Proposal for Equal Primogeniture Succession

[Lumutqueen]

From what I've heard, he's intended that all along: to change the title to 'Defender of Faiths.

He has always intended to do that and in my honest opinion I think it's wrong to do that.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't think he always intended to do anything. He expressed the idea that he would like to be 'Defender of Faith' rather than 'the faith' during the Dimbleby interview. He hadn't been recorded before that interview nor have I heard him say that again. He expressed a personal viewpoint as to what he would like to have happen but nothing suggests that he really intended to do anything about it as he would have been and is well aware that it would take a major piece of legislation and change of a large part of English/British way of life (having the monarch as Head of the Church). Grassroots sure most Brits couldn't care less but it is part of the fabric of British society and he was and is well aware of that.

 

[NGalitzine]

Most people forget that the designation "Defender of the Faith" was actually given to Henry VIII by The Pope......and he and his successors have continued to use it even after they no longer defended the Roman Catholic faith.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Most people forget that the designation "Defender of the Faith" was actually given to Henry VIII by The Pope......and he and his successors have continued to use it even after they no longer defended the Roman Catholic faith.

Originally given by the Pope but after Henry split from Rome it was revoked by the Pope and reawarded by the English Parliament so the current usage came from legislation of the English Parliament not the Pope.

 

[Mermaid1962]

That's an interesting point, Iluvbertie. Thank you for mentioning it. Protestantism was already on the move in England, as it was in Europe. Quite possibly the monarch would have broken with Rome at some point in any case.

Originally given by the Pope but after Henry split from Rome it was revoked by the Pope and reawarded by the English Parliament so the current usage came from legislation of the English Parliament not the Pope.

 

[Iluvbertie]

That's an interesting point, Iluvbertie. Thank you for mentioning it. Protestantism was already on the move in England, as it was in Europe. Quite possibly the monarch would have broken with Rome at some point in any case.

I do think that there was sufficient support in England for a monarch, sooner or later, to realise that politically they would be better off outside the Roman Catholic Church rather than in it as they would have total control over people's lives rather than have an outsider telling people what to do and possibly being in conflict with the ideas of the state.

 

[wbenson]

Royal Wedding: if Prince William's first is a girl, she could be heir - Telegraph

Prince William's first child with Kate Middleton would become his heir, regardless of gender, under a change to the laws of succession being considered by the Government.

 

[Iluvbertie]

This was also muted when Diana was pregnant with William but was put on hold when he was a boy and it is possible the same thing will happen again.

This will come - but only when there is a need. I just hope they go the whole way and allow for equal inheritance rights for all titles and equal rights to pass a style to their spouse e.g. the wife of a prince becomes a princess but the husband of a princess doesn't become anything - very sexist. I don't care which way it goes but it should be the same - so either the spouse of both men and women get a title on marriage or neither do. Catherine remains as Catherine or Beatrice's husband becomes a prince - either way it should be the same for both genders.

 

[Sunnystar]

I agree 100%! And, furthermore, the HRH should either be expanded to all of the monarch's grandchildren, not just male-line grandchildren, or none at all. If the HRH is not extended to all grandchildren then they should be styled like the children of a Duke and that's it.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Agree totally - in 1917 women's rights weren't what they are today and discrimination on the grounds of gender was accepted but that discrimination isn't acceptable today.

Whichever way they do it they have to be totally equal in rights.

 

[Fürstin Taxis]

Royal Wedding: if Prince William's first is a girl, she could be heir - Telegraph

Prince William's first child with Kate Middleton would become his heir, regardless of gender, under a change to the laws of succession being considered by the Government.

It´s time!
But if the first born is a boy? In Denmark they changed the law after Christians birth, so Isabella is after him in the line. It would be fair.
Most of the heirs (the children of the current heirs) in Europe are female.

I think those peopel who are against the change, are people who believe that men are first class human. Sorry, but there is no other reason.

 

[Maura724]

I think those peopel who are against the change, are people who believe that men are first class human. Sorry, but there is no other reason.

I'm not sure if my response to this statement is or just . Please don't stereotype people you don't know who hold different views as sexist pigs. I am against the change, and I certainly don't believe men are first class humans! The following are my reasons - you may not agree with them, but if you read through them I think you will have to at least agree that my opposition isn't stemming from hatred of women.

First of all, I should say that I don't think women should be kept from the throne - that's unnecessary and impractical (with smaller families today it’s quite possible to have no sons, as the Dutch and Spanish heirs do, plus we’ve seen so many instances of historical chaos because there were no male heirs when there were plenty of women available). We currently have some great female monarchs, Margrethe II, Elizabeth II, and Beatrix, plus we’ve seen female monarchs do well in history (Victoria, Elizabeth I, etc.) However, I do think the law should place males ahead of females in the line – not because I hate women or want to discriminate against them, but because I think there are reasons it's better, in general, to have a King.

First, I think there's a role for both a King and a Queen. Yes, there's usually a Prince Consort, and yes, Phillip, Henrik, and Claus have all done good jobs in their role, but I think you get "more for your money," so to speak, when you have two monarchs rather than one monarch plus a prince. (And I don’t like the idea of titling a Queen Regnant’s husband King Consort – the historical tradition for the King ruling over the Queen is too strong and I don’t think most people would accept it. I somehow think the Danes would have a fit over a King Henrik! )

Second, I think Prince Consort is a difficult role for a man - it's hard to spend your life walking three steps behind your wife. I think it's difficult for a man personally and difficult for the marriage. (Maybe one could argue it shouldn't be this way, but it generally is in our society.)

Third, if a woman comes to the throne as Queen Regnant once her children are grown, then this next issue doesn't matter. However, if she has small children at the time - like Margrethe and Elizabeth - then it's difficult for her to fulfill her duties and spend enough time with them, as was the case for both these women. A King who is a young father doesn't have quite the same problem because his Queen Consort wife has more time for them and because fathers aren't expected to see quite as much of their kids as mothers are. (Once again, maybe one could argue it shouldn't be this way, but it generally is in our society.)

Even if there weren’t advantages to a King over a Queen, I don’t find the fact that there’s discrimination against daughters in the monarchy exceptionally troubling. Monarchies inherently discriminate – if you’re not born into one, you’re obviously not royal and you’re denied the privileges that involves. And even with equal primogeniture, there’s discrimination within the monarchy itself – why should younger children be further back in the line? Is it fair for Andrew to rank behind Charles, or Joachim to rank behind Frederik, just because they’re younger? Why is there no outcry about the denial of rights to middle and younger children? Do those who approve this system believe that oldest children are "first class humans?"

Also, the popular argument that it isn't fair to deny a girl the right to the throne because she has a younger brother seems to presuppose that the throne is a wonderful thing everyone is just clamoring to have. On the contrary, you tend to see royals reacting the opposite way. For instance, the two younger Swedish siblings say they're glad Victoria's the heir and not them, Margriet of the Netherlands says she can't imagine anything worse than being Queen like Beatrix, and I've read that when Elizabeth was a young girl after it became apparent her father would have to take the throne she used to pray for God to send her a brother. The throne is a lot of work, a lot of responsibility, and generally pretty restricting for your life, your spouse's life, and your children's lives, which is why most royals would prefer to avoid it and just enjoy royal privilege from further out on the fringe. I think the fact that the British system currently keeps women from being in this situation unless they have no brothers is actually a show of great preference to females, and I think making the succession laws gender-blind would be a loss to a royal women's rights rather than a gain.

I support the current system because I think it privileges women, not because I see men as "first class humans."

 

[Lumutqueen]

It´s time!
But if the first born is a boy? In Denmark they changed the law after Christians birth, so Isabella is after him in the line. It would be fair.
Most of the heirs (the children of the current heirs) in Europe are female.

I think those peopel who are against the change, are people who believe that men are first class human. Sorry, but there is no other reason.

If the first born is a boy, then it is up to William to decide to change the succesion law, or leave it as it is and wait for the actual situation to arise.

There are a lot of other reasons. Please don't state things as fact when they quite clearly aren't.

 

[Warren]

...it is up to William to decide to change the succesion law...

Well no. The laws of the United Kingdom are debated and made by the Parliament. If the Government of the day with the support of the Parliament decides to change the succession, or the Royal Marriages Act, or the Act of Settlement for that matter, the personal wishes of the Sovereign (or a Prince) are largely irrelevant.

If a change to the succession is to be made, it needs to be done sooner rather than later. A future retrospective change could lead to a son of William, raised, trained and educated as the Monarch-to-be, being replaced ("usurped") in the Line of Succession by an unprepared and unwilling elder sister. She of course would be expected to do her duty but it would be a very messy situation for all concerned and therefore best avoided.

 

[Maura724]

I hope no monarchy would ever make a retrospective change like that - whether the change is a good idea or not, doing it that way would just be so unfair to everybody involved. If the decision were made after William has kids, I hope the Brits handle it the way the Norwegians did, where a change was made in 1990 but Haakon still kept his place.

 

[Iluvbertie]

If the first born is a boy, then it is up to William to decide to change the succesion law, or leave it as it is and wait for the actual situation to arise.

There are a lot of other reasons. Please don't state things as fact when they quite clearly aren't.

William hasn't the right to change any laws. That is the role of the government. All William can do is sign them - when he is King. As he will probably have children in the present reign it will be the present Queen who will sign the legislation, once it has passed both houses of parliament and been approved by the governments of the other realms of which the Queen is Queen (I don't forsee a problem with that but they also have to agree).

I hope no monarchy would ever make a retrospective change like that - whether the change is a good idea or not, doing it that way would just be so unfair to everybody involved. If the decision were made after William has kids, I hope the Brits handle it the way the Norwegians did, where a change was made in 1990 but Haakon still kept his place.

I would expect that if a girl was born first and then a son it would be done immediately, as it was in Sweden, before the children were old enough to understand what it was all about rather than wait until they were young adults.

I would also not expect a retrospective law to put Princess Anne's line ahead of her younger brothers for that exact same reason - Beatrice and Eugenie have been prepared to be Counsillors of State etc whereas Peter and Zara haven't.

 

[Esmerelda]

We'll wait and see what happens- it only really matters if William has a girl first. I wonder if Peter and Zara would get titles if they changed the law? In Belgium, Princess Astrid was put ahead of her brother Prince Laurent and her husband and children (admittedly already titled) were made Princes/Princesses of Belgium. Or they might decide to apply it to children born after 2012 (entirely speculative guess as to the birth date!).

 

[Sunnystar]

Okay, this irritates me - kind of similarly to when people confuse 'perspective' and 'prospective' but the word that should be used in this thread is 'retroactive' not 'retrospective'. Retroactive means that the change is effective at some date in the past. Retrospective means that you are reviewing/revisiting the past. In a sentence - a documentary on Princess Diana's life would likely include some interviews of a retrospective nature, however there is nothing retroactive that would change the fact that she's deceased.

As it is, it's hard to say what choices would be made in an equal primogeniture succession proposal. Personally, as both Charles and William are the eldest children, I see no reason to not make a unilateral change that affects everyone in the line of succession rather than just from Charles' or William's descendants forward. Yes, it would mean that Anne and her children would move up the chain, however they are still unlikely to inherit the throne, especially after Will & Kate start their family.

 

[Osipi]

As it is, it's hard to say what choices would be made in an equal primogeniture succession proposal. Personally, as both Charles and William are the eldest children, I see no reason to not make a unilateral change that affects everyone in the line of succession rather than just from Charles' or William's descendants forward. Yes, it would mean that Anne and her children would move up the chain, however they are still unlikely to inherit the throne, especially after Will & Kate start their family.

I think that should the law of primogeniture be changed, there would be no retroactive results from it. It would more or less state along the lines that from this day forward, the first issue of the reigning monarch and their children regardless of sex would be equal in the line of succession.
This is why I believe the subject is coming up now. Once William is married and perhaps has a daughter and then a son when they passed it, the law passed would be a moot point. The purpose of doing it now would be to start a new precedent whereas the order of succession to the Crown would be regardless of the sex of the first born. If changed now, it would not affect anything in place already. The BRF is downsizing itself. Anne's children don't have title by request. Edward is the same way and keeps his family out of the limelight and they're not princes and princesses of the Realm (legally yes.. by choice.. no)

Honestly though, can you tell me that after how many years now with the UK and the Commonwealth and back then.. Empire, women aren't fit to be Queen?

 

[Maura724]

The current system acknowledges that they ARE fit to be Queen, or obviously there wouldn't be a woman sitting on the throne right now. There's a HUGE difference in salic and semi-salic law.

 

[Esmerelda]

The UK actually has male preference primogeniture, not semi-salic law. In male preference primogeniture, a woman inherits after her brothers but before her uncles. In semi-salic law, a female or her decendants can only inherit if there are no male-line male decendants left in the dynasty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_succession#Primogeniture

 

[Maura724]

Thanks, Esmerelda, you're very right. The UK system is technically male preference primogeniture. But whatever it's called, it still does acknowledge that women are fit to be Queen.

 

[Esmerelda]

Thanks, Esmerelda, you're very right. The UK system is technically male preference primogeniture. But whatever it's called, it still does acknowledge that women are fit to be Queen.

That's true, although it does contend that they are less fit to be monarch than a younger brother..

 

[Iluvbertie]

Okay, this irritates me - kind of similarly to when people confuse 'perspective' and 'prospective' but the word that should be used in this thread is 'retroactive' not 'retrospective'. Retroactive means that the change is effective at some date in the past. Retrospective means that you are reviewing/revisiting the past. In a sentence - a documentary on Princess Diana's life would likely include some interviews of a retrospective nature, however there is nothing retroactive that would change the fact that she's deceased.

As it is, it's hard to say what choices would be made in an equal primogeniture succession proposal. Personally, as both Charles and William are the eldest children, I see no reason to not make a unilateral change that affects everyone in the line of succession rather than just from Charles' or William's descendants forward. Yes, it would mean that Anne and her children would move up the chain, however they are still unlikely to inherit the throne, especially after Will & Kate start their family.

You are forgetting the Counsellors of State. Currently these are Charles, William, Harry and Andrew. At some time in the future Beatrice and possibly Eugenie will be called upon to serve and they have been trained to do that job but Peter and Zara haven't.

Change the succession laws and Peter and Zara will have to be prepared to serve in that role.

The Councillors of State are the next 4 over 21 in the line of succession and do the job of the Queen when she is out of the country e.g. while she is on the state visit Charles will be doing the job, unless she has named William or Harry.

When Charles becomes King then next four in line will include Beatrice until a child of William's or Harry's turns 21 (except if William's eldest is a son and then it is 18 if William is King). It is perfectly possible that within the next 19 years (the earliest date that a child of William could reach 18) that William will be King in which case Eugenie would also be eligible to serve. Beatrice and Eugenie have had the constitutional training necessary to do this whereas Peter and Zara haven't.

 

[Esmerelda]

Beatrice and Eugenie have had the constitutional training necessary to do this whereas Peter and Zara haven't.

Really? At the risk of going off-topic here, what does that entail? Also, couldn't Peter and Zara just be given the training after the law change? Or maybe just Peter, as the next four after Charles under equal primogeniture would be: William, Harry, Anne, Peter. As Beatrice and Eugenie are both quite young, I don't think training takes that long. Whether or not Peter and Zara would want to do it is another matter, of course.

 

[wymanda]

IMO it will be made to apply proactively. That is, it will mean that if William & Catherine have a daughter first she cannot be moved down the succession by the birth of a younger brother.

 

[Esmerelda]

IMO it will be made to apply proactively. That is, it will mean that if William & Catherine have a daughter first she cannot be moved down the succession by the birth of a younger brother.

That would probably be the solution, like the situation in Norway. Alternatively, they could restrict the sucession to descendants of Charles and then apply equal primogeniture. That would be a shame though, to get rid of the tradition of having thousands in the line of succession..

 

[yvr girl]

I don't think they would change the whole succession. In Norway they applied it to those born after (a certain year).

 

[Nice Nofret]

Equal gender rights would mean, that also in the british aristocracy the first born would inherite the titel (earl, duke, ...)

In Switzerland they changed the name-laws when you get married. Now you can choose what your name will be:

husbands name, or wife name, or each keeps his/her name, or wife keeps hers and ads name of husband (without a "-") or wife takes name from husband and ads her name (with a "-")

So if Mr Schmied marries Ms Müller, they can be named Müller or Schmied, or he stays Schmied and she can be Ms Müller Schmied, or Ms Schmied-Müller

With an Gender-legislation they could probably overturne the whole system (goosh: that would probabely be the end of a lot of lovely tradition...) anyway: what a thought.

 

[Krisotter]

Equal gender rights would mean, that also in the british aristocracy the first born would inherite the titel (earl, duke, ...)

I'm not sure that's automatically the case, as the titles are conferred by LP, most of which specify male heirs. It would make an interesting court case, though.