Proposal for Equal Primogeniture Succession

[Sunnystar]

Princess Victoria married the German emperor Frederick III before her mother passed away. Wouldn't equal primogeniture have merged the two crowns if she became queen...would the same happen under equal primogeniture today? Lets say the eldest child of William and Catherine would be a daughter if she were to marry the eldest child of Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden if the child is a son, both children would be heirs to their individual countries thrones...so William and Catherine's daughter would be Queen of UK and Queen consort of Sweden? Too complicated...primogeniture should be left alone for now.

IMHO attention should be focused on the topic of succession and Catholicism.

I highly doubt that Vicky would have married someone that close to his own throne had she been first in line. With as many royals as there were floating around Europe in the 1850s-60s, her own Prince Philip would have been found.

 

[Royal_Eagle]

Princess Victoria married the German emperor Frederick III before her mother passed away. Wouldn't equal primogeniture have merged the two crowns if she became queen...would the same happen under equal primogeniture today? Lets say the eldest child of William and Catherine would be a daughter if she were to marry the eldest child of Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden if the child is a son, both children would be heirs to their individual countries thrones...so William and Catherine's daughter would be Queen of UK and Queen consort of Sweden? Too complicated...primogeniture should be left alone for now.

I think in this kind of situation, they would have to decide which Crown to take and decline the other Crown, if there are demands for that kind of decision. Not the kind of pressure a King Regent and Queen Regent would want to have. However I suspect it's not all that likely anyway, but you never know.

IMHO attention should be focused on the topic of succession and Catholicism.

I agree--I think it's probably much more practical to remove the requirement that the sponsor of a King/Queen be non-Catholics, although that too could also open up another can of worms.

 

[Russophile]

The proposed changes to the Act of Settlement will only apply to the order of succession when Charles becomes King.

The York's are doomed to never touch the throne.

And this would be a bad thing??

 

[Royal_Eagle]

And this would be a bad thing??

I strongly suspect that if they're going to set a new "root" ancestor to replace Electress Sophia, they'd pick someone more recent, maybe Queen Victoria? That way there'll be enough descendants just in case some unforseeable disaster strikes the family.

 

[sliver_bic]

And this would be a bad thing??

Considering the spine shattering shiver that would run through that island if Andrew (and through him Fergie) got anywhere near the throne? Yeah, we might see this as a good thing.

BUT...

If the change was to move Anne and her line above that of Andrew then there would be a very big change - who would be eligible to be the 4th CoS - from Andrew to Anne and Peter would then have to be prepared to take on that responsibility as well (something he hasn't really ever been prepared to do as it was always assumed that he would never have to serve in that capacity) while Beatrice would have been prepared to do it.

I agree, while Anne would do her mother's legacy proud what comes next? Would Anne's children be ready to take on the insane responsibility suddenly thrust upon them? Would it surprise anyone if one or both simply held up their hands and said, "No Thanks"? Then what?

If anything I think that might be the reason why the change wouldn't apply to the current royals.

 

[Baroness of Books]

I think establishing this change for the next unborn generation would be a good idea, leaving the status quo for the current royals. And it would be a good idea to do it soon, IMO, before William and Kate have a child, not decide afterward once they already have a family. I remember hearing about how the Swedish legislation changed the order of succession after Victoria and Carl Philip were born. He was actually the heir being the son although the second born, then Victoria was named when it was decided to change to equal primogeniture for firstborn regardless of gender. Somehow, I don't think it was fair to do it at that point, but that's just how I feel looking at this particular situation.

 

[EmpressRouge]

I strongly suspect that if they're going to set a new "root" ancestor to replace Electress Sophia, they'd pick someone more recent, maybe Queen Victoria? That way there'll be enough descendants just in case some unforseeable disaster strikes the family.

I see that happening, too. It's just more practical and other lines of successions are much shorter (~10-15 people) and imagine applying equal primogeniture to the thousands of descendants of Electress Sophia.
I understand why Queen Victoria would proposed, but there are lots of descendants of Victoria, Princess Royal and German Empress who might be able to claim spots, such as Princess Felicitas' surviving family, over the Windsors if Parliament didn't put in some special provisions.
Princess Felicitas of Prussia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also, many of Queen Victoria's descendants married foreign royals, including the current REIGNING houses of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Spain and even Monaco via Princess Alexandra of Hanover. The Spanish Royal Family are not in the line because they are Catholic but they are also going to repeal the ban on marrying Catholics (I doubt it will be applied retroactively but it's another complication).
IMO, George V would be a much more logical and practical "root" ancestor. First, most if not all of his living decedents are British since none of them have married into a foreign house. Remember when George I came from Hanover and he couldn't speak English very well? Second, George V was the founder of the House of Windsor, so that makes sense symbolically. Third, the impact of equal primogeniture on the line of succession would be minimal (Princess Anne and her descendants leap-frogging over Prince Andrew's. The Lascelles family over the Gloucesters and Kents, etc) and make the line of succession a big (in the event of some disaster), but still manageable group. Finally, the current royal family IS already the living descendants of George V. They're the ones that appear on the balcony at Trooping the Colour every year; just add the Lascelles family and it's complete.

 

[Royal_Eagle]

I see that happening, too. It's just more practical and other lines of successions are much shorter (~10-15 people) and imagine applying equal primogeniture to the thousands of descendants of Electress Sophia.
I understand why Queen Victoria would proposed, but there are lots of descendants of Victoria, Princess Royal and German Empress who might be able to claim spots, such as Princess Felicitas' surviving family, over the Windsors if Parliament didn't put in some special provisions.
Princess Felicitas of Prussia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also, many of Queen Victoria's descendants married foreign royals, including the current REIGNING houses of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Spain and even Monaco via Princess Alexandra of Hanover. The Spanish Royal Family are not in the line because they are Catholic but they are also going to repeal the ban on marrying Catholics (I doubt it will be applied retroactively but it's another complication).
IMO, George V would be a much more logical and practical "root" ancestor. First, most if not all of his living decedents are British since none of them have married into a foreign house. Remember when George I came from Hanover and he couldn't speak English very well? Second, George V was the founder of the House of Windsor, so that makes sense symbolically. Third, the impact of equal primogeniture on the line of succession would be minimal (Princess Anne and her descendants leap-frogging over Prince Andrew's. The Lascelles family over the Gloucesters and Kents, etc) and make the line of succession a big (in the event of some disaster), but still manageable group. Finally, the current royal family IS already the living descendants of George V. They're the ones that appear on the balcony at Trooping the Colour every year; just add the Lascelles family and it's complete.

Good point. I had thought of George V in fact, but figured Queen Victoria might be more symbolic, as she has been such a major historical figure in British history. But George V would also be very good candidate for "root" ancestor.

 

[NGalitzine]

Why is there any need to change the "root ancestor" at all? As I understand it any chnages in succession law will only affect those yet to be born all of whom will be descendents of the Electress. It should not matter that there are approximately 1900 people, living in different countries, who have some remote claim to the throne. I suspect they rather enjoy being able to say "bye the way did you know that I am 449th in succession, lol".

 

[TLLK]

It has to be done before William has children, very simple.

I agree. This needs to be handled prior to the birth of William's heir.

 

[Sherlock221B]

Under equal primogeniture what will happen to the Prince of Wales title? It is a title usually granted to the heir apparent, which traditionally is the monarch's eldest son. Will the PoW be vacant even if the monarch has a son, who is the eldest son but not the eldest child? And what of the Princess Royal title? Traditionally the eldest daughter, not necessarily the heir apparent, receives this title. Should the eldest daughter be allowed to have access to the duchy of Cornwall because she is the heir apparent? Should custom be changed for the monarch to no longer style their eldest daughter Princess Royal if she is the heir apparent under equal primogeniture? What about the other peerages...changing the line of succession to the throne would put a lot of pressure on them to change their individual lines of succession.

IHMO wait to see if William and Catherine's first child is a daughter to see if changing to equal primogeniture will even matter. If the child is a daughter I'm sure the support would be uncontainable and would crush any challenge to its legitimacy.

 

[wbenson]

Should the eldest daughter be allowed to have access to the duchy of Cornwall because she is the heir apparent?

Recent legislation actually allows the heir presumptive to be funded through the Duchy, so a female heir apparent would be entitled to funding through it (albeit through slightly convoluted means) even if she wasn't recognized as holding the Duchy itself.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/leg_sovereign_grant_main_provisions.htm

It provides that, if the heir is not the Duke of Cornwall and is over 18, the heir is given a grant equal to the Duchy revenues, unless Duchy revenues are more than the Sovereign Grant. The monarch would receive the Duchy revenues, and the Sovereign Grant would be reduced by an equal amount. In effect, the heir would receive the Duchy income.

 

[Sherlock221B]

There is currently legislation pending that would allow a female heiress presumptive to receive funding from the Duchy, actually. That would be irrespective of any change in the line of succession.

They would have to change that legislation to state heiress apparent, technically...anyway what I meant is will the heiress apparent inherit the duchy or will it still go to the eldest son?

 

[Lady Marmalade]

I just do not see what the big deal is. Let the first kid be the heir. My goodness, while I LOVE LOVE LOVE the British Royals...at the end of the day, we are not curing cancer here, there are NO major backlashes which could throw the countries of the Commonwealth into despair. It is 2011...let the first baby, no matter the sex, inherit the throne. It is just a big change on paper...tempest in a tea pot.

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

I don't think this means much if Females can't inherit peerages as well. It's an uneven situation if a Girl is ahead of her younger Brother in The Line of Succession, but she isn't even in line to her Father's Duchy.

While I commend what Cameron has set up, the unfairness when it comes to peerages, is even more backwards, and is more likely to have an effect on the issue of who does (or doesn't) inherit. I would love to see peerages become semi-salic at least.

 

[Baroness of Books]

Maybe the British government should look at the countries where they have monarchies with equal primogeniture and see how the peerage systems are handled regarding inheritance, if it hasn't already. That might give some guidance about handling future changes in the current system.

 

[NGalitzine]

I think Spain might be the only country that made a change affecting the peerage and from what I have read they seem to have buggered things up and caused a lot of discension in families. Interestingly enough they did not change male preference for succession to the throne.

 

[wbenson]

We have our answer on whether this change will directly impact peerages:

Ministers bar hereditary peerages from passing to women - Telegraph

Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the House of Lords, said that proposals to change the law on royal succession would not be extended to peers.

Speaking in the Lords, Lord Strathclyde said: “Changes to the law on succession to the throne can be effected without any change to the legitimate expectations of those in the line of succession. Changes to the rules governing succession to hereditary titles would be far more complicated to implement.”

 

[Daria_S]

There's an optimistic vibe about the success of the changes towards equal primogeniture. according to The Telegraph.

Royal family: First-born daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will take throne - Telegraph

 

[Sherlock221B]

Under this equal primogeniture act...if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's first child is a daughter, thus the heiress apparent I would presume, and she married a member of the peerage, will the throne change to the house of her husband?

 

[Lumutqueen]

Would that be any different to how it is now? Afaik, they're still The House Of Windsor not Mountbatten.

 

[Baroness of Books]

I wonder how a female heiress would be titled, if indeed she receives a modified one i.e. Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall?

 

[Lady Marmalade]

No. As we have seen with the change of the name first to the House of Windsor, and then to Mountbatten-Windsor, the house name will not change.

 

[Osipi]

No. As we have seen with the change of the name first to the House of Windsor, and then to Mountbatten-Windsor, the house name will not change.

Its always been the House of Windsor. In 1960 it was decreed though that should any of the descendants of Elizabeth II and Prince Philip need a surname, it would be Mountbatten-Windsor.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

So, William calls himself William Wales when he could/should call himself William Mountbatten-Windsor?

 

[Osipi]

So, William calls himself William Wales when he could/should call himself William Mountbatten-Windsor?

Wales is correct for William as he is a Prince of Wales. As Beatrice and Eugenie are "of York", they could use York. Edward and Sophie's children are Mountbatten-Windsor

I think this stipend is mostly for descendants that do not have HRH titles and would make use of a surname.

 

[Iluvbertie]

As the house name was change to Windsor only in 1917 for no other reason than to make it more English sounding there is no reason why a future house name change couldn't occur - it is up to the will on the monarch after all.

I actually suspect that if Charles had become King while Lord Mountbatten was still alive and if the Queen Mum had been the one to die in 1979 that the house name would already have changed to simply Mountbatten.

 

[Sherlock221B]

Its always been the House of Windsor. In 1960 it was decreed though that should any of the descendants of Elizabeth II and Prince Philip need a surname, it would be Mountbatten-Windsor.

No. As we have seen with the change of the name first to the House of Windsor, and then to Mountbatten-Windsor, the house name will not change.

Fascinating...under an equal primogeniture law if the heiress apparent/presumptive marries a peer his house will be abolished? Queen Victoria adopted the house of Prince Albert when they got married and she was already queen! Not allowing the heiress apparent to do the same...couldn't that be called a type of discrimination or blatant disrespect?

 

[Iluvbertie]

So, William calls himself William Wales when he could/should call himself William Mountbatten-Windsor?

As the son of The Prince of Wales he is Prince William OF Wales and Harry is Prince Harry OF Wales so what has happened is that both of them have dropped the 'of' and just used Wales as their name.

This is the same thing with the York princesses - they use 'York' as a name but it isn't really their name at all.

 

[wbenson]

Fascinating...under an equal primogeniture law if the heiress apparent/presumptive marries a peer his house will be abolished?

Yes. No. Maybe. It doesn't have anything to do with equal primogeniture succession, except that equal primogeniture succession means that the issue will have to be confronted slightly more often. There wasn't equal primogeniture succession in 1952, yet there's still the House of Windsor instead of the House of Mountbatten, Edinburgh, or Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg.