Rules of Succession

[Waika]

Also, the heirs must be legitimate. Michael's parent were not married when he was born and Jason is the product of one of Alan's extramarital affairs, if I remember my GH history correctly.

 

[sarahbell86]

Also, the heirs must be legitimate. Michael's parent were not married when he was born and Jason is the product of one of Alan's extramarital affairs, if I remember my GH history correctly.

I think you're right about Jason, but I'm changing a few things to make it work easier for me. Wayyy too many half-siblings/illegitimate children lol. So I'm making him and Emily Monica and Alan's biological children.

 

[Kotroman]

Male succession in the first instance, female if the male line or lines become extinct. Alternatively, sons first, daughters second. The usual term is 'male primogeniture'.

I would understand this as saying that Semi-Salic law and male-preferance primogeniture are the same, while I'm sure you know the difference between the two. Semi-Salic law totally excludes females from the line of succession when there are male-line male heirs (a daughter would not succeed if she has uncles or agnatic cousins), while a woman can succeed to a kingdom which follows male-preferance primogeniture simply if she has no brothers (regardless of how many uncles and agnatic cousins she has).

 

[Jacknch]

Sorry if this is a dunce question, but is there a thread available on The Royal Forums that discusses the benefits/negatives of the various types of succession? I know this is a hot topic and people are quite strong on their opinions, but as it's not a straightforward issue understanding the benefits/negatives would be helpful!

 

[madeleine victoria]

But Will change now for Leonor right?

We still don't know it yet, but the government is open in amending the line of succession so we may have a Queen Leonor of Spain someday...I'm hoping this will happen..

 

[Kotroman]

Succession law

I don't fully understand Luxembourg's succession laws, but from what I can understand, they seem rather interesting to me in the sense that they are unique.

I understand that princesses are not normally in the line of succession, but they come into the line upon extinction of all the males in the line. Could someone explain exactly how the succession works?

I've read somewhere that, should there be no prince of Luxembourg left, the throne would be inherited by the Grand Duke's eldest daughter and her heir-male. Should the eldest daughter have no sons, she would be succeeded by her younger sister or her younger sister's son. Does this mean that an agnatic descendant of Grand Duchess Charlotte's younger sister would have precedence over Princess Alexandra?

Thank you

 

[Mrs Littrell]

I hope it will help:
"The throne is hereditary in the Nassau family and is given through in straight male line according to the right of the first-born male. If there are no male heirs in straight line anymore, the throne is given to the male descendants of another branche. If there is no male heir anymore in all branches, the throne goes according to the right of the first born to the female descendance of the reigning dynasty. Afterwards the succession continues in male line. Princes are not allowed to marry without permission of the sovereign, as otherwise they will loose their rights to the throne, and their titles."

 

[Shaiya]

I think it would be cool if they had equal primogeniture. Women have already proven capable Grand Duchesses (for ex, Grand Duchess Charlotte), and it would definitely be an outward symbol of modernization.

 

[amedea]

I don't fully understand Luxembourg's succession laws, but from what I can understand, they seem rather interesting to me in the sense that they are unique.

I understand that princesses are not normally in the line of succession, but they come into the line upon extinction of all the males in the line. Could someone explain exactly how the succession works?

I've read somewhere that, should there be no prince of Luxembourg left, the throne would be inherited by the Grand Duke's eldest daughter and her heir-male. Should the eldest daughter have no sons, she would be succeeded by her younger sister or her younger sister's son. Does this mean that an agnatic descendant of Grand Duchess Charlotte's younger sister would have precedence over Princess Alexandra?

Thank you

No I suppose that Alexandra in this moment comes first after all the dynastic male descendant of GD Charlotte

 

[Kotroman]

Thank you, Mrs Littrell!

According Mrs Littrell's explanation, Alexandra would come after all agnatic male descendants of Grand Duchess Charlotte's younger sisters. But then again, are there any eligble descendants of Grand Duchess Charlotte's younger sisters? Do they ask for the sovereign's permission to marry? I don't think they do. If they don't, then Alexandra comes after all princes.

I think it would be cool if they had equal primogeniture. Women have already proven capable Grand Duchesses (for ex, Grand Duchess Charlotte), and it would definitely be an outward symbol of modernization.

Why would it be cool to abandon such unique succession law and adopt the boring equal primogeniture (I call it boring because it ruins all the exciting uncertainity of succession)?

Luxembourg is unique in the world because of their succession law and it should be kept.

 

[amedea]

You are right Kotroman, a very strange succession law!! Now after the male descendants of GD Charlotte (who are quite a lot so no "coup de scene" are expected) there would be prince Dedo of Saxony, who not being married has not lost his rights. It also seems to me not probable that his brother asked the permission of the sovereign of Luxemburg to marry. So after him, princess Alexandra..

 

[Mrs Littrell]

Happy to help There were rumors that GD Henri want to chance the succession law, so after that it will include princess Alexandra

 

[Lalla Meriem]

The succession to the throne is to be changed when the new constitution is promulgated. Women will then have equal rights and it will become straight order of legitimate birth with gender not playing any part.

 

[Shaiya]

Why would it be cool to abandon such unique succession law and adopt the boring equal primogeniture (I call it boring because it ruins all the exciting uncertainity of succession)?

Luxembourg is unique in the world because of their succession law and it should be kept.

Because equality is cool. At least in my book it is.

 

[Kotroman]

Is it equal to give the throne to the eldest child only? What's equal about that? Wouldn't it be equal to make all the monarch's children equal when it comes to succession? What's equal about styling the Grand Duke's wife as Grand Duchess and styling the Grand Duchess's husband as prince (because a grand duchess is supposedly inferior to a grand duke)?

And what's equal about only one family having succession rights? Let's abolish monarchy and make everyone equal! Why shouldn't I be given a chance to be Grand Duke? My point is: the monarchy can never be equal, no matter how equal you want it to be.

I wouldn't mind this "equal primogeniture" so much if it was really equal. I mean, they still presume that a feminine title (eg. grand duchess) is lesser than a masculine title (eg. grand duke), so a grand duchess's husband is never going to be a grand duke. Why should they consider a feminine title to be inferior to a masculine title?

 

[Shaiya]

Actually, the concept of monarchy is not equal at all. You're right. The reason that monarchies still exist is mostly a symbolic one, a tie to history and culture as well as various noble causes. What we can do instead of abolishing the monarchies is to make it as equal as possible. I mean, be honest, what makes a man more capable of the role than a woman? Nothing!!

I do respect your opinion but to me, equality, no matter how limited it can under certain circumstances, should always be exercised to its full extent.

 

[Nitefeatherz]

Is it equal to give the throne to the eldest child only? What's equal about that? Wouldn't it be equal to make all the monarch's children equal when it comes to succession? What's equal about styling the Grand Duke's wife as Grand Duchess and styling the Grand Duchess's husband as prince (because a grand duchess is supposedly inferior to a grand duke)?

And what's equal about only one family having succession rights? Let's abolish monarchy and make everyone equal! Why shouldn't I be given a chance to be Grand Duke? My point is: the monarchy can never be equal, no matter how equal you want it to be.

I wouldn't mind this "equal primogeniture" so much if it was really equal. I mean, they still presume that a feminine title (eg. grand duchess) is lesser than a masculine title (eg. grand duke), so a grand duchess's husband is never going to be a grand duke. Why should they consider a feminine title to be inferior to a masculine title?

SOMEONE has to be the ruler. If they gave every heir an EQUAL piece of the territory to be inherited the area to be ruled suddenly has (in the case of Luxembourg, for example, 1/5 of the size it was- it would have either 5 rulers or be reduced in size by the number of heirs.

We have seen in the past with monarchs who tried to split their empires that this would be a political disaster especially with a country as small as Luxembourg. They need to give SOMEONE the clear right to inherit that won't start a war or political dispute every time the 'leader' of the country dies.
In this circumstance 'eldest to youngest' makes sense when you aren't taking the option of an elected official as one of the options. SOMEONE has to inherit and it makes it FAIR since you can't exactly pre-determine which of your children is going to be born first- the only power in existence that you could say could do that would be God. That DOES make it fair and 'equal' for that family that is chosen to rule- and the family that is in power as the ruling monarchs had to have gotten there SOMEHOW. Regardless of the idea that they were 'born' to rule there had to be something they had- charisma, intelligence, money or power of some kind- that initially led to their family BEING in power in the first place.

You are assuming that if they go for equal primogeniture that they will not take into account the equal rights of women and still keep as part of law the right of men to inherit before women. This, in my opinion in the European world today would be pretty silly seeing how many countries have given women equal rights and a right to vote. If they did go for equal primogeniture it makes sense for them to abolish the right of men to inherit before women. They PRESUME that the male is more important than the female- as everyone I believe in this thread has indicated in their opinions, this is an archaic idea that is old tradition.

I hope if they do decide to abolish the idea that the women shouldn't inherit that they should go all the way and make it equal inheritence for both genders.

 

[Lalla Meriem]

When the new constitution is placed into law males and females will have equal rights based on order of birth, and males will not be placed above their younger sisters. If the change takes effect with the descendants of Henri (and there is no reason for it not too) Princess Alexandra will not only gain a place but she will supersede her younger brother.

If this had taken place with Grand Duchess Charlotte or Grand Duke Jean we may have a Grand Duchess Marie-Astrid and a Hereditary Grand Duke Imre right now.

 

[MAfan]

Or Grand Duchess Marie Astrid and Hereditary Grand Duchess Marie Christine?

 

[Lalla Meriem]

Yes, you're right. I'd totally forgotten that Marie-Christine is older than Imre!

Of course, Imre is my 3rd favorite Prince and 2nd favorite Habsburg so you can understand why he comes to mind first. In my mind he's only after Felix and Amedeo. Amedeo being the #1 Habsburg and #2 Prince.

 

[Kotroman]

Shaiya, thank you for taking a deeper look at the subject. But please, tell me:

*what makes an older child more capable to rule than a younger child?
*what makes a monarch's child more capable to rule than the monarch's sibling?
*what makes any royal more capable to rule than a commoner (elective monarchy is still a monarchy, eg. Vatican)

SOMEONE has to be the ruler. If they gave every heir an EQUAL piece of the territory to be inherited the area to be ruled suddenly has (in the case of Luxembourg, for example, 1/5 of the size it was- it would have either 5 rulers or be reduced in size by the number of heirs.

We have seen in the past with monarchs who tried to split their empires that this would be a political disaster especially with a country as small as Luxembourg. They need to give SOMEONE the clear right to inherit that won't start a war or political dispute every time the 'leader' of the country dies.

I am not talking about dividing a country. I am not crazy. I am talking about electing a monarch among the late monarch's children or relatives. Though that would be unequal and unfair too, if we are talking about equality!

In this circumstance 'eldest to youngest' makes sense when you aren't taking the option of an elected official as one of the options. SOMEONE has to inherit and it makes it FAIR since you can't exactly pre-determine which of your children is going to be born first- the only power in existence that you could say could do that would be God. That DOES make it fair and 'equal' for that family that is chosen to rule

If we are involving God into this, doesn't the same God also decide who is going to be male and who is going to be female? That DOES make it fair and equal for a male to have precedence over a female (this arguement is only intended to leave God out of this discussion).

the family that is in power as the ruling monarchs had to have gotten there SOMEHOW. Regardless of the idea that they were 'born' to rule there had to be something they had- charisma, intelligence, money or power of some kind- that initially led to their family BEING in power in the first place.

They didn't have charisma, intelligence or anything like that. They had swords and guns which they used to get rid of anyone who could take away their throne. Killing hundreds of pretenders and rebelled subjects doesn't make them more fit to rule than me.

You are assuming that if they go for equal primogeniture that they will not take into account the equal rights of women and still keep as part of law the right of men to inherit before women. This, in my opinion in the European world today would be pretty silly seeing how many countries have given women equal rights and a right to vote. If they did go for equal primogeniture it makes sense for them to abolish the right of men to inherit before women. They PRESUME that the male is more important than the female- as everyone I believe in this thread has indicated in their opinions, this is an archaic idea that is old tradition.

I hope if they do decide to abolish the idea that the women shouldn't inherit that they should go all the way and make it equal inheritence for both genders.

All I can say about this comment is: you should read more carefully. I know the difference between male-preferance primogeniture and equal primogeniture.

 

[Shaiya]

*what makes an older child more capable to rule than a younger child?
*what makes a monarch's child more capable to rule than the monarch's sibling?
*what makes any royal more capable to rule than a commoner (elective monarchy is still a monarchy, eg. Vatican)

True, but the eldest child becoming heir is more equal than having male over female as nobody can control the sex of the first child. But one can control picking a male over a female once several children are born.

Also, it makes sense to have the monarch's child be the heir rather than their siblings because siblings are often of similar age. What happens when they die? The whole point of the next generation is just that, the age problem. Plus, if the monarch lives very long, say like Queen Elizabeth, then how are their siblings going to rule after him/her? They would most likely already have passed away or be very, very elderly.

And for your last point, that's why most of the monarchies in the world are now things of the past. Today, most of the world's leaders are elected in some form or other, and most monarchies that do remain don't have significant political power, but rather a more symbolic role. The sovereign of the Vatican, the pope, is also chosen through a careful election process by a papal conclave.

I think that it is great to have unique succession laws, but the point of having a monarchy in the first place is not to excite people with different succession laws but to serve as a symbolic tie to culture, history and to champion notable causes.

 

[amedea]

I think that it is great to have unique succession laws, but the point of having a monarchy in the first place is not to excite people with different succession laws but to serve as a symbolic tie to culture, history and to champion notable causes.

The fact that a monarchy is strongly linked to culture, history and tradition is exactly the reason for which succession laws (and I would add marriage habits) should not be changed, IMO. I'm talking about salic law, equal primogeniture etc... If the problem is to put Alexandra before the prince of Saxony in the succession line, I admit the change.

 

[Kotroman]

I agree with everything said by amadea. I hate changes in the monarchies. I'd like the monarchies to remain as unequal as they were at the dawn of the 20th century since they can't be totally equal anyway.

True, but the eldest child becoming heir is more equal than having male over female as nobody can control the sex of the first child. But one can control picking a male over a female once several children are born.

True, but the most competent child becoming heir is more equal than having older child over younger child as age does not indicate competence.

Also, it makes sense to have the monarch's child be the heir rather than their siblings because siblings are often of similar age. What happens when they die? The whole point of the next generation is just that, the age problem. Plus, if the monarch lives very long, say like Queen Elizabeth, then how are their siblings going to rule after him/her? They would most likely already have passed away or be very, very elderly.

The Queen of the United Kingdom has enough cousins to succeed her instead of her children. I'm sure you agree that the Queen's cousins are more wise and experienced than her children, which would make them better monarchs. Yet again, the most competent ones do not get to reign and show their qualities. How equal and fair is that?

 

[Shaiya]

The fact that a monarchy is strongly linked to culture, history and tradition is exactly the reason for which succession laws (and I would add marriage habits) should not be changed, IMO. I'm talking about salic law, equal primogeniture etc... If the problem is to put Alexandra before the prince of Saxony in the succession line, I admit the change.

If we wanted to follow that line of thinking, then why don't monarchies still have full power to do whatever they want? I mean, they've done some pretty awful things in the past (Spanish Inquisition, crusades, etc...)

While they do serve as a tie to history and culture, they must also be a reflection of the changes that have occurred in the society that they represent. If male-preference primogeniture is something that is not shown or necessarily wanted in the people that they are to represent, then what's the point of having it? Even monarchies must change and evolve so that they can represent their country in the most honest light.

Also, because you mentioned marriage habits, I might just add that Grand Duchess Maria Theresa faced many hurtles in her marriage due to her background, but over the years she's proved to be a competent, bright, intelligent, open Grand Duchess who is well-beloved by the people as well as an excellent wife towards Grand Duke Henri. If he hadn't married her due to her not being of nobility, he would've missed out a lot.

True, but the most competent child becoming heir is more equal than having older child over younger child as age does not indicate competence.

The Queen of the United Kingdom has enough cousins to succeed her instead of her children. I'm sure you agree that the Queen's cousins are more wise and experienced than her children, which would make them better monarchs. Yet again, the most competent ones do not get to reign and show their qualities. How equal and fair is that?

Succession will always be passed down from parent -> oldest child unless there are complications (eg. there are no children, they die, etc..) that's something that won't change, because there are no real sensible or moral reasons to do so.

 

[amedea]

I think that in the long term such changements will low the prestige of monarchies..they will be common families, with common surnames, common ancestors, common habits and way of thinking: so no reason for them to rule, so. The privilegies they will continue to have will no be justified because of what they aren't anymore.
It is true that GD Maria Teresa is a great person and a great first lady, but I am not sure that this is enough to be a good GD.

 

[Anne-fan]

Law against Queens?

Hello everybody!

Right now I am working on a presentation about Queen Victoria. I also have to do a timeline from the Tudors to the Windsors.
While working, a question came to my mind and I wondered, wether somebody in this forum might be able to give me a correct answer.
The question is: Was there ever a law in Britain that didn't allow a woman to be heir to the throne?

I know, that Mary I was the first Queen(if you ignore Jane Grey). And I also know, that the sons of the monarch are always in front of the girls on list of the heir to throne. But for example in Denmark there was a law that didn't allow Margrethe to become Queen, that's why her uncle was heir to the throne at first.
Was there ever something similiar in Britain?

 

[Warren]

There has never been a 'non-female monarch' law in England. In 1125 Henry I planned for his his daughter Matilda to succeed him. In the event the barons wouldn't accept her but that was power politics, not rule of law.

 

[Anne-fan]

thank you for your answer Warren

 

[bibliophilia]

Purely hypothetical: if two members of two different royal families marry, will one of them always lose their place in succession to the throne?
Example: say, Isabella, daughter of then King Frederik of Denmark, marries the future second son of then Queen Victoria of Sweden. So Isabella would become a Swedish princess and lose her place in succession to the Danish throne? Would it be possible to "merge" and make them Prince and Princess of Sweden and Denmark? I imagine it should be pretty tough for the one giving up their nationality, especially because they grew up to represent their country! Would anyone know when the last marriage between two ruling families took place?
I know that Queen Anne-Marie lost her place in the Danish line, but she married a king, that's why I'm deliberately asking about the younger children of rulers!