Succession to the Crown Act 2013, Part 1: 2011 - Sep 2022

[AdmirerUS]

When the laws supporting male primogeniture are changed, will this also apply to inherited peerages in the UK - or will the rules apply only to future monarchs?

 

[Artemisia]

When the laws supporting male primogeniture are changed, will this also apply to inherited peerages in the UK - or will the rules apply only to future monarchs?

The proposed changes will not in any shape or form affect successions to peerages. They only deal with succession to the Throne and, in case of Equal Primogeniture, apply only to the descendants of the current Prince of Wales.

In Britain, succession to peerages is determined by the individual Letters Patent that had created the title in the first place. Only a complex legal process including an Act of Parliament and new Letters Patent could reform succession to peerages - and that's not happening any time soon.

 

[fandesacs2003]

Hello
I have another question. Imagine that twins, are born,
- who is the first to the rights?
- if twins boy and girl are born, how is the order in succession?
- if babies are born by ceaserian, how is the order in succession?

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

If the laws are being changed so that females can inherit the throne despite having younger brothers, I presume it in all cases would be the eldest twin, the firstborn of the two, who inherits the throne.

 

[NGalitzine]

First one out of the womb gets the crown. Even in C sections one baby gets out before the other.

 

[Muhler]

First one out of the womb gets the crown. Even in C sections one baby gets out before the other.

The ultimate "what if" must be: What if they are siamese twins?

 

[fandesacs2003]

The ultimate "what if" must be: What if they are siamese twins?

Nice. You made me laugh!!

 

[Lumutqueen]

First one out of the womb gets the crown. Even in C sections one baby gets out before the other.

Well, first one out gets the crown if the new law is in place. If a girl comes out first and a boy next, the boy is King.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Hello and welcome Irishtom

This link might help you!

Line of succession to the British throne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Blue_]

Well, first one out gets the crown if the new law is in place. If a girl comes out first and a boy next, the boy is King.

Why would the boy be king and not the girl if she's born first?

 

[NGalitzine]

Why would the boy be king and not the girl if she's born first?

If for some reason the proposed succession law changes don't pass in all the 16 realms then the current rules, males before females, remain in place.

 

[Artemisia]

Why would the boy be king and not the girl if she's born first?

Because, as of now, Britain still employs Male Primogeniture, meaning women can ascend to the Throne but only in absence of brothers (elder or younger). For instance, if George VI had a son, then the present Queen would have never become Monarch.

If the proposed changes are accepted then the first-born child, regardless of gender, will be the Heir or Heiress. The changes could also be adopted retroactively (the Swedish scenario), meaning that if William and Kate have twins and the first-born is a girl and the younger twin - a boy, the girl may still become Heiress at some point.


Before the 1991 reform, Belgium had similar laws (or rather, Belgium had Agnatic Primogeniture, meaning women couldn't ascend to the Throne); after the changes, Princess Astrid and her descendants placed higher than Prince Laurent, whereas before Astrid had no succession rights at all.

 

[Blue_]

Okay! Thank you very much!
It isn't clear in newspapers then, they said that even if it's a girl she will be Queen of Britain.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The 16 realms have agreed that the first born will be the monarch but...at the moment none of those realms have past the necessary legislation as it is still being worked on by the committee in NZ.

Unless something dreadful happens like Charles, William and The Queen all die before the legislation is actually past it is safe to say that the first born will inherit as they will have decades to get the new law past - just an agreement is enough to go on with at the moment.

Thanks for your answer. I dont know why I was left to believe that If Charles was to die that Andrew would become next in line to the queen as he would be her oldest son at the time of her death. I was also lead to believe that William would only become King after Charles filled the roll.

If I can add an historical precedence:

George II had a three sons and numerous daughters. His eldest son was Frederick, Prince of Wales (in the position Charles is now), with two younger brothers George William, and William. Frederick also was father with 9 children of his own - the eldest being George in the position William is now. When Frederick died it was this George who became heir apparent to the throne and was created Prince of Wales by his grandfather and eventually reigned as George III.

The line of succession is set and only births and deaths change it. As of now the line of succession is:

1. Charles
2. William
3. Harry
4. Andrew
5. Beatrice
6. Eugenie

When the child is born everyone from Harry down will move down one.

The other impact of the proposed changes to the legislation is that when this child is born Eugenie will not need the Queen's permission to marry as the RMA is being modified to only apply to the first 6 in line (in a few years even Andrew will be able to remarry without needing the monarch's consent - will he then remarry Sarah???)

 

[Spheno]

I don't like what Cameron is so categorical in his statements. It is possible PM will point at princess X as heiress, but the law will say "prince Y is heir". Nonsense

 

[Iluvbertie]

Archaic and sexist law overshadows pending arrival of a new royal

I don't know if anyone else has read this but it does show why this law is taking so long - the smaller nations have more pressing issues and the problem with Australia being that the states also have to pass the laws so it is simply a lot of countries having to pass it.

An interesting read.

 

[Sunnystar]

I can't see Andrew re-marrying Sarah until after Philip passes on, much like Charles waited to marry Camilla until after the Queen Mother had been deceased a few years. Heck, I'm not sure he'd re-marry her until after the Queen is no longer with us either.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Statute of Westminster 1931 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some additional reading for people not familiar with the issue

 

[AdmirerUS]

Thanks, for about the 100th time, Artemisia. You are the best.

I asked because the justification for the change is that it is unfair (unequal treatment of men and women). I bet Parliament could eliminate all male primogeniture - and if they really are concerned with "fairness" they should. Interesting that this is a concern for the monarch only.

 

[NGalitzine]

^^^^
Well the monarchy has a role in government. The hereditary peers are about as relevant as being a member of the Rotary Club or the Chamber of Commerce. There is just no good reason for the government to involve themselves with something that has no impact on government or general society.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

The thing about hereditary peers is, once created by Letters Patent, not even the Queen can alter the 'terms' of the peerage.
The standard remainder is legitimate males heirs, so it will take an Act of Parliament to change the remainder to equal primogeniture.

 

[Dman]

Consent given for change to royal succession rules:
All Commonwealth realms have agreed to press ahead with a bill ending discrimination against women in the succession to the British throne-
BBC News - Consent given for change to royal succession rules

 

[AdmirerUS]

^^^^
Well the monarchy has a role in government. The hereditary peers are about as relevant as being a member of the Rotary Club or the Chamber of Commerce. There is just no good reason for the government to involve themselves with something that has no impact on government or general society.

I am not so sanguine about the impact of continuing male-only rule on a more local level. Allowing men alone to rule a peerage, regardless of ability, desire, courage, etc. is not only silly - but a waste of talent. Tell a younger girl of interpersonal and financial skill in one of those families that it makes no difference that she has no say and that she gets to watch her family fortune flow down the toilet.

I find it odd that what is good for the country is of no consequence to the city, county, etc.

 

[NGalitzine]

^^^^
Well it is not like Downton Abbey. Family fortunes are not necessarily linked to the actual peerage. Indeed there are cases where the title went in one direction while the fortune went along the female line. Quite a few peerages have no family estates or great fortune. The existence of a hereditary peerage has nothing to do with governance of the kingdom so there is no reason for government to get involved.

I suppose if the government wanted to take a stand on female rights in the UK they would pass legislation forcing the CofE to allow female Bishops, since the CofE is the established church of the United Kingdom in response to the Synod recently voting down that revolutionary idea.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Consent given for change to royal succession rules:
All Commonwealth realms have agreed to press ahead with a bill ending discrimination against women in the succession to the British throne-
BBC News - Consent given for change to royal succession rules

This was agree to in October 2011.

Since then there has been a committee working on the wording so it meets the needs of all 16 realms and yet after over a year they still can't come up with the wording that will work in all 16 nations.

It is possible that it could pass in say Britain and Australia next year and not pass in Canada meaning that a first born girl would be ahead of her younger brother to be the monarch of Canada so that at the time of accession Canada would have their own separate monarch.

 

[VictoriaB]

I am not so sanguine about the impact of continuing male-only rule on a more local level. Allowing men alone to rule a peerage, regardless of ability, desire, courage, etc. is not only silly - but a waste of talent. Tell a younger girl of interpersonal and financial skill in one of those families that it makes no difference that she has no say and that she gets to watch her family fortune flow down the toilet.

I find it odd that what is good for the country is of no consequence to the city, county, etc.

It is only the title that is passed down to the eldest male.

What happens to the land would depend on the circumstances of the holding of the property. I understand that some estates are now legally owned by trusts to avoid haing to pay huge sums in death duties. Who is a trustee and who is a beneficiary would depend on the terms of the trust.

In other cases ordinary succession law applies and an estate could be left to a daughter if she were deemed the most suitable to inherit. Until recently the younger son of the Duke of Marlborough was going to run the Blenheim estate on the death of the current Duke instead of the next Duke (currently the Marquis of Blandford) because of the Marquis' drug abuse problems.

 

[Jacknch]

The other impact of the proposed changes to the legislation is that when this child is born Eugenie will not need the Queen's permission to marry as the RMA is being modified to only apply to the first 6 in line (in a few years even Andrew will be able to remarry without needing the monarch's consent - will he then remarry Sarah???)

Thanks for the information Iluvbertie! Personally I would have set the limit to grandchildren of a monarch - I wonder where the 6th in line limit came from?

 

[Lumutqueen]

I don't really see that as an impact. If Andrew wanted to marry Sarah, he could have. Eugenie can marry whoever she likes because it's doubtful it'll have an impact on the family.

 

[Artemisia]

I am inclined to agree with you.

Andrew and Sarah have close and friendly relationship but I doubt re-marriage is on the cards. And if they did want to re-marry, I'm pretty sure they would have done so by now. As for Eugenie, frankly, as long as her husband-to-be isn't a pole dancer or a mass murderer, I doubt anyone would have any objections, and certainly not the Queen.

 

[Dierna23]

The sovereign is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, so he or she must be Anglican. That they cannot marry a Catholic is not discrimination, romanists require the children be raised Catholic, and to my first point, this isn't possible.

It is by today's standards.

I guess we all get it has historical reasons, but my god, we're not living in the middle ages anymore and the days of the grand empire are numbered too. With Prince and Princess Michael there was also the case that "by family law" - probably/certainly (?) stronger than any "romanist" influence - it was decided that the kids would be raised Anglican and they are until this day. So, where's the problem if an heir marries a Catholic who wishes to keep his/her original faith when the children get raised Anglican?

Anyway, this whole outdated rule will soon be abolished.