Proposal for Equal Primogeniture Succession


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
I do not know about Holland or the German kingdoms, but the King of Norway and the Queen of Denmark are head of the Lutheran Church of Norway and of Denmark. (However, the Norwegian constitution is being altered, and soon the King will no longer be head of the church.) I'm not 100% sure about Sweden, but I think the monarch used to be head and no longer is.

In Norway the monarch is required to be Lutheran (and that requirement will be preserved in the new constitution at King Harald's express request), although I'm not sure if it applies or ever applied to the monarch's consort and family. In Denmark the monarch, and only the monarch, must be Lutheran. Thus when Margrethe married Henrik, he was not required to convert from Catholicism and did not do so immediately.
 
In Sweden the monarch must be a Protestant Christian but not necessarily belong to the swedish church. I think that the monarch will have to remain Anglican if the church of England remains ties to the crown. There's no reason the spouse cannot be catholic though. I'm not completely sure about this but I think someone in line for the throne would not lose their place in the succession if they married someone of any other religion than RC.
 
Lumutqueen said:
It has nothing to do with sexism, it's tradition.
Click to expand...

True..it is tradition. But it is a sexist tradition. If the British government/royal court/etc. had been concerned with tradition, the Commonwealth would not exist because they would not have violated the tradition that the inhabitants of those lands, i.e. the indigenous people, would never have been subjugated under British rule. Or, on the flip side of that, the British would never have stopped the "tradition" of expansionism and would still be looking to conquer other territories.

This is not about tradition. It is about money. The Windsors will make sure they maintain all the perks that go along with being the royal family. The parliament will continue to pay lip service to the issue rather than doing anything about it until they find some way to financially benefit from a change. It is as simple as that.
 
Esmerelda said:
In Sweden the monarch must be a Protestant Christian but not necessarily belong to the swedish church. I think that the monarch will have to remain Anglican if the church of England remains ties to the crown. There's no reason the spouse cannot be catholic though. I'm not completely sure about this but I think someone in line for the throne would not lose their place in the succession if they married someone of any other religion than RC.
Click to expand...

In Seden the King and those in line of succession the King has always to profess the pure evangelical faith according to the Confession of Augfsburg. See here Article 4.
I think in the UK they could lift the bann to marrying catholics but still have the requirement that those in line of succession belong to the anglican Church. So if a member of the Royal Family marries a catholics they can choose if they want the Kids raised as protestants or that they have no succession rights.
 
:previous:
That is virtually the situation now.

The ban on marrying a Roman Catholic isn't really correct. They can marry a Roman Catholic but they lose their succession rights on doing so.

The various Kent families that are the ones that have married/converted to Roman Catholicism have raised their children as Anglicans thus giving them the chance to decide for themselves at the appropriate ages. Frederick and Gabriella of Kent have both remained Anglican while the elder children of the Earl of St Andrews have decided to put their Roman Catholic faith ahead of any chance to become the monarch. The younger daughter of the Earl is still in the line of succession as she hasn't yet been confirmed into either the Anglican or Roman Catholic faith. Although as she is attending a Roman Catholic school it is assumed that she will be confirmed RC at some point in the future. Lord Nicholas, who converted to Roman Catholicism himself, decided that he would make that decision for his children, as babies, by having them baptised as RC and so his children are not in the line of succession.

I do think that the monarch and the spouse of the monarch must be in communion with the Anglican Church, along with their children.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why do you think the monarch and the spouse should be in communion with the Anglican Church? Is it because you think that the Queen being the head of the church is a good role for the monarch to have?

I ask because I have never been certain why a monarch has to have a specific religion. Any ides on that theory as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I do think that having the monarch part of a specific church that has been the national church adds to the role of the monarch in the history of the nation.
Take away that position and you take away a large part of the identity of the monarchy. They have no political power but they can be identified with the national church.
As we strip away their royalness - by marrying commoners, wanting to live without staff etc we reduce them to middle class nothings - so the Head of the Church gives them some status and another position to keep them in a place in the heart of the nation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Iluvbertie said:
They have no political power but they can be identified with the national church.
Click to expand...

Define national church.

The vast majority of UK Citizens NEVER worship inside an anglican church.

The only time I now attend church is for someones wedding or funeral. As far as I know my children and their friends only go for the same reason, weddings and funerals.

The Idea that the Monarch HAS to be head of the church is absurd.

It may well be that Charles and William will want to continue in that role but if they chose not to I'm sure the Anglicans will manage to find someome to take up the role if they feel they must have someone in that role.
 
David Lewis said:
Define national church.
Click to expand...

I am sure that you noticed the way I worded my reference to the term national church.

That wasn't an accident.

The vast majority of UK Citizens NEVER worship inside an anglican church.
Click to expand...

You point...

It is a national church not because of who worships there but because the leaders are involved in the government of the country. You are aware I am sure that the House of Lords still includes the 'Lords Spiritual'.

The only time I now attend church is for someones wedding or funeral. As far as I know my children and their friends only go for the same reason, weddings and funerals.
Click to expand...

I am sure that you represent the majority of modern people who have lost their faith - and I have no problem with that.

The Idea that the Monarch HAS to be head of the church is absurd.
Click to expand...

Why?

If you are going to have an anachronistic institution like a monarchy then that monarchy should have certain standards that have applied for generations. To do away with some of the trappings of monarchy is to diminish that institution further and hence we can do away with the institution (and the sooner the better I say) but if we are going to have it then ensure that it maintains the standards of the past. One of the arguments I keep hearing is that the monarchy gives a sense of continuation and history to the nation so being part of the church that helped build that nation is part of that continuation and history.

It may well be that Charles and William will want to continue in that role but if they chose not to I'm sure the Anglicans will manage to find someome to take up the role if they feel they must have someone in that role.
Click to expand...

It won't be up to them to end it but Parliament. Parliament gave the monarch the title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England in 1559 so the only way to take that title is to have Parliament remove it - and consequently debate the role of the monarch - something they are loathe to have happen.
 
Doesn't Charles want to change the title of the monarch from defender of the faith to defender of faith? The implication being that he would be fine not being head of the church of England?
 
History. There was a time in Europe, a mere few hundred years ago, and in many places in the world today, when your religion was a matter of life or death. It made sense for there to be national churches after the Protestant Reformation. For one thing, it meant that nations would be free to run their own religious affairs independent of Rome. It made sense that the monarch would support the state religion, and, in some cases, enforce it. Although the countries that are monarchies in Europe today have freedom of religion, the monarchies are still figureheads in the national church although they don't have anything to do with determining doctrine and so on.


jemagre said:
I ask because I have never been certain why a monarch has to have a specific religion. Any ides on that theory as well.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Esmerelda said:
Doesn't Charles want to change the title of the monarch from defender of the faith to defender of faith? The implication being that he would be fine not being head of the church of England?
Click to expand...


Charles made that comment about 17 years ago and basically hasn't said anything about it since. It was greeted very badly at the time by the powers that have a say in these things.
 
Iluvbertie said:
I do think that having the monarch part of a specific church that has been the national church adds to the role of the monarch in the history of the nation.

Take away that position and you take away a large part of the identity of the monarchy. They have no political power but they can be identified with the national church.

As we strip away their royalness - by marrying commoners, wanting to live without staff etc we reduce them to middle class nothings - so the Head of the Church gives them some status and another position to keep them in a place in the heart of the nation.
Click to expand...

You make a good point about the evolution or de-evolution of the royal family depending on who they marry.

The Head of the Church role does give them some status but I wonder if that status will change as people stop going to church. I know in America that church attendance was down. I don't know if that is the case in England.

Do you think it matters if the church was a nondenominational church? I don't have much info on how popular the changing of the rules could be. I know you mentioned that Charles' choice of defender of faith was not well received 17 years ago. I wonder though if people would feel differently about that today giving changing attitudes toward religion.
 
Oh my! If equal primo ever becomes succession law, there will be many apples falling off the cart.
 
KittyAtlanta said:
Oh my! If equal primo ever becomes succession law, there will be many apples falling off the cart.
Click to expand...

The only "apples" falling off the cart are likely to be the York girls. Now that is a shocker, is it not?:flowers:
 
Would not the Princess Royal follow Charles in that instance, thus moving everyone in line down?
 
KittyAtlanta said:
Would not the Princess Royal follow Charles in that instance, thus moving everyone in line down?
Click to expand...

I believe the intention is that the new law would be effective for William's children.
 
Zonk said:
I believe the intention is that the new law would be effective for William's children.
Click to expand...

I think that's the way it would work too. As in "Everyone stay right where you are now. The law effects anyone born on or after this date." That would most likely mean starting with William and Kate's children and or Harry's children (should he have them first) or any title to be passed on to children born on or after the day the law was enacted.
 
Now my question is.. and sorry if this has been asked before.

Would the Law of Equal Primogeniture pertain only to the line of succession to the Crown? I can imagine it would cause great havoc among peers as up until now, titles were passed down only to the first born sons. Many titles I've heard are very restrictive such as the Prince of Wales title going only to the first born son of the reigning monarch.

Could be interesting though... a first born daughter inherits her father's duchy and becomes the Duch of xxx and her husband then the Dukette of xxx? Odd thought isn't it?
 
I don't see why the eldest daughter of a peer can't inherit the title.

I also don't see why a man can raise the status of his wife but a woman can't raise the status of her husband - totally discriminatory. e.g. Charles, Andrew and Edward raised their wives to HRH but Anne's husbands were not similarly raised automatically (I know they were offered titles etc but my point is that it shouldn't have been necessary).

I would like to see the law saying either - the higher ranked partner in the marriage raises their partner to that rank or no one rises on marriage so William stay HRH Prince William but Kate simply becomes Mrs Mountbatten Windsor or to raise Kate to HRH Princess William then Beatrice's husband should be automatically a Prince on marriage. Forget the personalities involved for a minute and simply look at the discrimination against men happening here.

If inheritance is to be non-discriminatory (other than being the first born of a particular set of parents) then it should spread beyond just one title.

Please note - I think you have confused the Duke of Cornwall title with the Prince of Wales title - Cornwall is restricted to eldest living son and heir apparent while Prince of Wales can go to the heir apparent regardless of being the eldest living son e.g. George III was Prince of Wales but never Duke of Cornwall never having been the son of the monarch.

Mystiblue said:
An interesting clip on Australian Television suggested the Constitution could be changed so that the first born of William and Kate - even if female - could become Queen. Here is the link.
Could Prince William's first-born daughter be first in line for the throne? | Ministry of Gossip | Los Angeles Times
Click to expand...


This was always going to come up once William got engaged - just as it did when Diana was pregnant with William. The suggestion was made then to change the order of succession to allow the first born to inherit but when William was born it died a natural death to be raised again now.

It will come of course but I hope they get it right and cover all titles and not just the crown.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Iluvbertie said:
Please note - I think you have confused the Duke of Cornwall title with the Prince of Wales title - Cornwall is restricted to eldest living son and heir apparent while Prince of Wales can go to the heir apparent regardless of being the eldest living son e.g. George III was Prince of Wales but never Duke of Cornwall never having been the son of the monarch.
Click to expand...

I was close though :) Thanks for explaining it more clearly to me. I most definitely agree with you on making all of it on equal basis. The days of the husband being "lord and master" and having the words "obey" in the marriage vows are very long gone and best remained buried. Most couples in this day and age are definitely equal partners in everything and to keep something so anachronistic in the British peerage system is to have something that is clearly stating to all that women still are regarded as "inferior" beings and not intelligent enough to inherit anything. Britain has has a female PM but yet females of the peerage cannot directly inherit. What's wrong with this picture?
 
I don't think royals have any say in the succession. If they could choose which of their children succeeded them there wouldn't be a law for the firstborn son or firstborn child depending on country.
 
:previous: That's a really, really interesting thought. Not that there's a chance of it happening anywhere, or that it would even be a good idea, but I think it's a fascinating thing to think about - what would it be like if royal families could choose amongst themselves who the successor should be?
 
Actually, I believe in ancient China the Emperor in some of the dynasties could choose among his sons. But if this happened today, people would probably ask why they don't widen the field of choice to the whole population. Additionally, it might generate a lot of sibling rivalry and tension in the Royal families themselves. So I guess it's best to have the heir designated by law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
Constitutional and Dynastic Matters in the Norwegian Monarchy
Replies
6
Views
988
Tatiana Maria
T
M
Family Bylaws Concerning the House Law of the House of Luxembourg-Nassau
Replies
1
Views
417
Tatiana Maria
T
Blog Real
King Lodovico I, King Lodovico II and Kingdom of Etruria
Replies
3
Views
615
Blog Real
Blog Real
Blog Real
Princely House of Liechtenstein: Succession and Wealth
Replies
9
Views
2K
victor1319
V
CrownPrincessJava
  • Sticky
Greece: Birthday and Anniversary Wishes 2024
Replies
4
Views
687
Biri
B

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom