The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   British Royals (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/)
-   -   Succession to the Crown Act 2013 (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/succession-to-the-crown-act-2013-a-34108.html)

muriel 10-28-2011 05:51 AM

Succession to the Crown Act 2013
 
BBC News - UK royal succession laws changed

UK royal succession laws changed

Sons and daughters of any future British monarch will have equal right to the throne, after Commonwealth leaders changed succession laws.

Roslyn 10-28-2011 06:17 AM

:previous: This is excellent news on both counts. About time! :clap: I thought some Commonwealth countries might refuse to approve the changes.

American Dane 10-28-2011 06:48 AM

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!

Esmerelda 10-28-2011 06:54 AM

Well, that was quick and not too much hassle.

RoyalistRiley 10-28-2011 07:03 AM

An excellent move by the 16 Commonwealth Realms

Duke of Marmalade 10-28-2011 07:54 AM

Prince William and Kate Middleton's first child will take the throne... even if it's a girl | Mail Online

Roslyn 10-28-2011 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by American Dane (Post 1331230)
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.

American Dane 10-28-2011 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roslyn (Post 1331251)
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.

Royal_Eagle 10-28-2011 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muriel (Post 1331223)
BBC News - UK royal succession laws changed

UK royal succession laws changed

Sons and daughters of any future British monarch will have equal right to the throne, after Commonwealth leaders changed succession laws.

That's great news! Hopefully the actual legislating in all of the 16 countries will go smoothly.

sliver_bic 10-28-2011 09:10 AM

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.

Lumutqueen 10-28-2011 09:43 AM

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

Royal_Eagle 10-28-2011 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sliver_bic (Post 1331272)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1331286)
Part of me is just giggling inside thinking, it'd be rather amusing if Catherine and William have a boy now. :rofl:

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.

Baroness of Books 10-28-2011 10:02 AM

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.

BeatrixFan 10-28-2011 10:04 AM

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.

Nice Nofret 10-28-2011 10:09 AM

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.

Baroness of Books 10-28-2011 10:13 AM

: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.

Sister Morphine 10-28-2011 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royal_Eagle (Post 1330361)
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.

Royal_Eagle 10-28-2011 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sister Morphine (Post 1331315)
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:

sliver_bic 10-28-2011 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royal_Eagle (Post 1331289)
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."

KittyAtlanta 10-28-2011 11:43 AM

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.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:29 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2015
Jelsoft Enterprises