Proposal for Equal Primogeniture Succession

[Lady Ann]

First-born daughters of the Royal Family could be allowed to become Queen??? Under plans to be proposed by a back bench MP, any daughter of Prince William would be able to succeed her father as Queen on the basis of age. What do my friends think????http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-Family-could-be-allowed-to-become-Queen.html

 

[Rebafan81]

I think it is a great idea, the child should be allowed to rule regardless of gender. The last 50 years of QEII reign should be proof enough that gender doesnt matter. By the time she is here, there will be a bunch of either reigning Queens or Crowned Princesses, she definitely won't be alone.

 

[Menarue]

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.

 

[Kotroman]

I am sceptical about introducing equal primogeniture in the United Kingdom. It's okay for countries like the Netherlands, where every monarch was the eldest child of the previous monarch anyway. In the United Kingdom, however, there is a 900 years long tradition that can't be broken so easily.

Another problem is succession to the peerage titles. It will be a lot harder to establish equal primogeniture in e.g. succession to the dukedom of Norfolk and other peerage titles which follow strict Salic law. The Duke of Norfolk is also the Premier Duke in the Peerage of England and that position was held only by males throughout history (indeed, when a woman inherits the highest title of a certain rank, the position of premier peer would go the male holder of the next highest title of the same rank). There is also a tradition that all daughters, regardless of age, have the equal succession rights to peerages created by writ. For 1000 years the youngest daughter has had as much righ to inherit a title created by writ as the eldest daughter. If equal primogeniture is introduced, this tradition would demise and there would no longer be abeyance since the eldest daughter would inherit the title.

Besides, equal primogeniture would not mean the ultimate equality among the genders in the UK. There would still be inequalities, such as woman's right to enjoy her husband's title although a man has no right to enjoy his wife's title, or the fact that the sovereign's sons become princes and princesses automatically by birth, while children of the sovereign's daughters don't become princes and princesses unless a special letters patent are issued.

Introducing equal primogeniture in the UK would cause such mess that, I'm afraid, monarchy and peerage could become pointless.

 

[Al_bina]

I would not be too surprised to learn that the equal primogeniture is introduced in the UK. After all, it is not Japan ... and there is no IHA that does not give in to the demands of the public at large.

 

[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.

 

[Al_bina]

That would have been an interesting development. However, I tend to think that Prince Charles would have fought for his right to succeed Her Majesty by employing all means available to him. Additionally the public at large might not have allowed to disinheret the sons of the late Diana, Princess of Wales.

 

[Kotroman]

Actually, succession of Charles and William is secured, as Charles is both the eldest son and the eldest child of The Queen.

As I said (and I have to stress it again), a person must take into account succession to the peerage titles. If equal succession is adopted, Beatrice will become Duchess of York on her father's death and who wants that the tradition of conferring the title of Duke of York to second sons of the British sovereigns ends with Beatrice? There are numerous other examples too.

 

[Al_bina]

Right you are. I have had a senior moment ... The post has been changed to reflect the real state of affairs.

 

[Skydragon]

They have been bashing this about for simply ages. I do think it would be a great idea, especially if it also relates in some way to the first born daughters throughout the peerage. It is a gross miscarriage that the eldest, who happens to be a daughter is denied the rank and estates of their father, when we are normally well equipped to do our duty!

I see no problem with the husband taking the womans name when she marries, as we have no problem now with a woman taking her husbands name.

 

[wbenson]

In the United Kingdom, however, there is a 900 years long tradition that can't be broken so easily.

It's not tradition that makes it hard. It is getting the other realms to agree. There is no different standard for an Act of Parliament overturning tradition.

Another problem is succession to the peerage titles. It will be a lot harder to establish equal primogeniture in e.g. succession to the dukedom of Norfolk and other peerage titles which follow strict Salic law.

They don't have to change the peerages to change the monarchy. They are separate things.

As I said (and I have to stress it again), a person must take into account succession to the peerage titles.

That's not the case. There is no reason to believe that an Act of Parliament changing succession would amend any letters patent, or have you seen something that indicates otherwise?

 

[MBGGfvB]

No problem here! I think if the family is so strong in support as to ask parliment's support, then it has been fairly thought through and vetted.

 

[EmpressRouge]

Actually, succession of Charles and William is secured, as Charles is both the eldest son and the eldest child of The Queen.

Quite right. If hypothetically, the law were in place before, it would have had to be done in Queen Victoria's reign for it to have any effect on today's monarch. Even then, Vicky, Princess Royal would probably given up her position as heiress by marrying the heir to the Prussian throne, paving the way for Edward VII. And even though many second sons ended up succeeding to the throne (George V and VI), they were also the second eldest children in the family.

 

[Leslie2006]

Well it's about time they change the succession law in England! As it stands, they're discriminating against women when there's a woman on the throne! I hope it gets changed to where the gender of a person no longer matters and is not what their status is purely based on. It's not right. I'm all for the change. The British monarchy should have followed in the footsteps of their fellow monarchies in Belgium, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands a long time ago.

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.

Well that's how it would work. They are also grandchildren of the monarch, reguardless of a title or lack there of. On top of that, Zara and Peter don't have titles at their parents' requests, otherwise they would've have receieved them at birth.

 

[Jacknch]

[I see no problem with the husband taking the womans name when she marries, as we have no problem now with a woman taking her husbands name. ]

Reading your comment above, Skydragon, I am reminded of the fact that several professional women I know retained their maiden names when they got married and the husband of one of them actually changed his surname to his wife's family name on marriage! I believe that it is only a custom that a woman takes on her husband's name and not a legal requirement.

 

[Skydragon]

Well that's how it would work. They are also grandchildren of the monarch, reguardless of a title or lack there of. On top of that, Zara and Peter don't have titles at their parents' requests, otherwise they would've have receieved them at birth.

1. Charles was /is the firstborn so Anne would not jump him or his children in the line of succession. 2. It would not be retrospective anyway from what I have read.
3. Andrew and Edward would retain their HRH, as William and Harrys' wives have children, the offspring of Anne, Andrew and Edward move further down the line anyway.

I believe that it is only a custom that a woman takes on her husband's name and not a legal requirement.

It sounds correct, changing it back to a maiden name is also fairly easy.

Nobody says that a husband would be entitled to take a place in the House of Lords (and that should be and Ladies)!

 

[crm2317]

I think changing the succession law is a good idea however I think it would work better if it was enacted for the future generation for example William and Harry's children.
To enact it for the current members would mean Anne skipping ahead of her brothers and their children dropping after all these years. I am actually not sure what this would mean for titles and security.
Also if the law is passed would it work for all in the line of succession for example would Princess Ingrid Alexandra now come ahead of Prince Sverre Magnus?

 

[Kotroman]

They don't have to change the peerages to change the monarchy. They are separate things.

I do not think that Salic law, which is applied to all the current dukedoms and most earldoms, would survive if equal primogeniture is introduced in succession to the crown As you can see for start, some members of this forum have already suggested that equal primogeniture is introduced in succession to peerage titles.

Well it's about time they change the succession law in England! As it stands, they're discriminating against women when there's a woman on the throne!

The fact that women enjoy their husband's title while men don't enjoy their wife's title is also discriminating against men, yet nobody cares about that (and shouldn't care about that). Imagine the Duke of Edinburgh as King Philip and Timothy Laurence as "The Prince Timothy" . Or would it be "The Prince Anne", since The Prince Charles's wife is The Princess Charles? I find the current "discriminations" against women (whose place in the line of succession is behind all their brothers) and "discriminations" against men (who don't enjoy their wife's title) quite balanced.

 

[Menarue]

"The Prince Anne" is priceless....

 

[Warren]

"Prince Beatrice" will be better.

 

[Jacknch]

I have to agree with what has been said here - if complete equality were ever put in place to create a full balance, I cannot imagine any royal princess finding a husband willing to take her title. "Prince Margaret" springs to mind and the marriage would doubtless have ended in divorce much earlier! Further, had Diana, Princess of Wales re-married would her new husband have become - for the sake of argument - Dodi, Prince of Wales? How many people with the same title can you have?!

 

[wbenson]

Further, had Diana, Princess of Wales re-married would her new husband have become - for the sake of argument - Dodi, Prince of Wales? How many people with the same title can you have?!

Even if full equality in title sharing was to happen, it would not apply in that case, as Diana did not possess the title in her own right.

I do not think that Salic law, which is applied to all the current dukedoms and most earldoms, would survive if equal primogeniture is introduced in succession to the crown

Do you have any basis for that thought? So far the only stories on this matter have been about changing one succession and one succession only. Nothing has been said (officially) about amending any letters patent of any peers in any Act of Parliament at all.

 

[Lady Ann]

I have to agree with what has been said here - if complete equality were ever put in place to create a full balance, I cannot imagine any royal princess finding a husband willing to take her title. "Prince Margaret" springs to mind and the marriage would doubtless have ended in divorce much earlier! Further, had Diana, Princess of Wales re-married would her new husband have become - for the sake of argument - Dodi, Prince of Wales? How many people with the same title can you have?!

I thought if Diana remarried she would have lost the Princess of Wales title? Does anyone know if this is correct... I sure who ever she would have remarried would not want to be so and so prince of wales or that it would have ever been permitted

 

[Kotroman]

Do you have any basis for that thought? So far the only stories on this matter have been about changing one succession and one succession only. Nothing has been said (officially) about amending any letters patent of any peers in any Act of Parliament at all.

Isn't it obvious? If they succeed in introducing equal primogeniture in succession to the crown, they would soon request change in succession to the peerage titles. I am aware that succession to a title is determined when the title is created, but that would be hard to explain to those groups who find Salic law discriminating.

As for Diana, she lost her title in 1996 when she got divorced. She was styled "Diana, Princess of Wales" as a divorced woman, but she didn't hold the title of Princess of Wales. Had she remarried, she wouldn't have been styled "Diana, Princess of Wales" because she wouldn't be a divorced woman anymore. So, Dodi certainly wouldn't have been "Dodi, Prince of Wales" because he was never an ex-wife of the Prince of Wales

 

[morhange]

I keep reading that this has already happened. Not that it's 100% accurate, but while playing Trivial Pursuit, one of the cards says "Which country amended its laws in 1990 to create equal succession for females and males?" and I said Belgium, but the answer was Great Britain! Was there some kind of law in 1990 that did something to alter succession? It was already open to women, as apparent from Victoria, and it isn't like Luxembourg or in Imperial Russia where women can only rule when all the males are gone.

 

[Kotroman]

In that case, Trivial Pursuit was wrong. Succession law has not changed since the time of William the Conqueror. That's why it is not so easy to change it.

 

[wbenson]

Isn't it obvious?

Not in the slightest.

If they succeed in introducing equal primogeniture in succession to the crown, they would soon request change in succession to the peerage titles.

I see no reason to believe that without some kind of evidence.

Succession law has not changed since the time of William the Conqueror. That's why it is not so easy to change it.

It is just as easy to change old succession as it is to change new succession. It takes the same thing: An Act of Parliament as well as consent (in unknown form right now) from the other realms. There is no different percentage of MPs required to approve it.

 

[Kotroman]

I see no reason to believe that without some kind of evidence.

I didn't ask you to believe me and I haven't claimed anything. I just expressed my point of view. I simply don't believe that those who now want the equal primogeniture to be introduced in succession to the Crown wouldn't ask for establishment of equal primogeniture in succession to the peerage titles. I just don't believe that a person who thinks that male-preferance primogeniture (which actually allows women to succeed) is discriminating doesn't think the same about Salic law.

It is just as easy to change old succession as it is to change new succession. It takes the same thing: An Act of Parliament as well as consent (in unknown form right now) from the other realms. There is no different percentage of MPs required to approve it.

I meant to say that it is hard to decide to change a 900 years old law. Had it been established 10 years ago, it wouldn't be so hard to change it.

 

[Jacknch]

Re my Diana, Princess of Wales query, I assumed that if there was absolute equality, she wouldn't have had to take her new husband's title and that he could have taken her [divorced] title instead. But I see that if she did not hold the title in her own right then I think my question is answered! Thanks everyone!

 

[wbenson]

I didn't ask you to believe me and I haven't claimed anything.

You did claim something. You claimed that it was obvious that success in changing succession to the crown will directly lead to people wanting peerages to change.

I simply don't believe that those who now want the equal primogeniture to be introduced in succession to the Crown wouldn't ask for establishment of equal primogeniture in succession to the peerage titles. I just don't believe that a person who thinks that male-preferance primogeniture (which actually allows women to succeed) is discriminating doesn't think the same about Salic law.

Well, it is discriminating. That is a fact. What people differ on is whether such discrimination is wrong. I think succession to the Crown should change. I do not think succession to peerages should change (although if it happened, I wouldn't stand in the way of it), as for nearly all hereditary peers, they gain little or no formal power from their office. I suppose I'm a fiction, though, as you don't seem to believe I exist.