm2317 01-23-2009 07:46 AM

I think changing the succession law is a good idea however I think it would work better if it was enacted for the future generation for example William and Harry's children.
To enact it for the current members would mean Anne skipping ahead of her brothers and their children dropping after all these years. I am actually not sure what this would mean for titles and security.
Also if the law is passed would it work for all in the line of succession for example would Princess Ingrid Alexandra now come ahead of Prince Sverre Magnus?

Kotroman 01-23-2009 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wbenson (Post 883388)
They don't have to change the peerages to change the monarchy. They are separate things.

I do not think that Salic law, which is applied to all the current dukedoms and most earldoms, would survive if equal primogeniture is introduced in succession to the crown :nonono: As you can see for start, some members of this forum have already suggested that equal primogeniture is introduced in succession to peerage titles.

Quote:

Well it's about time they change the succession law in England! As it stands, they're discriminating against women when there's a woman on the throne!
The fact that women enjoy their husband's title while men don't enjoy their wife's title is also discriminating against men, yet nobody cares about that (and shouldn't care about that). Imagine the Duke of Edinburgh as King Philip and Timothy Laurence as "The Prince Timothy" :eek:. Or would it be "The Prince Anne", since The Prince Charles's wife is The Princess Charles? :rolleyes: I find the current "discriminations" against women (whose place in the line of succession is behind all their brothers) and "discriminations" against men (who don't enjoy their wife's title) quite balanced.

Menarue 01-23-2009 09:22 AM

"The Prince Anne" is priceless.... :rolleyes:

Warren 01-23-2009 09:44 AM

"Prince Beatrice" will be better.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises