Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Windsors => Topic started by: CHRISinUSA on October 12, 2011, 12:25:32 PM

Title: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: CHRISinUSA on October 12, 2011, 12:25:32 PM
The AP is today reporting that David Cameron has written to the 15 other Commonwealth nations where the Queen is head of state, finally introducing a proposal to change the current laws of succession to allow the firstborn child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to succeed regardless of gender, and to scrap the ban on the monarch marrying a Catholic. 

While acknowledging it will be a complex effort, the prime minister said the time had come to begin the process.  He plans to discuss the proposal when he meets with leaders from Commonwealth countries in Australia later this month.

And so it begins........
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 12, 2011, 12:32:15 PM
This is way overdue. I hope it progresses ahead  with little opposition.
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Martyn on October 12, 2011, 12:35:50 PM
I second that.  High time that these arcane rules were put aside.
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: CHRISinUSA on October 12, 2011, 12:50:31 PM
I agree this is long overdue, and like you Robert, I hope that it progresses successfully to its stated end.  That is - simply to change the rules of succession to achieve gender equality and remove the Catholic ban, but nothing more.

My fear is that legal, political and/or public opinion floodgates may open along with the core debate.  Could this trigger some of the commonwealth realms to end the monarchy all together (particularly Canada and Australia)?  Or be used by factions in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland to call for a break up of the union?  

The last time each realm had to officially reach a decision on the succession was the Abdication - and all reached consensus with little serious objection or debate.  But that was a different era, and the nationalism of each realm and its people is also very different today.  The same outcome is by no means assured.
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: RoyalWatcher on October 12, 2011, 07:42:41 PM
Finally! I am so happy to see this initiative officially starting. I hope it can be done quickly...the commonwealth countries have had a very long time to think about it.

Does anyone know what the process is? Is it just a matter of drafting up the language and getting it approved by each of the commonwealth's PMs? Or, do the commonwealth governments take it to the people and have them vote on it? I wonder how long it took for the commonwealth to validate the abdication?
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: RoyalWatcher on October 12, 2011, 08:14:32 PM
What Mr. Cameron is proposing is the following:

(1) Ending male primogeniture. He is quoted as saying, "The first is the rule which says that an elder daughter should take a place in the line of succession behind a younger son. We espouse gender equality in all other aspects of life, and it is an anomaly that in the rules relating to the highest public office we continue to enshrine male superiority."

(2) Open the way for members of the Royal Family who marry a Roman Catholic being able to succeed to the Crown. In his letter to the 16 prime ministers, Mr. Cameron says "the rule is a historical anomaly as it does not apply to those who marry spouses of other faiths."

(3) He is calling for an end to the permission to marry rules, and limit to the first six in line to the throne those descendants of King George II who require the Monarch’s consent before they marry.

Among the laws which would need to be amended or repealed if the rule changes were agreed include:


Source: The Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/8822447/Royal-family-Cameron-begins-process-to-allow-first-born-daughters-to-accede-throne.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/8822447/Royal-family-Cameron-begins-process-to-allow-first-born-daughters-to-accede-throne.html)
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: CHRISinUSA on October 13, 2011, 07:50:25 AM
I wonder how long it took for the commonwealth to validate the abdication?

According to a BBC timeline, pretty quickly. 

On Nov 15 1936 Edward first told Baldwin of his intent to marry Mrs. Simpson; Baldwin replied that whomever the King marries becomes Queen and that the public would not accept Mrs. Simpson.  Edward first says that he is prepared to go. 

On Nov 25, Edward again calls for Baldwin and tells him he wants a morganatic marriage.  He authorizes Baldwin to raise the matter with the Cabinet and commonwealth.  Within 7 days (Dec 2) Baldwin returned to the King telling him that the cabinet and commonwealth rejected such a marriage.

9 Dec - Edward notifies government of his intent to abdicate.
10 Dec - Edward signs Instrument of Abdication.  Baldwin informs the Commons.
11 Dec - Abdication endorsed by Parliament.  Edward abdicates and George VI becomes King
10 Dec - 12 Dec - all the commonwealth realms approved the abdication (either their legislatures if they were in session, or governments)

So the whole actual process took about 2 to 2 1/2 weeks.  Pretty remarkable when you think of it.

Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Kalafrana on October 13, 2011, 09:06:38 AM
Bear in mind that the abdication was an emergency, and problems arose with the legislation afterwards because it was drafted in haste and rushed through Parliament.

Ann
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on October 13, 2011, 04:12:52 PM
"My fear is that legal, political and/or public opinion floodgates may open along with the core debate.  Could this trigger some of the commonwealth realms to end the monarchy all together (particularly Canada and Australia)?  Or be used by factions in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland to call for a break up of the union?"

I can certainly see this could be a potential problem, but I believe the timing has been very well chosen to lessen the possibilities of this happening. Which of the Dominions or indeed Nations of the United Kingdom would use this as an exit visa with the Queen's popularity at an all time high; the Diamond Jubilee less than a year away and the fairytale romance and marriage of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge still in recent memory?

R.I. 

Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: CountessKate on October 14, 2011, 06:20:59 AM
Quote
Could this trigger some of the commonwealth realms to end the monarchy all together (particularly Canada and Australia)?  Or be used by factions in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland to call for a break up of the union?"

If the British government chose not to put in place a more equitable monarchy because one or any of the countries in the commonwealth might decide to exercise their democratic rights and not have a monarchy at all, we've come to a pretty pass.  There is undoubtedly a certain political cunning in the timing as the Emperor points out, but it's the right thing to do regardless.
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: toddy on October 14, 2011, 07:24:28 AM
  they shouldn't change anything   This proposed law will be the down fall of the British Monarchy   I find it silly that a institution thats not democratic  and they are worried about fairness.  to be fair why don't they hold elections? elect the monarch? that's fair where do you stop?
this is absurd. 
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: CHRISinUSA on October 14, 2011, 08:58:07 AM
Emperor - I agree with your points about good timing - and add another:  the economy.  Case in point:  Canada.  Its government doesn't want a debate on the monarchy, they want to focus all of their efforts on the economy.

Just in April of this year, Prime Minister Harper said:  "The successor to the throne is a man. The next successor to the throne is a man.  I don't think Canadians want to open a debate on the monarchy or constitutional matters at this time.  That's our position, and I just don't see that as a priority for Canadians right now, at all."

Yesterday, this position has eased slightly - but Canada's government still clearly wants this to be dealt with quickly and without any fuss. 

"Prime Minister Harper has informed Prime Minister Cameron that we are supportive of these reasonable modernizations," spokesman Andrew MacDougall said Thursday in an email.  "However, the government doesn' believe there should be extensive parliamentary time spent debating this when the government is focused on creating jobs and growth in the economy."

So perhaps throwing together the current high goodwill for the royals with a bad economy might result in this being less troublesome than I originally feared.  Time will tell.....
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: DNAgenie on October 14, 2011, 05:12:51 PM
Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard is backing a move by British Prime Minister David Cameron to rewrite constitutional law so the eldest daughter of the monarch can become queen, even if she has younger brothers.

Mr Cameron has written to 15 countries where the Queen is head of state asking for an agreement to the changes at a Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Perth later this month. Ms Gillard spoke in support of the changes earlier this year and said yesterday that as the first female Prime Minister she believed in equal rights for women.  She will consult the Australian states and territories about the proposal ahead of the CHOGM, a spokeswoman said.

Staunch monarchist Tony Abbott is also backing the plan. "It is a sensible change and a significant step in keeping the monarchy contemporary," the Opposition Leader said yesterday.  Mr Cameron also wants to ensure that marrying a Catholic is no longer a bar to the throne.  As well as winning approval from the Commonwealth, the changes would require amendments to at least half a dozen acts of parliament in Britain.  The Queen has given her assent to the latest initiative, which would rewrite the rules for descendants of the Prince of Wales but would not change the current line of succession.

Mr Cameron is proposing three main changes: that succession should be determined simply by the order of birth, regardless of gender; lifting the ban on anyone married to a Catholic succeeding to the crown; and tidying up the Royal Marriages Act 1772, under which descendants of George II require the monarch's consent before they marry.

Source:  The Australian.  October 14, 2011
 
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Grace on October 14, 2011, 06:19:19 PM
Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard is backing a move by British Prime Minister David Cameron to rewrite constitutional law so the eldest daughter of the monarch can become queen, even if she has younger brothers.

For me, to think of either of these clowns playing around with the Constitution is extremely unsettling. 
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Janet Ashton on October 14, 2011, 06:39:06 PM
Emperor - I agree with your points about good timing - and add another:  the economy.  Case in point:  Canada.  Its government doesn't want a debate on the monarchy, they want to focus all of their efforts on the economy.


Whereas Cameron's intention is to focus attention on anything BUT the economy. Even if it entails matters as massively peripheral and irrelevant to most people's lives as the royal family and their "fairytale romances". 
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Grace on October 14, 2011, 10:05:55 PM
Anything but the economy!  Cameron's main interests at present besides changing the laws of succession for the British monarchy seem to be plastic bags and more women in top executive jobs. 

I don't agree with most opinion on this thread.  I can't see the need for change.  Just my opinion. 
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: darius on October 15, 2011, 07:19:47 AM
A ridiculous proposal from a ridiculous govenrment and a discredited political class.  None of these proposals is in the wider public interest.  Neither the Act of Settlement nor male primogeniture affect a wide swathe of the citizens of either the United Kingdom or the Commonwealth - if anybody is discriminated against it is the members of the Royal Family.  This opens the floodgates for further tinkering with the Monarchy, disestablishment of the Church of England and a further breakdown of long established norms which I stress, while the PM may call historical "anomalies", served to make the UK a strong, independent power in the 18th and 19th Centuries.
Why can´t these politicians do the job they were elected to do and stop creating side shows which have nothing to do with the current troubled times we live in. 
As far as I am aware, Spain wouldn´t accept a Protestant King.
The Government should remember and learne from the lessons of history before riding roughshod over what has been developed in the course of the previous centuries.
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: TampaBay on October 15, 2011, 09:04:07 AM
Japan talked about changing their succession laws ao a woman could sit on the throne and don't think the idea went anywhere.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: toddy on October 15, 2011, 09:13:17 AM
this is just political theater   when Charles becomes King George VII  he could reign for 20 years then William another 30+ it will be well over 50 years  why is this a issue?  they are destroying the magic . its only a mater of time before its done in.
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Martyn on October 15, 2011, 09:56:13 AM
Emperor - I agree with your points about good timing - and add another:  the economy.  Case in point:  Canada.  Its government doesn't want a debate on the monarchy, they want to focus all of their efforts on the economy.


Whereas Cameron's intention is to focus attention on anything BUT the economy. Even if it entails matters as massively peripheral and irrelevant to most people's lives as the royal family and their "fairytale romances". 

Absolutely.  The notion of Cameron espousing the causes of fairness and equality has a rather hollow ring to it anyway.  Still unlikely to distract anyone from the fact that his strategies are proving no more successful with the economy than those of the previous incumbent of his post.


Still, the principle of these reforms is sound, so why not get it all sorted now?
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: aleksandr pavlovich on October 15, 2011, 04:16:50 PM
Japan talked about changing their succession laws ao a woman could sit on the throne and don't think the idea went anywhere.

TampaBay
    When that proposal was made, the two sons of the Emperor Akihito had only female children.  On Sept. 6th, 2006, Prince Hisahito was born (to Prince and Princess Akishino), thus presently becoming third in line to the Japanese throne.  In Jan. of 2007, the Prime Minister  of Japan announced that the proposal was thus being dropped.     Regards,   AP.
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: ashdean on October 15, 2011, 04:34:16 PM
this is just political theater   when Charles becomes King George VII  he could reign for 20 years then William another 30+ it will be well over 50 years  why is this a issue?  they are destroying the magic . its only a mater of time before its done in.
I have never heard that instead of being Charles III the current Prince of Wales will be George VII?
I look forward to living in a CAROLEAN era...though not for many years yet!
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: DNAgenie on October 15, 2011, 07:04:20 PM
Quote
Mr Cameron has written to 15 countries where the Queen is head of state asking for an agreement to the changes at a Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Perth later this month. Ms Gillard spoke in support of the changes earlier this year and said yesterday that as the first female Prime Minister she believed in equal rights for women.  She will consult the Australian states and territories about the proposal ahead of the CHOGM, a spokeswoman said.

In a warm-up to the royal tour of Australia by the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, due to start next Wednesday, the Queen has held a reception for 350 Australians at Buckingham Palace. Guests included Hugh Jackman, Elle McPherson, Jason Donovan and Tim Cahill but the star of the show was Australian writer Kathy Lette. Accompanied by her husband, international civil-rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson, QC, Kathy was presented to the Queen wearing a suit, screen-printed with Corgis, all wearing crowns.

"Do you like it?" she asked the Queen, of the outfit commissioned from a mate with a sewing machine in Cronulla. "I wore it specially for you."  She says the Queen looked down and her eyes widened.   "Phillip!" she said. "Look at this!"

Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Kalafrana on October 16, 2011, 06:20:05 AM
I'm not at all convinced that this is necessary. The present system has worked perfectly well for over 300 years and all inheritance involves anomalies anyway (most peerages cannot be inherited by or through females at all!). However, if there must be a change, this would be a sensible time to do it, before William and Katharine have children and when the effect on people already living is likely to be small.

Ann
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Dasha on October 16, 2011, 08:15:24 PM
Here's an article from The Telegraph on this issue.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/8829295/Queen-backs-plan-to-let-daughter-of-Prince-William-and-Kate-Middleton-to-accede-to-the-throne.html
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Archduchess Zelia on October 16, 2011, 09:00:48 PM
Wonderful, it was definitely about time.
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: toddy on October 17, 2011, 03:45:25 AM
if they just leave it the way it is more english girls could become queen.  kate middleton is oing to be queen? right
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Dasha on October 17, 2011, 03:16:24 PM
if they just leave it the way it is more english girls could become queen.  kate middleton is oing to be queen? right

She'll be the Queen Consort to Prince William, who'll be King William V (if he chooses to go with that name of course).
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on October 19, 2011, 07:02:18 PM
As I suggested in a previous post, politically the timing couldn't be better. With support for the monarchy fairly high and indeed with Commonwealth and home Nations grappling with economic fears subsequently making this issue a low priority, it may mean that these measures may go through 'on the nod' without much uproar. Whether Cameron has opened this up to detract attention from his plodding approach to economic matters (if indeed it has that affect) is open to debate and I'm sure we shall never really know. It could also be argued that this is a natural progression against the backdrop of the 'modernisation' of the House of Lords.

From the Queen's perspective she is reported to have endorsed these proposals. There have been wide ranging reforms throughout her reign, to try and make the institution of monarchy a little more relevant to the modern age. I have no doubt that this another example of her 'tidying up' and moulding the institution to suit her vision as best she can; and by a monarch with sufficient authority to enable and see through the change. The monarchy can never be seen as democratic, populist or modern, that simply isn't its function; but perhaps a little less archaic and sexist.

Now that this has been raised as an issue, I can see no defence in keeping the current arrangement of the priority younger brothers take over older sisters as heirs the the throne. Moreover some of our greatest monarchs have been Queen's (Elizabeth I, Victoria, Elizabeth II) a little more of which may not harm us. The current ruling that a monarch may not marry a Catholic is, I would suggest today irrelevant. Perhaps more controversially. they may however marry a Muslim, a Jew or a member of any other faith or none, other than a Catholic. And the ruling that permission should be sought to marry whomsoever they wish by all royal descendants is largely academic. Who marries whom in the direct line of the throne is no doubt suitably scrutinised, but these days even rugby players are given permission to marry those royals unlikely to ascend the throne.

R.I.
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on October 19, 2011, 07:17:17 PM
this is just political theater   when Charles becomes King George VII  he could reign for 20 years then William another 30+ it will be well over 50 years  why is this a issue?  they are destroying the magic . its only a mater of time before its done in.
I have never heard that instead of being Charles III the current Prince of Wales will be George VII?
I look forward to living in a CAROLEAN era...though not for many years yet!

Indeed Ashdean this has been widely mooted and I believe even by the Prince of Wales himself. I think it has to do with some superstition around the name King Charles - beheading, the fall of the monarchy and the like. Of course this is not an unusual step by any means, I gather the POW favours the title King George VII out of great respect and admiration for his grandfather; who of course chose to be called George VI instead of King Albert I. Other examples include Prince Albert Edward who chose Edward VII, Princess Victoria who chose Queen Mary etc.

R.I.
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: darius on October 20, 2011, 12:32:06 AM
These changes affect the fabric of the Monarchy.  If we start relegislating the rules for the line of succession isn´t it possible that we may get to the stage where inheritance by the first born may seem to discriminate against the other siblings?

Regarding the religious bar, it should be remembered that a central part of the Coronation ceremony is the Monarch´s oath to uphold the Protestant faith.  of course Muslims and Jews were not included in the original bar as our ancestors surely didn´t contemplate the possibility of today´s multi-cultural society.  The benefits of the Protestant succession should also be highly considered.  They kept Britain free from Vatican influence which even in the last decades of the 20th Century was brought to bear on the crowned head of Belgium when King Boudouin abdicated for a day to allow the passage of the abotion law. 
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Martyn on October 20, 2011, 08:05:52 AM
Vatican influence?  Do you think that likely?

Prince Charles has some definite views about the monarchy and the way that he should represent the respective faiths that make up the population of the UK, so we may well see some changes in relation to this upon his accession........
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: TampaBay on October 20, 2011, 09:03:06 AM
I do not think you will see any changes unless the first Cambridge child is a girl. 

If it is a girl then I think you will see the change in the laws of successioin.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: mcdnab on October 20, 2011, 10:33:35 AM

Few points:

Personally I don't have a problem with a switch to gender-blind primogeniture - I would rather it was done quickly and limited to the descendants of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. (given that the first three people in the line of succession are male)
I would also like to see a change in the rules of the Duchy of Cornwall so that it is free to go to the eldest child of the sovereign rather than the current eldest son - otherwise the usual income of an heir to the throne could end up with a younger brother.
Wales is in the gift of the sovereign and one would assume with any change in the rules that future King's with an older daughter as heir would create her Princess of Wales.


On religion I am pretty undecided.

Respecting differing religions is one thing but Britain is still essentially a Protestant nation.

I continue to have a historical and personal view that it is incompatable for a Head of State to owe allegiance to another ruler (whether religious or otherwise) - especially given the Roman Catholic church as an organisation continues to argue its right to discriminate on religious grounds against numerous people.

My understanding that the Protestant Oath and the Coronation Oath regarding upholding the Protestant Faith applies only to Britain anyway now and not the commonwealth nations of whom the British Monarch remains sovereign.

Britain (and the Commonwealth nations) are not unique in requiring their monarchs to be of a certain faith - for a variety of historical reasons.

The Bill of Rights 1689 is quite clear - "it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince, or by any king or queen marrying a papist"
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: CHRISinUSA on October 20, 2011, 10:48:21 AM
Wow, several very key points mcdnab.  I hadn't even thought of the issue of the Duchy of Cornwall and/or the title of the Prince(ss) of Wales - but you're right, other changes would have to be made as a result of a succession change. 

From what I've read - the sovereign himself / herself would still be required to practice the Anglican faith, under the new proposed changes.  However, he/she would not be legally barred from the throne by marriage to a Catholic, nor would any of the other members of the royal family. 

TampaBay - I also read that Cameron's timing was intended to make sure any change is implemented BEFORE the Cambridges' first child is born.  Nobody wants to go through the controversy Sweden went through when their succession law was changed after the birth of CPss Victoria's brother, which had the effect of "stripping" one heir of his position and giving it to another.
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Kalafrana on October 20, 2011, 10:50:52 AM
I agree that if there is to be change it needs to be done before the Cambridges have children.

In a newspaper article the other day, someone raised the complication which would arise if boy-girl twins were born by caesarean. Does anyone know whether the Danish Crown Prince's twins were born naturally or not? Fortunately they have an elder brother in any event!

Ann
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: toddy on October 23, 2011, 07:59:40 AM
when King george VI became king the duchy of cornwall was vested in him he recieved the income so  to quote king george IV mutton or veal call yourself what you like .  princess elisabeth had income  . King george VI used the duchy of cornwall income to provide his brothers etc with money and to buy back sandringham and  balmoral from the duke of windsor      this is a big mistake  in messing with the fabric of the monarchy  this will be the downfall of the british monarchy.     i am afraid to say it but the magic is gone.
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: darius on October 31, 2011, 07:31:41 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/8858687/Friederike-I-the-woman-who-would-be-Queen.html


Interesting if somewhat futile article about the hyopthesis of Queen Frederike I had the succession passed through females via Queen Victoria and Empress Frederick.


Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on November 01, 2011, 08:48:01 PM
As I suggested in a previous post, politically the timing couldn't be better. With support for the monarchy fairly high and indeed with Commonwealth and home Nations grappling with economic fears subsequently making this issue a low priority, it may mean that these measures may go through 'on the nod' without much uproar. Whether Cameron has opened this up to detract attention from his plodding approach to economic matters (if indeed it has that affect) is open to debate and I'm sure we shall never really know. It could also be argued that this is a natural progression against the backdrop of the 'modernisation' of the House of Lords.

From the Queen's perspective she is reported to have endorsed these proposals. There have been wide ranging reforms throughout her reign, to try and make the institution of monarchy a little more relevant to the modern age. I have no doubt that this another example of her 'tidying up' and moulding the institution to suit her vision as best she can; and by a monarch with sufficient authority to enable and see through the change. The monarchy can never be seen as democratic, populist or modern, that simply isn't its function; but perhaps a little less archaic and sexist.

Now that this has been raised as an issue, I can see no defence in keeping the current arrangement of the priority younger brothers take over older sisters as heirs the the throne. Moreover some of our greatest monarchs have been Queen's (Elizabeth I, Victoria, Elizabeth II) a little more of which may not harm us. The current ruling that a monarch may not marry a Catholic is, I would suggest today irrelevant. Perhaps more controversially. they may however marry a Muslim, a Jew or a member of any other faith or none, other than a Catholic. And the ruling that permission should be sought to marry whomsoever they wish by all royal descendants is largely academic. Who marries whom in the direct line of the throne is no doubt suitably scrutinised, but these days even rugby players are given permission to marry those royals unlikely to ascend the throne.

R.I.
[/quote




And so it is done; as I suspected without much fuss and I doubt whether it will cause The House of Windsor to implode. Just some 'tidying up' before it becomes an issue for William and Kate.

R.I.
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: wildone on November 02, 2011, 12:10:00 AM
There was a recent article that speculated if Vicky inherited the throne from QV, she would have died just eight months later.  The problem with that hypothesis is it assumes all conditions would have been the same, that Vicky's cancer couldn't possibly have been caused by the pressures of her impossible position in Germany and/or the atmosphere of Berlin.  Vicky, Princess of Wales, would have remained in Britain, where she would have thrived under the regime that chafed Bertie.  She would have likely married a much more minor German noble (if even German) than Frederick of Prussia.  And she might have lived decades longer. 
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: TampaBay on November 02, 2011, 09:44:41 AM


Interesting if somewhat futile article about the hyopthesis of Queen Frederike I had the succession passed through females via Queen Victoria and Empress Frederick.





Queen Frederike??? Who is this person and how is she related to Empress Frederick?

Queen Victoria - Empress Frederick - Wilhelm II - ????

TampaBay
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Kalafrana on November 02, 2011, 10:07:42 AM
Wilhelm II - Crown Prince Wilhelm - Prince Wilhelm Friedrich - Princess Felicitas - Frederike

Wilhelm Friedrich was killed in action in 1940. He made a morganatic marriage, and, I think, renounced his place in the Prussian succession. This did not, however, affect his place in the British succession.

Ann
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: CHRISinUSA on November 02, 2011, 04:21:53 PM
And so it is done; as I suspected without much fuss and I doubt whether it will cause The House of Windsor to implode. Just some 'tidying up' before it becomes an issue for William and Kate.R.I.

Well, I share your hope that this will passes nicely and without fuss; however, it is by no means done.  Cameron and the other Commonwealth Realm prime ministers have merely agreed in principal to the changes.  I was never much worried about that step. My main concern comes in the next phase - when each of those ministers actually starts to implement the plan back home. 

Take Canada, for example.  With patriation of the Canadian Constitution in 1982, a complete amending formula was adopted.  Some parts of the Constitution may only be modified by a unanimous vote of all the provinces plus the two Houses of Parliament.  These include changes to the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada, changing the process for amending the constitution itself, or any act affecting the Offices of the Canadian monarch or governor general.  The succession would apply here.

So regardless of what Prime Minister Harper may have informed Prime Minister Cameron whilst in Perth, he has to get unanimous consent of all 10 Canadian provinces and both houses of Parliament.  That will not happen without a great deal of debate in all the relevant chambers and bodies  - debates which will no doubt call into question whether the time has come to end the monarchy in Canada all together.  Quebec, in particular, has no strong affinity for the Crown and its refusal would effectively bring the debate to a halt.
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: grandduchessella on November 03, 2011, 10:47:14 AM
There was a recent article that speculated if Vicky inherited the throne from QV, she would have died just eight months later.  The problem with that hypothesis is it assumes all conditions would have been the same, that Vicky's cancer couldn't possibly have been caused by the pressures of her impossible position in Germany and/or the atmosphere of Berlin.  Vicky, Princess of Wales, would have remained in Britain, where she would have thrived under the regime that chafed Bertie.  She would have likely married a much more minor German noble (if even German) than Frederick of Prussia.  And she might have lived decades longer. 

Part of the main problem (and, yes, it's all in fun) is that it is highly unlikely that the future Queen of England would've been married off to the future King of Prussia. Vicky probably would've made a marriage like her mother did with a minor German princeling. So there wouldn't be a "Frederike" to be Queen.
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: TimM on November 03, 2011, 11:10:45 AM
I think that Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria, and our current Queen (I'm Canadian) have shown that a woman is just as capable of doing the job that a man is.  I welcome this change.
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: TampaBay on November 03, 2011, 11:38:58 AM

There was a recent article that speculated if Vicky inherited the throne from QV, she would have died just eight months later.  The problem with that hypothesis is it assumes all conditions would have been the same, that Vicky's cancer couldn't possibly have been caused by the pressures of her impossible position in Germany and/or the atmosphere of Berlin.  Vicky, Princess of Wales, would have remained in Britain, where she would have thrived under the regime that chafed Bertie.  She would have likely married a much more minor German noble (if even German) than Frederick of Prussia.  And she might have lived decades longer.  



Part of the main problem (and, yes, it's all in fun) is that it is highly unlikely that the future Queen of England would've been married off to the future King of Prussia. Vicky probably would've made a marriage like her mother did with a minor German princeling. So there wouldn't be a "Frederike" to be Queen.


True, but it is fun!  Did not Freddy, the Queen of Greece, once say to an Englishmen that if you had salic law my father (Hanover) would be your King!

TampaBay
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: TampaBay on November 03, 2011, 11:40:55 AM

I think that Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria, and our current Queen (I'm Canadian) have shown that a woman is just as capable of doing the job that a man is.  I welcome this change.


I have always thought that of QEII's four children, Anne would make the best Constitutional Monarch.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: RoyalWatcher on November 03, 2011, 02:44:21 PM
I would have to agree with you there, TampaBay. She's a lot like her mother: no nonsense and gets on with it.
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Grace on November 04, 2011, 03:50:46 AM
Anne has many of her mother's qualities - far more of them than any of her brothers - but whether she would have the Queen's patience and tolerance for standing, shaking hands and looking pleasant and interested for hours on end is something I doubt.
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Kalafrana on November 04, 2011, 04:57:33 AM
'Anne has many of her mother's qualities - far more of them than any of her brothers - but whether she would have the Queen's patience and tolerance for standing, shaking hands and looking pleasant and interested for hours on end is something I doubt.'


Around 1983 Princess Anne visited my father's RAF station, and he has been an ardent admirer of hers ever since. However, when he remarked to her equerry over lunch that she looked as though she was enjoying herself, the equerry replied ruefully, 'Yes, we'd know if she wasn't.'

Ann
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Grace on November 04, 2011, 05:17:18 AM
Haha, that's a good story!
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: DNAgenie on November 04, 2011, 04:59:50 PM
At the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Perth, Western Australia, the 16 other Commonwealth Prime Ministers agreed to British Prime Minister David Cameron's proposal to reform the rules for the royal succession.  The leaders of the Commonwealth realms agreed to introduce legislation to end male primogeniture of descendants of Charles, Prince of Wales, and to allow heirs to the throne to marry Roman Catholics.

British prime minister David Cameron said the agreement, unanimously backed by all 16 nations where Queen Elizabeth II is head of state, represented an "historic moment" for the monarchy. The changes will have to be formally enacted by legislation in each of the affected nations, but this can now be expected to follow in due course.
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Martyn on November 07, 2011, 10:42:07 AM
Anne has many of her mother's qualities - far more of them than any of her brothers - but whether she would have the Queen's patience and tolerance for standing, shaking hands and looking pleasant and interested for hours on end is something I doubt.

I doubt it as well.  She may favour the Queen in some respects, but there are some very strong similarities of character that she shares with her notoriously crusty father, which certainly would not make her the most popular choice of monarch!
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: CHRISinUSA on December 05, 2012, 02:58:21 PM
I'm posting here to move this thread back up near the top of the list, so that people will post here about changes in the succession law, and not be tempted to continue posting on that topic in the William and Catherine thread.
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Michael HR on December 08, 2012, 08:57:12 AM
Very much about time I feel
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: darius on December 08, 2012, 09:08:30 AM
As I posted on the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge thread, yes I believe that the male primogeniture should be reviewed.  I do not however agree with the other proposals to change various Acts of Parliament which govern the succession and other matters related to the throne.  It is an astonishing waste of Parliamentary time, is not needed and in the short to medium term can only undermine the Monarchy and its position at the apex of the government structure.  Once a govenment starts to meddle in these things they start a huge process of unravelling of the constitutions fabric, something which if we are Monarchists we should strive to oppose.
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Blurgle on December 17, 2012, 01:49:10 PM
It would be rather stupid not to change the rules now, because the next time a woman (or someone married to a Catholic) is passed over there'll be a legal challenge here in Canada, and the challenge will win without question or discussion. The succession rules as they currently stand are absolutely unconstitutional and would not stand for a moment if challenged.
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: CHRISinUSA on December 17, 2012, 04:20:01 PM
While on some levels I agree with Darius, it is because of what our new addition Burgle just wrote which makes these changes - while uncomfortable for those of us who do not wish to rock boats - absolutely essential.

The world (and in this case the Commonwealth realms) are so very different from the start of the last reign.  In 1952 it was acceptable to have enshrined discrimination against Catholics (or their spouses) and practice gender bias in choosing the Head of State.   But as Burgle said, today's Canada has legalized gay marriage and enshrined many other progressive / inclusive laws.  Other realms have done as much too.  So I agree that the current succession rules would never withstand a court challenge - and one would definitely be filed.  If these rules aren't changed now, the door would be open to different monarchs potentially being proclaimed in different realms.  That's not worth trying to retain some old - and rather frayed - constitutional fabric.
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: mcdnab on December 27, 2012, 10:54:13 AM
Well would assume that any legal challenge would have to be mounted by the individual affected so it would be unlikely to succeed.
I do think the whole issue is a complete waste of time although switching to gender blind succession is a sensible and practical change and relatively easy to achieve.
There are significant reasons why the monarch has to be in communion with the Church of England and currently cannot be a Roman Catholic or marry one (although the framers of the legislation never assumed a RC would be willing to convert)
No-one in direct line has ever lost out because of it since the death of Queen Anne in 1714 (when a whole host of people were excluded) - currently the only people who would be excluded in the immediate line are the Duke of Kent's children (who have converted) and Prince Michael of Kent (who married a Catholic though his children are Anglican and remain in the succession)
Of course it is discriminatory, partially because the acts do not prohibit marriage to any other religion such as Orthodoxy etc, but then so is the whole aspect of monarchy - a job one is 'born to' etc.
Many others of the surviving European monarchies had or still have religious requirements for their monarch enshrined in law or their constitutions. Principally the Protestant ones where the monarch has a position in connection with the national church.
The people who wrote and devised the legislation after the 'Glorious Revolution' were reacting to the idea that it had proved damaging to have a Roman Catholic monarch, they were also reacting to the fact that most of Europe's absolute monarchies were RC and they were creating or expanding a limited parliamentary monarchy.
The oath to maintain the Protestant religion is a legal requirement and now only applies to the United Kingdom (not the monarchs other realms and territories).
As has been pointed out the next two heirs to the throne (Charles and William) are married to Anglicans so that effectively means the issue should be booted to the long grass.
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Kalafrana on December 28, 2012, 07:11:04 AM
I would just add that in 1701, when the Act of Settlement was passed, there was a real and justified  fear of civil war over the succession. The Old Pretender was not lacking in support in Britain, and Louis XIV would have been only too delighted to make use of him for his own purposes. Jacobitism never actually achieved very much, but that was more than anything a matter of accident. Carlos II of Spain died in 1700, and the preliminary moves before the War of the Spanish Succession were taking place at the same time. It was very fortunate for Britain that the death of Queen Anne caught the Pretender and his supporters on the hop, and George I was able to travel to England unmolested. By the time they were ready to move, Louis XIV had died and the regents for Louis XV had other priorities.

Ann
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: RoyalWatcher on December 28, 2012, 02:09:17 PM
Very interesting indeed, Ann. It was if everything had come together at the right time and place as it was meant to be.
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: RoyalWatcher on December 31, 2012, 12:30:51 PM
So I have been reading various stories in the press about the possibility of the monarch's consort titled "Prince Consort" or "Princess Consort." If this measure is included in the new succession law, this would mean that both Camilla and Kate would not be titled "Queen Consort."

What is the consensus amongst this group? Do you want to see the female consort's title changed or left as is?
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Vecchiolarry on December 31, 2012, 05:23:47 PM
Hi,

Personaly, I do not favour the title, "Princess Consort"...  The wife of a King is and should be "Queen"......
And as much as do not care for Camilla, she should be Queen when the time comes.  And, Catherine definitely must be Queen at her time...

As a matter of fact, I do wish Camilla would use the Princess of Wales title;  and The Queen should degree that she use this title;  even though it may upset the 'Diana bunch'.....
After all, the title is not the sole perogative of Diana.
Alexandra and Mary were Princesses of Wales in their time;  and Mary was even when Alexandra was alive(albeit as Queen by then!!).....

As for Prince Consort - I can see the husband of a Queen title thusly after some years of public service to the nation and the Commonwealth.
I do think Prince Philip should have elevated (enobled) thusly long ago...

Cheers,
Larry
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Kalafrana on January 01, 2013, 03:53:45 AM
I think a feamle consort should stay Queen, and I'm happy to upset the Diana bunch by having Camilla use the title of Princess of Wales.

I have heard rumours that it was suggested some time ago that Prince Philip should be Prince Consort, but he declined.

Ann
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Paul on January 01, 2013, 07:15:18 AM
'Princess Consort' reeks of morganatic marriage- a decidedly archaic institution.  A British king's wife should be a Queen Consort.

And yes: delightful though Diana was, she's gone. The Diana mob needs to move on. Charles/ Diana/ Camilla were basically three decent people who were caught up in a sad situation. Camilla doesn't deserve to be punished or publicly degraded for it.
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: CHRISinUSA on January 01, 2013, 05:47:20 PM
I'll add my voice to the chorus who believes Camilla should assume the title of Queen upon Charles' succession.  And I think she will.

In my opinion, it was appropriate she adopted the style Duchess of Cornwall when she and Charles wed; public sentiment simply would not have accepted her as Princess of Wales at that time, less than a decade after the loss of Diana.  And frankly, the "it is intended that she be known as Princess Consort" line was just too loosely worded to not be leaving the door open for future consideration.

Any number of things could happen between now and the next reign.  Charles could predecease his mother; Camilla could predecease Charles.  But assuming the expected order of things comes to pass, and given that she has proven herself a worthy consort in the meantime, I predict that it will be queen, not princess consort. 
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: mcdnab on January 02, 2013, 06:44:30 AM

The suggestion was made as has been mentioned at the time of the couple's marriage as part of an attempt to satisfy those people who were still opposed to the idea of Charles and Camilla marrying at all.
It has no standing in law - as was made very clear in the 1930's it would take a parliamentary act (in all the monarch's realmz) to introduce the idea of a wife not sharing her husband's styles and title and creating a new style of title for her.
I have absolutely no doubt that if or when Charles succeeds then Camilla should be Queen.
Personally I agree with another poster that she should be styled Princess of Wales (she is styled Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland as Diana was before her) - there is usually no delay in the title passing on apart form a short delay in creating the future George V as Prince of Wales largely because his parents (Edward VII and Alexandra of Denmark) were rather protective of the title having born it for so many decades - for several months George V was known as Duke of York and Cornwall much to his irritation (he wasted no time on his accession in creating the future Edward VIII prince of Wales).
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Grace on January 02, 2013, 07:46:04 AM
'Princess Consort' reeks of morganatic marriage- a decidedly archaic institution.  A British king's wife should be a Queen Consort.

And yes: delightful though Diana was, she's gone. The Diana mob needs to move on. Charles/ Diana/ Camilla were basically three decent people who were caught up in a sad situation. Camilla doesn't deserve to be punished or publicly degraded for it.

This AGAIN!  As has been said before, it's not simply the "Diana mob" who are not comfortable with the Duchess of Cornwall as Queen Consort.  There are those who hold moral and religious objections which have nothing whatsoever to do with Diana.  Though I think the majority now accept that the Duchess will not only automatically become Queen Consort once her husband ascends, she will also be called by that title, why do we increasingly pretend that she came to her position with a blameless past?  Talk about "Saint Diana", it now seems to be "Saint Camilla"!    
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: CHRISinUSA on January 02, 2013, 01:38:33 PM
With respect Grace, I don't see anybody advocating Camilla's canonization.  Certainly her past is anything but blameless, but we are talking about the succession to the Crown (for both monarch and consort).  If adultery alone made someone unsuitable for the title of King or Queen, the Crown would have crumbled long ago. 

I find it interesting that whenever the topic of Camilla's suitability to be queen arises, nobody seriously argues for Charles to abdicate his claim.  Yet what crime did Camilla commit that Charles himself isn't equally guilty of? 
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: mcdnab on January 02, 2013, 07:04:14 PM
Personally as this is largely about the recent planned change to the succession laws I think we should leave aside any arguments about the behaviour perceived or otherwise. I agree with the previous post reference the matter.
The idea of a royal family as the embodiment of middle class values and mores was by enlarge a reaction of Victoria and Albert to their own family background and the changing world of the 19th century as made clear in the excellent BBC series Victoria's children being shown currently a view rejected by Edward vii who thought his private life was his own and reemphasised by his son George v
In many ways it worked and ensured the monarchy survived but in the 21st century of mass media instant reaction and a very different society it isn't necessary to the monarchy in the same way
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Suzanne on January 23, 2013, 08:20:01 PM
Comparing the current Succession to the Crown Bill to Succession Debates in the reigns of Henry I, Henry VIII and Queen Anne

http://www.royalhistorian.com/debating-the-royal-succession/
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: CHRISinUSA on February 01, 2013, 07:24:09 AM
The Canadian government is introducing the bill necessary to change the succession in alignment of British law changes.  Already, the debate has begun about whether or not it is necessary to amend the Canadian constitution (a very complex process there), whether the provinces should have formal consultation, and whether or not it is an appropriate process for Canada to simply accede to a British law, or to establish its own succession laws.  Hope that's just political posturing and that the process runs smoothly.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/01/31/conservative_government_to_introduce_bill_on_royal_succession.html? (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/01/31/conservative_government_to_introduce_bill_on_royal_succession.html?)
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: grandduchessella on April 25, 2013, 03:59:00 PM
Done deal now.

After 300 Years Britain’s Succession Laws Get an Overhaul

http://royallyspeakingblog.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/after-300-years-britains-succession-laws-get-an-overhaul/

Some highlights:

1. Children born after 28 Oct 2011 will have succession rights in order of birth, regardless of gender.
2. The Royal Marriages Act is replaced with a provision that only the top six people in line to the Throne must have the consent of the Monarch to marry.
3. The new law repeals the provision of the Act of Settlement which barred anyone from succeeding who is married to a Roman Catholic. However, it does not grant succession rights to people who are Roman Catholic themselves.

The link above goes to the whole blog which has much more detail about each listed provision.

Marlene's blog also has a good write-up:

http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/2013/04/succession-to-crown-act-is-law.html

Personally, I'm glad to see the Catholic bias removed. I totally understand the monarch, as Defender of the Faith, needing to be Anglican but I'm glad they've recognized that just having a Catholic consort would've result in the kind of strife seen in the time of Mary & Elizabeth!
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: edubs31 on April 25, 2013, 11:35:17 PM
I like it too. It's progressive policy without being too radical and going overboard. Smart and sensible without turning a back to tradition.
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Kalafrana on April 26, 2013, 02:28:27 AM
I'm glad the change to gender-neutral only applies to those born very recently and in the future. The only person currently affected, and who will drop back behind his elder sister, is a grandson of the Duke of Gloucester, and way down the succession list anyway.

Ann
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: grandduchessella on April 26, 2013, 09:13:22 AM
So now those who are 100+ in line for the throne won't have to seek even the courtesy permission to marry--just Andrew, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie and Charles and William if they ever had to remarry. Eugenie will be bounced once the Cambridge's baby is born.

From Dan Willis's blog re: the Catholic issue:

"The first person in line who this applies to is Prince Michael of Kent. He and his children have remained Anglican, but his wife is Roman Catholic. Under the current law Michael would be skipped and his son would be next. The new law grants succession rights to Michael (again he is something like #37 or so). This provision will add several people further down the line such as the King of Romania and the Crown Prince of Yugoslavia, both of whom are Orthodox but have married Catholic women. Some of the Duke of Kent’s children and grandchildren have converted to Catholicism and as such remain outside of the succession, even under the new law."
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: mcdnab on April 26, 2013, 12:14:35 PM
A sensible decision reference the replacement of the RMA (which quite frankly was outrageous) as to the Catholic issue - a sensible fudge in my opinion that sticks with the basic premise of the Glorious Revolution and susbequent legislation.
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Kalafrana on April 26, 2013, 02:09:55 PM
First six in line are currently Charles, William, Wlliam's child (technically 'a life in being' already), Harry, Andrew and Beatrice. When Alfonso XII of Spain died in 1886, there was a vacancy of the throne during the wait to see whether his pregnant Queen produced a son or daughter. The child proved to be Alfonso XIII (1886-1931). It might be argued that as William's child will now succeed irrespective of sex, then if William were already reigning, and died during Kate's pregnancy, then there would be no vacancy of the throne. There is a precedent from Byzantine times of a monarch being crowned in utero. It's in JJ Norwich's Byzantium: The Early Centuries, and the unborn monarch was, I think, a Persian. Will look it up.

Ann
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: CHRISinUSA on April 26, 2013, 02:38:11 PM
The changes in the line of succession are complete in all commonwealth realms except Australia and New Zealand, where they are still pending.

The UK:   Received royal assent - done.

The smaller realms (Jamaica, Belize, Solomon Islands, etc) have each determined that their constitutions or existing legislation do not require amending due to the way those were written on the issue of succession (ie.  their own laws all basically say whoever is monarch in the UK is their monarch).  Therefore, with the royal assent of the UK legislation, the new succession applies in those realms.   Done.

Canada:  Succession to the Throne Act 2013 approved and received royal assent on 27 March, 2013.  Done.

New Zealand:  Royal Succession Bill (Bill 99-1): introduced 18 February 2013.  Pending approval but not expected to be a problem.  Almost done.

Australia:  The only realm with an actual challenge - one of the states (Queensland) decided that under Australia's federalized structure, each state is sovereign and therefore they have the right to pass their own state law affecting succession in their jurisdiction.  On 13 February Queensland's legislature introduced its own succession bill.  However - this is expected to be resolved because the federal government says if Queensland proceeds, it will override the state legislature in favor of national legislation.  The Australian federal legislation will be presented to the federal parliament in May 2013 including - if necessary - legislation to override Queensland's bill.  Almost done.
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: CHRISinUSA on April 26, 2013, 03:35:47 PM
It might be argued that as William's child will now succeed irrespective of sex, then if William were already reigning, and died during Kate's pregnancy, then there would be no vacancy of the throne. There is a precedent from Byzantine times of a monarch being crowned in utero. It's in JJ Norwich's Byzantium: The Early Centuries, and the unborn monarch was, I think, a Persian. Will look it up.

Interesting question.  I just went back and read the Act of Settlement (which is still in force except those clauses that were repealed under the new succession law) and it doesn't address the issue of an unborn heir.  Some other monarchist countries specifically spell out in their constitutions what would happen in this regard (I can't recall which countries off-hand, but have read a few succession laws that say if the wife of a recently deceased monarch is expecting, the succession waits until the birth of the child and - if the child is stillborn - they are treated as if they had never existed for succession purposes).  But I'm not aware of any UK law that addresses the topic so - like so many issues under Civil Law - it would probably be addressed only if and when the need arose.
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Kalafrana on April 27, 2013, 05:43:56 AM
It would be a matter of common law here certainly.

The Persian King crowned in utero was Shapur II (309-79), who undertook several campaigns against the Eastern Roman Empire. Details of his career can be found in Norwich, p.96, and Gibbon (who calls him Sapor). According to wikipedia, following his father's death, enemy nobles killed Shapur's eldest half-brother, blinded the second and imprisoned the third (who escaped to Rome). That left only the pregnant lesser wife, hence the curious coronation.

Ann 
Title: Re: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: TimM on April 27, 2013, 09:07:46 AM
So if William and Kate's first born child is a girl, she'll be first in line after William. 
Title: Government starts effort to change succession law
Post by: Lucien on April 29, 2013, 11:08:17 PM
So if William and Kate's first born child is a girl, she'll be first in line after William. 

That's it!Makes sense..one wouldn't understand the hullabaloo over something that comes so natural as this...Really..!
It is,after all,2013AD not BC.