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

[NGalitzine]

Can't see any reason to apply it to the hereditary peerages since they no longer have the automatic right to sit in the House of Lords/play a role in government. Equal primogeniture might reduce the possibility of the title becoming extinct I suppose but that really doesn't benefit society at all. No reason to go mucking around with something that has no benefit to the country or society in general. The extinction of a peerage really only impacts the family of that peer.

 

[DCVO]

When the heir to the title also gets the family castle and the lion's share of the inheritance, it does make a difference. Althorp didn't go to Diana's eldest sister Sarah, it went to her brother, the new Earl Spencer. If equal primogeniture passes for the royal family, I predict a lot of firstborn peers' daughters stirring the pot to get it enacted for peers as well. Realistically though such a measure could only be implemented forward, not backdated to find who the heir apparent ought to be if equal primogeniture had been around; more "from this date, the firstborn legitimate child shall be the heir apparent."

 

[Iluvbertie]

I wonder if in the following scenario they will quickly change it:

William has a girl first and then a boy. William dies. The boy becomes Duke of Cambridge but the girl remains as untitled until she becomes Queen.

The LPs for William's titles is 'heirs male of the body' - the standard inheritance clause - like Philip's, Andrew's and Edward's.

From everything that I have read there would be little support for children of younger children being HRH - look at the praise for Edward and Anne for not giving their children the HRH. I can see the restriction being that the only grandchildren of the monarch that are HRH are those children of the future monarch and no one.

As for only the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales - that was George V's decision for some reason and that is fine with me.

As for a future husband of someone of Beatrice or Eugenie becoming a Prince - no way. If the husbands of daughters of monarchs don't get it then no way the husband's of grandchildren will get.

I am almost of the opinion that even the wives of Princes shouldn't be made into princesses as they weren't born a princess.

 

[Royalfamilyresearc]

I am all for it, especially the rule about not being able to marry a Catholic, but then the sovereign would have to lose the title Defender of the Faith.

Actually, under this rule, the MONARCH can't be catholic meaning they are still the head of the church!

I don't like the idea that it will be done retroactively. If Princess Anne was now to pass her brothers in the line of succession, you would have Peter and Zara Phillips in line ahead of 2 HRHs, a Viscount and a Lady grandchildren of the sovereign.

It will only happen to the descendants of Charles! Anne is not affected!

 

[Daz_Voz]

Originally Posted by kimebear
I don't like the idea that it will be done retroactively. If Princess Anne was now to pass her brothers in the line of succession, you would have Peter and Zara Phillips in line ahead of 2 HRHs, a Viscount and a Lady grandchildren of the sovereign.

Originally Posted by Royalfamilyresearc
It will only happen to the descendants of Charles! Anne is not affected!

In any case, Peter and Zara are already in line ahead of several HRHs.

 

[sarahedwards2]

It will only happen to the descendants of Charles! Anne is not affected!

Damn! I wonder what it would have been like for her if she was the first born and equal primogeniture was already in place.

 

[DukeOfAster]

I could be wrong but it was my understanding it shall affect the children of William not his father. I also think we are making this out to be much more then it is. Once a daughter is born I am sure the laws will change and I feel when the time is right she will be a Duchess of Cornwall, a Princess of Wales, and a Queen.

 

[Artemisia]

I could be wrong but it was my understanding it shall affect the children of William not his father. I also think we are making this out to be much more then it is. Once a daughter is born I am sure the laws will change and I feel when the time is right she will be a Duchess of Cornwall, a Princess of Wales, and a Queen.

The changes will affect the heirs of the current Prince of Wales - that is to say, Prince Charles.
That means that the children of both William and Harry will occupy their places in the Line of Succession based on seniority of birth.

William first-born child, if a daughter will indeed become Queen one day. Whether she'll be the Princess of Wales in her own right is debatable: it has never happened before but there are no laws that would prohibit that. However, she will not become the Duchess of Cornwall unless laws are changed: as things are now, the occupant of that particular title has to be not only the Heir (or Heiress) Apparent to the Throne, but also the Sovereign's eldest surviving son. For instance, if Prince Charles were to predecease his mother, William could never become The Duke of Cornwall (as he'd be the Sovereign's grandson, not son). Personally, I don't think that rules regarding the Duke of Cornwall title will change. After all, there are titles that exist in feminine-form only as well (Queen Consort, Queen Mother, Queen Dowager, Princess Royal).

 

[yvr girl]

I think they will have to do something about all future heirs. It doesn't seem right that it will be equal for Will's children but not Beatrice's. I agree no current heirs s/b displaced. I think they will do it like Norway - everyone born after x date will be by equal p.

 

[DukeOfAster]

I think they will have to do something about all future heirs. It doesn't seem right that it will be equal for Will's children but not Beatrice's. I agree no current heirs s/b displaced. I think they will do it like Norway - everyone born after x date will be by equal p.

I believe the reason it was set for Williams children is because he will be a furture king and his and Catherine child will be a monarch as well. You will not see others being affected because it is the biggest deal when it is the future Monarch. It was not lesser royals but the heir and the heir child that in a sense "Matters".

 

[yvr girl]

It might be academic for for those who aren't in the direct line, but they do need to clarify the line of succession. I believe the royal website lists the top 40 aproximately. If Peter Phillips has a son, we he come before or after his sisters?

 

[PssKatie]

I think it only makes sense that anyone born after x date is affected by the change. It's unnecessarily complicated for the line of succession to have two separate sets of rules, ie anyone ahead of Andrew having equal primogeniture, anyone after him having male primogeniture.

 

[sarahedwards2]

It might be academic for for those who aren't in the direct line, but they do need to clarify the line of succession. I believe the royal website lists the top 40 aproximately. If Peter Phillips has a son, we he come before or after his sisters?

I still think Anne would have made a great queen, She's intelligent, beautiful (inside and outside), tough, funny, dresses well, and has given some great speeches. Plus she's head of 200 charities, and she's smart enough not to get sucked in by the press like Diana. I admire her so much!

 

[MARG]

There is no doubt but that The Princess Royal would have made an outstanding Queen. Both she and her older brother are of a generation of noblesse oblige.

But, I still have to wonder if the Equal Primogeniture applies only to the Succession if it is not just a political sop to equality. After all, we all know and Elizabeth, Victoria and Elizabeth have proved that gender is irrelevant as to the success of a Monarch. All sorts of laws would have to be changed both at home and within the Commonwealth to ensure it worked so applying it to all aristocracy is just more of the same.

To be honest, once the laws of succession are changed, would the UK have a leg to stand on in the International Courts of Human Rights should various daughters of the aristocracy start agitating for change on the grounds of gender discrimination?

If it aint broke don't fix it indeed!

 

[Daz_Voz]

"applying it to all aristocracy is just more of the same."

What statutes cover succession among the nobility? I would have assumed that these days it is a civil matter...

 

[NGalitzine]

Actually I believe international courts, espoecially the European Court, has already stated that it has no role to play in succession issues which are up to individual nations.
I see no benefit to society in changing the succession to hereditary peers since those peers play no role in the government of the UK unless they get themselves elected to public office or receive a life peerage.

"applying it to all aristocracy is just more of the same."

What statutes cover succession among the nobility? I would have assumed that these days it is a civil matter...

Succession to peerages are determined by the original letters patent granted to the original holders to the title not by act of legislation. Generally succession is to heirs male but in some of the older peerages, and especially in the Scottish peerage, it had be a bit of a hodge podge of rules.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Actually I believe international courts, espoecially the European Court, has already stated that it has no role to play in succession issues which are up to individual nations.
I see no benefit to society in changing the succession to hereditary peers since those peers play no role in the government of the UK unless they get themselves elected to public office or receive a life peerage.

The fact that the situation isn't equal between the sexes is a reason to change it.

Things don't have to benefit someone to be right - and changing to gender blind succession for all titles would be the right thing to do, even if society in general doesn't benefit but it would send a very large message that women are equal.

As it is now - some women in the UK don't have equal rights.

 

[NGalitzine]

As it is now - some women in the UK don't have equal rights.

Lots of people in the UK don't have equal rights, in a lot of cases supported by religion and the state. Homosexuals currently cannot marry in the UK. Divorced people cannot marry in either the Anglican or Roman Catholic faiths. In the grand scheme of things succession to a hereditary peerage is a pretty minor privelege and changes would benefit much less than 1% of the population. I would venture a guess that the population would not consider the state of the hereditary peers a major concern.

 

[Molly2101]

I agree that Anne would have made a great Queen, but I do not think she herself would have wanted the rules to have changed for her. She has wanted her children to lead private lives, she and her husband refused titles for their children in the hope it would shield them from the public life. To a certain extent it has; most people know who Zara Phillips is, but mainly for her career in Eqestrianism. Peter Phillips is a relative unknown, which is exactly how Anne wanted it. They will always be known as the Queen's grandchildren, but they will never have the stigma attached to being an HRH. The same is said for Edward and Sophie's choice to refuse royal styles for their children. To be fair, if they really wanted their kids to be "normal" they should have forgone using Lady and Viscount, but Louise and James will remain relatively unknown throughout their lives, at least until they attend the Queen's funeral, or Charles' funeral in the future. It is then that someone will say, "They are the youngest grandchildren of the late Queen Elizabeth." James may be known in the future if he becomes Duke of Edinburgh, as I am sure the award will still exists after Philip and Edward die, therefore James will likely give out the awards.

I am glad the rules have been changed now though. We are living in the 21st Century, it is only right that we should get rid of "old fashioned ways", particularly when it comes to the Monarchy. This will add to their popularity as well. If the rules had not been changed imagine the outcry if William's first child was a daughter and then he had a son. I don't think the public would understand the reasoning behind their son coming before his sister (or possibly sisters) in the line of succession.

 

[padams2359]

I vote for Harry to be Duke of Windsor. It needs to stay close to the family.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The rules haven't changed yet - they are still in the planning stage.

They may even go on the back burner if William and Kate's first born is a son and even more so if they have a second child who is also a boy before the legislation is passed throught the various parliaments that have to pass it.

 

[HRHThePrince]

Prince Charles has commented that he's in favor of a more slimmed down Royal Family. If the equal primogeniture is enacted by law is it fair to say that George V's 1917 Letters Patent will more than likely be overridden by The Queen or Charles himself when he becomes king? I see no reason for it to be further enforced in retrospect of a male line grandchild being entitled to the style of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess just because their father has precedence over a older sister. I also believe that Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie will not have royal roles in Charles's reign, but that of his son Prince William.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Back 10 years ago or so, a Canadian challenged the Catholic exclusion in the Act of Settlement in Canadian Federal court. He argued that under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms it violates 'human rights' to exclude a Catholic monarch. The court ruled that the Act of Settlement is part of the Canadian Constitution and that our Bill of Rights did not apply to this area of law.
I mention this because that ruling gives me the impression that to amend the Act of Settlement to accommodate equal primogeniture, would actually require changing the Constitution of Canada and that puts the fear of God into Federal politicians who don't want to open a Pandora's Box with the Quebec separatists.
My understanding is that to amend our constitution would require not only Federal approval but also the approval of all the provincial premiers. (someone correct me if I'm wrong) and that needless to say is a huge deal in Canada and such constitutional showdowns a la Meech Lake are very very rare in Canada.
To confuse me even more, my local MP emailed me an answer to a question I had on equal primogeniture and he told me that 'the file on equal primogeniture was not currently active'
Does anyone have an update on all of this and do all of HM realms need to sign off or does it work by 'majority vote' or something along those lines?
Nick Clegg says it is a 'done deal' but it appears much work is still needed at least in Canada.

 

[Osipi]

Back 10 years ago or so, a Canadian challenged the Catholic exclusion in the Act of Settlement in Canadian Federal court. He argued that under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms it violates 'human rights' to exclude a Catholic monarch. The court ruled that the Act of Settlement is part of the Canadian Constitution and that our Bill of Rights did not apply to this area of law.
I mention this because that ruling gives me the impression that to amend the Act of Settlement to accommodate equal primogeniture, would actually require changing the Constitution of Canada and that puts the fear of God into Federal politicians who don't want to open a Pandora's Box with the Quebec separatists.
My understanding is that to amend our constitution would require not only Federal approval but also the approval of all the provincial premiers. (someone correct me if I'm wrong) and that needless to say is a huge deal in Canada and such constitutional showdowns a la Meech Lake are very very rare in Canada.
To confuse me even more, my local MP emailed me an answer to a question I had on equal primogeniture and he told me that 'the file on equal primogeniture was not currently active'
Does anyone have an update on all of this and do all of HM realms need to sign off or does it work by 'majority vote' or something along those lines?
Nick Clegg says it is a 'done deal' but it appears much work is still needed at least in Canada.

I think we need Iluvbertie here. She's taught me so much and i've come to think of her as TRF's historian.

What I find kind of anachronistic in this is that it pertains to Catholics only and that dates back to when under the pope, there was actual political power.

My thoughts are that if it changed, it would eliminate the the exclusion of a Catholic being married to a monarch. As it stands now, to my understanding, a monarch can marry an Atheist, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, Wiccan or Druid if he/she wishes..just not a Catholic. Those that would marry such monarch would agree to bring any children up in the CoE.

Its odd to mention but when Camilla married Andrew Parker Bowles and had children, both of them were raised in Andrew's Catholic faith and that Charles is the godfather of their oldest son Tom.

In that respect I do see a need for a change. The political power and affect on the world of the RC church is long gone and that rule is anachronistic.

 

[NGalitzine]

The election of a minority separatist government in Quebec will complicate the issue in Canada where approval of the provinces will be required. It will certainly not be a priority for the federal government and right now English Canada does not seem in the mood to give up anything more to Quebec which makes constitutional negotiations even messier.

 

[Iluvbertie]

All the realms have to approve the changes according to their own constitutions.

Canada and Australia are a little more confusing as they also are federations.

Canada requires all provinces to agree.

I am not sure, and have not been able to get a definitive answer, as to whether the states and federal governments in Australia have to agree, just the federal government or whether it may even have to go to a full referendum (which I doubt but that suggestion has been made by a friend of my father's who specialised in Constitutional Law as it applies to Australia throughout his working life of over 50 years).

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Thank you Iluvbertie for your reply. Hopefully TRH have a first born son because personally I can't see any politician in Canada giving the proposal for equal primogeniture a high priority.

 

[Artemisia]

All the Governments of Commonwealth Realms have already agreed to the proposal, although none has ratified it so far. The moment it is officially announced the Duchess of Cambridge is pregnant, it is likely the changes will be legalised in very short time, certainly before the birth of the child.

It may not be a priority issue, but it's also not one that can potentially divide a Parliament, so the changes are likely to be ratified quite quickly,

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

All the Governments of Commonwealth Realms have already agreed to the proposal, although none has ratified it so far.
The moment it is officially announced the Duchess of Cambridge is pregnant, it is likely the changes will be legalised in very short time, certainly before the birth of the child.

It may not be a priority issue, but it's also not one that can potentially divide a Parliament, so the changes are likely to be ratified quite quickly,

Canadian politicians' first priority is to the people of Canada. Domestic politics in Canada is such that if changing the Act of Settlement requires amending the Canadian Constitution, then it will get zero priority from any Prime Minister regardless of political party.

PM Harper only reluctantly gave his support after the other realms agreed to it but his first response was if its not broke then don't tamper with it.

There are too many groups in Canada that would love nothing more then to open up constitutional wrangling in order to further their own agendas and IMO no federal politician is going to touch this.

 

[Madame Royale]

Then Canada would be the constitutionally divisive stick in the mud.