Government starts effort to change succession law

[TampaBay]

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

[TampaBay]

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

[RoyalWatcher]

I would have to agree with you there, TampaBay. She's a lot like her mother: no nonsense and gets on with it.

[Grace]

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.

[Kalafrana]

'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

[Grace]

Haha, that's a good story!

[DNAgenie]

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.

[Martyn]

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!

[CHRISinUSA]

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.

[Michael HR]

Very much about time I feel

[darius]

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.

[Blurgle]

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.

[CHRISinUSA]

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.

[mcdnab]

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.

[Kalafrana]

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