Discussion:
No Change To Royal Succession
(too old to reply)
Gillian White
2005-01-15 01:41:14 UTC
Permalink
From BBC News : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4175509.stm

A Labour peer has withdrawn proposals to give female members of the Royal
Family the same rights as males. The legislation would have ended the right
of male heirs with older sisters to succeed to the Crown. It would also have
torn up ancient legislation banning heirs to the throne marrying Roman
Catholics.

But the government refused to back Lord Dubs' Succession to the Crown Bill,
saying it was too complex and raised too many constitutional issues. The
Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, agreed the 1701 Act of Settlement, which
governs the succession, was discriminatory but added that "for all practical
purposes its effects are limited". The changes proposed by Lord Dubs were a
"complex and controversial undertaking raising major constitutional issues",
he said.

Lord Falconer said there were 22 members of the Royal Family in the line of
succession after the Prince of Wales - all of who were eligible to succeed
and had been unaffected by the act. "It is not a simple matter that can be
tinkered with lightly. While we wish to remove all forms of
discrimination... this isn't the proper form," he added. He did not rule out
change in the future but said if Lord Dubs' private member's bill was passed
by peers, he would urge MPs to oppose it in the Commons.

Lord Dubs agreed to withdraw his bill after its second reading in the House
of Lords, but urged the government to think again at a later stage. "We
cannot forever say we don't want to change things because it is too
difficult," he told peers. During the debate, the Labour peer and former
minister said: "The monarchy should symbolise the values of this country.
"What we don't want is a situation where the values of the country have
moved on and the monarchy is centuries behind the times. "We are surely all
opposed to discrimination on the grounds of gender and we are surely also
opposed to discrimination against Catholics."

But opponents of the bill, including Tory Lord Campbell of Alloway and the
Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Rev Michael Scott-Joynt, said it would separate
the state from both the Church of England and the Christian faith. Such a
"secular" state would be markedly "less tolerant", Rt Rev Scott-Joynt
argued.
Stan Brown
2005-01-15 03:00:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gillian White
Lord Falconer said there were 22 members of the Royal Family in the line of
succession after the Prince of Wales - all of who were eligible to succeed
and had been unaffected by the act.
Huh? Princess Anne and her issue would have been moved ahead of
Andrew, Edward, and their issue. By my count precisely THREE members
of the Royal Family would be unaffected by the act, since Anne would
have moved up to #4 and Andrew several places down.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Francois R. Velde
2005-01-15 19:37:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Gillian White
Lord Falconer said there were 22 members of the Royal Family in the line of
succession after the Prince of Wales - all of who were eligible to succeed
and had been unaffected by the act.
Huh? Princess Anne and her issue would have been moved ahead of
Andrew, Edward, and their issue. By my count precisely THREE members
of the Royal Family would be unaffected by the act, since Anne would
have moved up to #4 and Andrew several places down.
He must have been thinking of the anti-Papist provisions of the Act of
Settlement. Of course, that was only one of the provisions of the Act which the
bill aimed to change: the preference to males is (implicitly) part of the Act of
Settlement.

--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Gillian White
2005-01-15 19:48:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
He must have been thinking of the anti-Papist provisions of the Act of
Settlement. Of course, that was only one of the provisions of the Act which the
bill aimed to change: the preference to males is (implicitly) part of the Act of
Settlement.
I think you are right, because it is not until position number 23 in the
line of succession that a change would occur. This is currently occupied by
Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor, who would be bumped down two places by the
insertion of her father and her elder brother, both of whom are presently
excluded.

But this is only the present situation. If Prince Harry or Princess Beatrice
were to marry a Roman Catholic, then the problem would be brought much
closer to home.

Gillian
Louis Epstein
2005-01-16 19:04:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gillian White
Post by Francois R. Velde
He must have been thinking of the anti-Papist provisions of the Act of
Settlement. Of course, that was only one of the provisions of the Act which the
bill aimed to change: the preference to males is (implicitly) part of
the Act of Settlement.
I think you are right, because it is not until position number 23 in the
line of succession that a change would occur.
A change relating to the religious provisions,you mean.
Post by Gillian White
This is currently occupied by Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor, who would
be bumped down two places by the insertion of her father and her elder
brother, both of whom are presently excluded.
She would be further bumped down by the inclusion of
all legitimate Harewood/Lascelles scions ahead of the
Gloucesters instead of behind the Kents,thanks to the
other provisions.
Post by Gillian White
But this is only the present situation. If Prince Harry or Princess
Beatrice were to marry a Roman Catholic, then the problem would be
brought much closer to home.
Gillian
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Gillian White
2005-01-16 19:18:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
A change relating to the religious provisions,you mean.
Yes.
Post by Louis Epstein
She would be further bumped down by the inclusion of
all legitimate Harewood/Lascelles scions ahead of the
Gloucesters instead of behind the Kents,thanks to the
other provisions.
I was thinking only of changes on the basis of religion, not gender.

Gillian
a***@hotmail.com
2005-01-17 04:56:34 UTC
Permalink
Oh it's far more than three, Stan.

The Armstrong-Joneses' places in the succession would not be affected
at all.

Similarly the Gloucesters, I believe, though the Kents would now be
behind the Lascelles.

Etc.

Jean Coeur de Lapin
Louis Epstein
2005-01-18 01:04:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Oh it's far more than three, Stan.
The Armstrong-Joneses' places in the succession would not be affected
at all.
Similarly the Gloucesters, I believe, though the Kents would now be
behind the Lascelles.
The late Princess Royal Countess of Harewood was born in 1897;
the late Duke of Gloucester was born in 1900.

The Duke of Fife would be in the same place,but his children would
change;all the Norwegian branches would swap around because the King's
elder sisters and their issue would precede him;and then the system's
self-destruct point would be reached (elder sister of Edward VII not
being accounted for in its framework).
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Jean Coeur de Lapin
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Gary Holtzman
2005-01-18 01:07:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Oh it's far more than three, Stan.
The Armstrong-Joneses' places in the succession would not be affected
at all.
Similarly the Gloucesters, I believe, though the Kents would now be
behind the Lascelles.
The late Princess Royal Countess of Harewood was born in 1897;
the late Duke of Gloucester was born in 1900.
The Duke of Fife would be in the same place,but his children would
change;all the Norwegian branches would swap around because the King's
elder sisters and their issue would precede him;and then the system's
self-destruct point would be reached (elder sister of Edward VII not
being accounted for in its framework).
I find it difficult to believe, for this reason among others that if such a Succession Act is
ever passed it would not limit the succession to descendents of George V, George VI or
ElizabethII.
--
Gary Holtzman

-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Isadore
2005-01-18 03:13:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by Louis Epstein
The Duke of Fife would be in the same place,but his children would
change;all the Norwegian branches would swap around because the King's
elder sisters and their issue would precede him;and then the system's
self-destruct point would be reached (elder sister of Edward VII not
being accounted for in its framework).
I find it difficult to believe, for this reason among others that if such a Succession Act is
ever passed it would not limit the succession to descendents of George V, George VI or
ElizabethII.
Why not simply state that all descendants of HRH the current Prince of Wales
will come in line to the throne in order of their birth? That way, the
Princess Royal and her family as well as all the other lines are not
adversely affected.
Gary Holtzman
2005-01-18 03:35:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Isadore
Why not simply state that all descendants of HRH the current Prince of
Wales will come in line to the throne in order of their birth? That way,
the Princess Royal and her family as well as all the other lines are not
adversely affected.
Because if it's unacceptable that Charles's granddaughters should be "discriminated
against" in succession terms, it's surely equally unacceptable that Andrew's, Anne's
and Edward's granddaughters, and the unborn descendents of everyone else in line
to the throne, be discriminated against.
--
Gary Holtzman

-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Isadore
2005-01-18 15:00:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by Isadore
Why not simply state that all descendants of HRH the current Prince of
Wales will come in line to the throne in order of their birth? That way,
the Princess Royal and her family as well as all the other lines are not
adversely affected.
Because if it's unacceptable that Charles's granddaughters should be "discriminated
against" in succession terms, it's surely equally unacceptable that Andrew's, Anne's
and Edward's granddaughters, and the unborn descendents of everyone else in line
to the throne, be discriminated against.
--
Gary
I understand.

But this isn't about rectifying all the wrongs of the centuries. It's about
the future succession. So,

since it is unlikely that anyone other than the Prince of Wales' descendents
will be heirs to the throne, and

since it would constitute an undue hardship and change of "lifestyle" (for
lack of a better word) for the Princess Royal's family if that unlikely
scenario DID take place,

I thought it would be simpler to do it that way.
Louis Epstein
2005-01-20 01:44:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Isadore
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by Isadore
Why not simply state that all descendants of HRH the current Prince
of Wales will come in line to the throne in order of their birth?
That way, the Princess Royal and her family as well as all the other
lines are not adversely affected.
Because if it's unacceptable that Charles's granddaughters should
be "discriminated against" in succession terms, it's surely equally
unacceptable that Andrew's, Anne's and Edward's granddaughters, and
the unborn descendents of everyone else in line
to the throne, be discriminated against.
--
Gary
I understand.
But this isn't about rectifying all the wrongs of the centuries.
It's about the future succession.
But what can possibly justify changing the future
succession except the centuries having been blighted
by wrongs that therefore need to be rectified?

As I have said,if changing the rules rises to the level
of necessity,the Throne has been in the wrong hands since
1100 at the latest!
Post by Isadore
So,
since it is unlikely that anyone other than the Prince of Wales'
descendents will be heirs to the throne, and
since it would constitute an undue hardship and change of "lifestyle" (for
lack of a better word) for the Princess Royal's family if that unlikely
scenario DID take place,
I thought it would be simpler to do it that way.
But more hypocritical.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Mrs Norris
2005-01-19 21:40:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by Louis Epstein
The Duke of Fife would be in the same place,but his children would
change;all the Norwegian branches would swap around because the King's
elder sisters and their issue would precede him;and then the system's
self-destruct point would be reached (elder sister of Edward VII not
being accounted for in its framework).
I find it difficult to believe, for this reason among others that if such
a Succession Act is
Post by Gary Holtzman
ever passed it would not limit the succession to descendents of George V,
George VI or
Post by Gary Holtzman
ElizabethII.
Why not simply state that all descendants of HRH the current Prince of Wales
will come in line to the throne in order of their birth? That way, the
Princess Royal and her family as well as all the other lines are not
adversely affected.
the Princess Royal would BENEFIT from any change.
Isadore
2005-01-19 22:54:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mrs Norris
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by Louis Epstein
The Duke of Fife would be in the same place,but his children would
change;all the Norwegian branches would swap around because the King's
elder sisters and their issue would precede him;and then the system's
self-destruct point would be reached (elder sister of Edward VII not
being accounted for in its framework).
I find it difficult to believe, for this reason among others that if such
a Succession Act is
Post by Gary Holtzman
ever passed it would not limit the succession to descendents of George V,
George VI or
Post by Gary Holtzman
ElizabethII.
Why not simply state that all descendants of HRH the current Prince of Wales
will come in line to the throne in order of their birth? That way, the
Princess Royal and her family as well as all the other lines are not
adversely affected.
the Princess Royal would BENEFIT from any change.
I understand that she would benefit in the sense that she would be closer to
the throne. but given that she has had three brothers for forty years now,
with the understanding that the likelihood of her coming to the throne is
EXTREMELY remote, such a change in lifestyle and family demands might very
well be unwelcome.
Gidzmo
2005-02-08 00:17:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
(elder sister of Edward VII not
being accounted for in its framework)

And would Vicky's descendants have been included? And if so, how would the
succession list have read?

Graham Truesdale
2005-01-15 14:32:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gillian White
From BBC News : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4175509.stm
A Labour peer has withdrawn proposals to give female members of the Royal
Family the same rights as males. The legislation would have ended the right
of male heirs with older sisters to succeed to the Crown. It would also have
torn up ancient legislation banning heirs to the throne marrying Roman
Catholics.
But the government refused to back Lord Dubs' Succession to the Crown Bill,
saying it was too complex and raised too many constitutional issues. The
Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, agreed the 1701 Act of Settlement, which
governs the succession, was discriminatory but added that "for all practical
purposes its effects are limited". The changes proposed by Lord Dubs were a
"complex and controversial undertaking raising major constitutional issues",
he said.
Lord Falconer said there were 22 members of the Royal Family in the line of
succession after the Prince of Wales - all of who were eligible to succeed
and had been unaffected by the act. "It is not a simple matter that can be
tinkered with lightly. While we wish to remove all forms of
discrimination... this isn't the proper form," he added. He did not rule out
change in the future but said if Lord Dubs' private member's bill was passed
by peers, he would urge MPs to oppose it in the Commons.
Lord Dubs agreed to withdraw his bill after its second reading in the House
of Lords, but urged the government to think again at a later stage. "We
cannot forever say we don't want to change things because it is too
difficult," he told peers. During the debate, the Labour peer and former
minister said: "The monarchy should symbolise the values of this country.
"What we don't want is a situation where the values of the country have
moved on and the monarchy is centuries behind the times. "We are surely all
opposed to discrimination on the grounds of gender and we are surely also
opposed to discrimination against Catholics."
But opponents of the bill, including Tory Lord Campbell of Alloway and the
Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Rev Michael Scott-Joynt, said it would separate
the state from both the Church of England and the Christian faith. Such a
"secular" state would be markedly "less tolerant", Rt Rev Scott-Joynt
argued.
Coincidentally ;-) the Succession to the Crown (No 2) Bill, sponsored by
Ann Taylor, received its first reading in the Commons on 12th January
2005, with a second reading set for 4th March
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmwib/wb050115/pub.htm#com
p

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmwib/wb050115/pres.htm
gives it as ISBN 0215 705068, price £1.50
The Bill is at
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200405/cmbills/036/05
036.i-4.html
Identical to the No 1 Bill, as far as I can see.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...