Discussion:
UK: Succession to the Crown Bill
(too old to reply)
Dag T. Hoelseth
2004-12-09 19:54:15 UTC
Permalink
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldbills/011/2005011.htm
--
Dag T. Hoelseth
***@nospam.online.no
http://www.geocities.com/dagtho/royalty.html
Don Aitken
2004-12-09 20:21:29 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 20:54:15 +0100, "Dag T. Hoelseth"
Post by Dag T. Hoelseth
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldbills/011/2005011.htm
Interesting. I tried to find out who the sponsors were, but it doesn't
appear in the "Complete list of Public Bills before Parliament this
Session" at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmwib/wb041204/pub.htm#comp

I think that is because the list is only published weekly; this one is
dated 4 December, while the Bill was introduced on 8 December.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Dag T. Hoelseth
2004-12-09 20:28:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 20:54:15 +0100, "Dag T. Hoelseth"
Post by Dag T. Hoelseth
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldbills/011/2005011.htm
Interesting. I tried to find out who the sponsors were, but it doesn't
appear in the "Complete list of Public Bills before Parliament this
Session" at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmwib/wb041204/pub.htm#comp
Post by Don Aitken
I think that is because the list is only published weekly; this one is
dated 4 December, while the Bill was introduced on 8 December.
Here is an article on the topic in today's The Independent:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=591194
--
Dag T. Hoelseth
***@nospam.online.no
http://www.geocities.com/dagtho/uk-succession.html
http://www.geocities.com/dagtho/royalty.html
Don Aitken
2004-12-09 20:48:28 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 21:28:25 +0100, "Dag T. Hoelseth"
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Don Aitken
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 20:54:15 +0100, "Dag T. Hoelseth"
Post by Dag T. Hoelseth
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldbills/011/2005011.htm
Interesting. I tried to find out who the sponsors were, but it doesn't
appear in the "Complete list of Public Bills before Parliament this
Session" at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmwib/wb041204/pub.htm#comp
Post by Don Aitken
I think that is because the list is only published weekly; this one is
dated 4 December, while the Bill was introduced on 8 December.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=591194
Thanks for that. Alf Dubs is a well-respected figure in the Labour
Party, so the government won't find it easy to brush this aside.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
David Boothroyd
2004-12-09 21:27:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 21:28:25 +0100, "Dag T. Hoelseth"
Post by Dag T. Hoelseth
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=591194
Thanks for that. Alf Dubs is a well-respected figure in the Labour
Party, so the government won't find it easy to brush this aside.
In case anyone is wondering, Private Members' Bills in the Lords are
introduced by one member only, unlike the Commons where there may be
up to 10 sponsors.

Alf Dubs is a predecessor of mine as Councillor for Westbourne Ward
on Westminster City Council, and a splendid chap.
--
http://www.election.demon.co.uk
"The guilty party was the Liberal Democrats and they were hardened offenders,
and coded racism was again in evidence in leaflets distributed in September
1993." - Nigel Copsey, "Contemporary British Fascism", page 62.
Don Aitken
2004-12-09 23:33:01 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 21:27:30 +0000, David Boothroyd
Post by David Boothroyd
Post by Don Aitken
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 21:28:25 +0100, "Dag T. Hoelseth"
Post by Dag T. Hoelseth
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=591194
Thanks for that. Alf Dubs is a well-respected figure in the Labour
Party, so the government won't find it easy to brush this aside.
In case anyone is wondering, Private Members' Bills in the Lords are
introduced by one member only, unlike the Commons where there may be
up to 10 sponsors.
Alf Dubs is a predecessor of mine as Councillor for Westbourne Ward
on Westminster City Council, and a splendid chap.
I suppose I could go one up on that by claiming him as an ex-employee;
at least I was a Trustee of a charity of which he was Director. I
agree with the splendid chap bit.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
t***@nyc.rr.com
2004-12-10 04:03:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
Thanks for that. Alf Dubs is a well-respected figure in the Labour
Party, so the government won't find it easy to brush this aside.
--
Don Aitken
If a Yank may be permitted to weigh in on this....I think it is good
that (finally IMO) someone other than the Archer chap has brought this
up. However, I am a bit surprised to see three "topics" (gender, RC,
and the RMA) all in one Act (repealing five, correct? is this
normal?).
I personally feel- knowing that HM The Queen has expressed no objection
to its being introduced- that the "first-born succeeds" will be
enormously popular and strengthen the position of the Monarchy (to the
chagrin of the left wing).
However I think Lord Dubs was wrong to make the religious exclusion
part of it-perhaps it would have been better to introduce that after
(and if and when) the lst part passes on its own. It really is a
different topic with a different history and will involve (like it or
not) the established Church, people in Northern Ireland (not to mention
Scotland) etc.
And although I agree the RMA should perhaps be modified (or left as
sort of a House Law tho' I know these do not strictly exist in Britain)
I don't think it is nearly as important as the first two.
If this Act is defeated-or never comes up for debate or a vote- then at
least it will be a reminder that the Royal Family themselves are not
responsible for it.
For those in the UK: do you think there is wide-spread support amongst
'the people' for the provisions of this Act? Hard to tell from here,
having only the Independent article to judge.

Regards,
Thomas
Don Aitken
2004-12-10 12:50:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@nyc.rr.com
Post by Don Aitken
Thanks for that. Alf Dubs is a well-respected figure in the Labour
Party, so the government won't find it easy to brush this aside.
If a Yank may be permitted to weigh in on this....I think it is good
that (finally IMO) someone other than the Archer chap has brought this
up. However, I am a bit surprised to see three "topics" (gender, RC,
and the RMA) all in one Act (repealing five, correct? is this
normal?).
Not particularly unusual. The thing that surprised me is that he has
separated the religous test for a consort, which he proposes to
abolish, from that for the sovereign, which would be left unchanged.
From the tactical PoV it may be better to take two bites at this, or
it may not. We shall see.
Post by t***@nyc.rr.com
I personally feel- knowing that HM The Queen has expressed no objection
to its being introduced- that the "first-born succeeds" will be
enormously popular and strengthen the position of the Monarchy (to the
chagrin of the left wing).
I agree.
Post by t***@nyc.rr.com
However I think Lord Dubs was wrong to make the religious exclusion
part of it-perhaps it would have been better to introduce that after
(and if and when) the lst part passes on its own. It really is a
different topic with a different history and will involve (like it or
not) the established Church, people in Northern Ireland (not to mention
Scotland) etc.
I don't see any likelihood of any objection from any significant
religious group. Possibly the Free Presbyterians, but they are a
minute group, a long way from the mainstream. If Paisley chooses to
make an issue of it, that could cause difficulties, since his
participation is now essential to continuation of the NI peace
process; but in recent years he has downplayed the anti-Catholicism
which was once his main selling point.
Post by t***@nyc.rr.com
And although I agree the RMA should perhaps be modified (or left as
sort of a House Law tho' I know these do not strictly exist in Britain)
I don't think it is nearly as important as the first two.
I think it will be popular, though. And its repeal would not affect
the sovereign's control over the marriages of her children and
grandchildren, which, according to the opinion of the judges given to
George II, existed at common law before the Act was passed. No-one who
has thought about the issue is likely to defend restictions on the
marriage of adult siblings and cousins.
Post by t***@nyc.rr.com
If this Act is defeated-or never comes up for debate or a vote- then at
least it will be a reminder that the Royal Family themselves are not
responsible for it.
For those in the UK: do you think there is wide-spread support amongst
'the people' for the provisions of this Act? Hard to tell from here,
having only the Independent article to judge.
It was only published yesterday, and hasn't attracted much attention
yet. When it is debated (on 14 December, I think) we can expect the
popular press to take notice. My guess is that the reaction will be
overwhelmingly favorable.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
David Boothroyd
2004-12-10 14:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
Post by t***@nyc.rr.com
I personally feel- knowing that HM The Queen has expressed no objection
to its being introduced- that the "first-born succeeds" will be
enormously popular and strengthen the position of the Monarchy (to the
chagrin of the left wing).
I agree.
Beware of assuming (a) that most of the left-wing are republicans,
and (b) that none of the right-wing are. As a constitutional monarchist
supporter and member of the Labour Party, I can tell you that it
certainly isn't possible to make assumptions like that.
--
http://www.election.demon.co.uk
"The guilty party was the Liberal Democrats and they were hardened offenders,
and coded racism was again in evidence in leaflets distributed in September
1993." - Nigel Copsey, "Contemporary British Fascism", page 62.
t***@nyc.rr.com
2004-12-10 16:59:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Boothroyd
Beware of assuming (a) that most of the left-wing are republicans,
and (b) that none of the right-wing are. As a constitutional
monarchist
Post by David Boothroyd
supporter and member of the Labour Party, I can tell you that it
certainly isn't possible to make assumptions like that.
You are right, I should have said republicans on the left or on the
right. I know (and have known) many perfectly respectful Labour party
members who support the Monarchy...including at least three aristocrats
and one 23 yr old construction worker in Greenwich. I suppose I was
thinking of the bizarros on ThroneOut.com etc.
After our election here I had a message from a Scottish friend who said
he'd vote for The Queen over Mr Blair any day...his father was a
well-known "old Labour" leftist who was devoted to Her Majesty; he
accepted a life peerage only when Mr Wilson let on that she would be
disappointed not to see him in the Upper House. As it turns out he was
a superb working peer.
Beware of making generalizations!

Regards,
Thomas
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
2004-12-11 13:21:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Boothroyd
Post by David Boothroyd
Beware of assuming (a) that most of the left-wing are republicans,
and (b) that none of the right-wing are. As a constitutional
monarchist
Post by David Boothroyd
supporter and member of the Labour Party, I can tell you that it
certainly isn't possible to make assumptions like that.
You are right, I should have said republicans on the left or on the
right. I know (and have known) many perfectly respectful Labour party
members who support the Monarchy...including at least three aristocrats
and one 23 yr old construction worker in Greenwich. I suppose I was
thinking of the bizarros on ThroneOut.com etc.
After our election here I had a message from a Scottish friend who said
he'd vote for The Queen over Mr Blair any day...his father was a
well-known "old Labour" leftist who was devoted to Her Majesty; he
accepted a life peerage only when Mr Wilson let on that she would be
disappointed not to see him in the Upper House. As it turns out he was
a superb working peer.
Beware of making generalizations!
Regards,
Thomas
I couldn't agree more. I'm a card carying member of the Labour Party
- but that doesn't mean I can't also be a died-in-the-wool monarchist
and editor of a peerage reference work!

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan FCA HonFHS
Director - Heraldic Media Limited
http://www.heraldicmedia.com
Publishers of "Cracroft's Peerage"
The complete guide to the British Peerage
http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk
Francois R. Velde
2004-12-15 19:43:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
When it is debated (on 14 December, I think)
January 14
Post by Don Aitken
we can expect the
popular press to take notice. My guess is that the reaction will be
overwhelmingly favorable.
So far positive reactions in the National Post (signed Anne Kingston), Observer,
Times (under the stupid title "heir style"), Herald (signed Melanie Reid).
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Graham Truesdale
2004-12-25 00:46:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
Post by t***@nyc.rr.com
If this Act is defeated-or never comes up for debate or a vote- then at
least it will be a reminder that the Royal Family themselves are not
responsible for it.
For those in the UK: do you think there is wide-spread support amongst
'the people' for the provisions of this Act? Hard to tell from here,
having only the Independent article to judge.
It was only published yesterday, and hasn't attracted much attention
yet. When it is debated (on 14 December, I think) we can expect the
popular press to take notice. My guess is that the reaction will be
overwhelmingly favorable.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmwib/wb041218/pub.htm#com
p
says 14th January 2005. Does anyone intend to be in the public gallery?
Louis Epstein
2004-12-11 00:28:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@nyc.rr.com
Post by Don Aitken
Thanks for that. Alf Dubs is a well-respected figure in the Labour
Party, so the government won't find it easy to brush this aside.
Don Aitken
If a Yank may be permitted to weigh in on this....I think it is good
that (finally IMO) someone other than the Archer chap has brought this
up. However, I am a bit surprised to see three "topics" (gender, RC,
and the RMA) all in one Act (repealing five, correct? is this
normal?).
I personally feel- knowing that HM The Queen has expressed no objection
to its being introduced- that the "first-born succeeds" will be
enormously popular and strengthen the position of the Monarchy (to the
chagrin of the left wing).
I personally feel that the principle that rules
of succession must never be altered once established
enormously outweighs the preferability of any one
rule over any other,save where an existing rule
threatens the complete extinction of a dynasty.
I say this even though gender-blind primogeniture
is the form of succession that I would prefer to
be the norm for all hereditary dignities.

To change the rules for an already-existing dignity
without being retroactive is to make a mockery of the
entire idea of justice.If the exclusion of elder females
is wrong it must necessarily have been wrong throughout
history and no past succession based on it defensible;
if it is not wrong there is no need ever to change it.
But right and wrong can not be a matter for passing
fashion if they are to be respected.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
George Knighton
2004-12-11 03:45:43 UTC
Permalink
From: Louis Epstein
But right and wrong can not be a matter for passing
fashion if they are to be respected.
I wonder if you could take a moment to consider the possibility that, even if
what's right always has been and always will be, our awareness of it might have
been insufficient in the past, and that perhaps it becomes our duty as we
mature as a Crown, People or society to recognise in our changing perceptions
that something might be more "right" or more "correct" than the things to which
we're accustomed. :)
Don Aitken
2004-12-11 13:12:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Knighton
From: Louis Epstein
But right and wrong can not be a matter for passing
fashion if they are to be respected.
I wonder if you could take a moment to consider the possibility that, even if
what's right always has been and always will be, our awareness of it might have
been insufficient in the past, and that perhaps it becomes our duty as we
mature as a Crown, People or society to recognise in our changing perceptions
that something might be more "right" or more "correct" than the things to which
we're accustomed. :)
The other difficulty with Louis's approach is that if we followed the
principle that the rules of succession can never be changed there
would be no hereditary monarchies, at least in Europe. They all derive
ultimately from the old Germanic tribal kings, who were elected,
although only the members of a particular family were usually
eligible.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Louis Epstein
2004-12-11 16:22:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
Post by George Knighton
From: Louis Epstein
But right and wrong can not be a matter for passing
fashion if they are to be respected.
I wonder if you could take a moment to consider the possibility that, even
if what's right always has been and always will be, our awareness of it
might have been insufficient in the past, and that perhaps it becomes
our duty as we mature as a Crown, People or society to recognise in our
changing perceptions that something might be more "right" or more "correct"
than the things to which we're accustomed. :)
The other difficulty with Louis's approach is that if we followed the
principle that the rules of succession can never be changed there
would be no hereditary monarchies, at least in Europe. They all derive
ultimately from the old Germanic tribal kings, who were elected,
although only the members of a particular family were usually
eligible.
But electing a Monarch has always been less correct than hereditary
succession...back then knowledge of Monarchy's eternal inalterable
nature was increasing rather than diminishing!

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Don Aitken
2004-12-11 16:58:39 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 10:22:07 -0600, Louis Epstein
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Don Aitken
Post by George Knighton
From: Louis Epstein
But right and wrong can not be a matter for passing
fashion if they are to be respected.
I wonder if you could take a moment to consider the possibility that, even
if what's right always has been and always will be, our awareness of it
might have been insufficient in the past, and that perhaps it becomes
our duty as we mature as a Crown, People or society to recognise in our
changing perceptions that something might be more "right" or more "correct"
than the things to which we're accustomed. :)
The other difficulty with Louis's approach is that if we followed the
principle that the rules of succession can never be changed there
would be no hereditary monarchies, at least in Europe. They all derive
ultimately from the old Germanic tribal kings, who were elected,
although only the members of a particular family were usually
eligible.
But electing a Monarch has always been less correct than hereditary
succession...back then knowledge of Monarchy's eternal inalterable
nature was increasing rather than diminishing!
So, if a change from a less correct to a more correct rule was
possible then, why not now?
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Louis Epstein
2004-12-12 17:28:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Don Aitken
Post by George Knighton
From: Louis Epstein
But right and wrong can not be a matter for passing
fashion if they are to be respected.
I wonder if you could take a moment to consider the possibility that, even
if what's right always has been and always will be, our awareness of it
might have been insufficient in the past, and that perhaps it becomes
our duty as we mature as a Crown, People or society to recognise in our
changing perceptions that something might be more "right" or more "correct"
than the things to which we're accustomed. :)
The other difficulty with Louis's approach is that if we followed the
principle that the rules of succession can never be changed there
would be no hereditary monarchies, at least in Europe. They all derive
ultimately from the old Germanic tribal kings, who were elected,
although only the members of a particular family were usually
eligible.
But electing a Monarch has always been less correct than hereditary
succession...back then knowledge of Monarchy's eternal inalterable
nature was increasing rather than diminishing!
So, if a change from a less correct to a more correct rule was
possible then, why not now?
Diversion of succession initiated from below was wrong before,
and it is wrong now.If you are not proposing enthronement of
someone whose hereditary claim dates under a better rule to an
earlier progenitor,you are not being consistent on anything
being better.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Isadore
2004-12-13 00:13:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Don Aitken
So, if a change from a less correct to a more correct rule was
possible then, why not now?
Diversion of succession initiated from below was wrong before,
and it is wrong now.If you are not proposing enthronement of
someone whose hereditary claim dates under a better rule to an
earlier progenitor,you are not being consistent on anything
being better.
Louis,

If the Monarch is free to establish any rules he wants, who cares how it was
done before. You believe that EIIR can create any law she wants, so there
is no harm done to previous succession laws if she determines how her
successors are chosen.

Why do you not agree with that?
Louis Epstein
2004-12-14 17:46:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Isadore
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Don Aitken
So, if a change from a less correct to a more correct rule was
possible then, why not now?
Diversion of succession initiated from below was wrong before,
and it is wrong now.If you are not proposing enthronement of
someone whose hereditary claim dates under a better rule to an
earlier progenitor,you are not being consistent on anything
being better.
Louis,
If the Monarch is free to establish any rules he wants, who cares how it was
done before. You believe that EIIR can create any law she wants, so there
is no harm done to previous succession laws if she determines how her
successors are chosen.
Why do you not agree with that?
We're not talking about the Sovereign's right to
transmit the Throne by devise,but by Parliament's
attempt to initiate change in a manner it should
never presume to.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Isadore
2004-12-14 18:46:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Isadore
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Don Aitken
So, if a change from a less correct to a more correct rule was
possible then, why not now?
Diversion of succession initiated from below was wrong before,
and it is wrong now.If you are not proposing enthronement of
someone whose hereditary claim dates under a better rule to an
earlier progenitor,you are not being consistent on anything
being better.
Louis,
If the Monarch is free to establish any rules he wants, who cares how it was
done before. You believe that EIIR can create any law she wants, so there
is no harm done to previous succession laws if she determines how her
successors are chosen.
Why do you not agree with that?
We're not talking about the Sovereign's right to
transmit the Throne by devise,but by Parliament's
attempt to initiate change in a manner it should
never presume to.
In this thread, we were talking about altering the rules of succession.
It's self-understood that any changes will be made by the Queen's most
Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual
and Temporal, and Commons.

The point remains that the Queen can alter the succession unilaterally
anyway, right? So any changes she makes do not affect the validity of any
previous monarchs, right?
Stan Brown
2004-12-15 17:07:20 UTC
Permalink
"Isadore" wrote in alt.talk.royalty:
{Louis Epstein quoted)
Post by Isadore
In this thread, we were talking about altering the rules of succession.
It's self-understood that any changes will be made by the Queen's most
Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual
and Temporal, and Commons.
The point remains that the Queen can alter the succession unilaterally
anyway, right? So any changes she makes do not affect the validity of any
previous monarchs, right?
In _or_ out of Louis' fantasy world, alterations to the _succession_
can't affect previous monarchs, by definition.
--
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
Isadore
2004-12-15 20:42:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
{Louis Epstein quoted)
Post by Isadore
In this thread, we were talking about altering the rules of succession.
It's self-understood that any changes will be made by the Queen's most
Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual
and Temporal, and Commons.
The point remains that the Queen can alter the succession unilaterally
anyway, right? So any changes she makes do not affect the validity of any
previous monarchs, right?
In _or_ out of Louis' fantasy world, alterations to the _succession_
can't affect previous monarchs, by definition.
I know. But Louis seems to say that - in his understanding- a change to the
succession rules would call into question previous rules.

I'm trying to point out that SPECIFICALLY according to Louis' theory, there
should be no problem.
Louis Epstein
2004-12-11 16:19:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Knighton
From: Louis Epstein
But right and wrong can not be a matter for passing
fashion if they are to be respected.
I wonder if you could take a moment to consider the possibility that, even
if what's right always has been and always will be, our awareness of it
might have been insufficient in the past, and that perhaps it becomes
our duty as we mature as a Crown, People or society to recognise in our
changing perceptions that something might be more "right" or more "correct"
than the things to which we're accustomed. :)
I have never quarrelled with that basic standpoint for a microsecond.

Public understanding of the eternal nature of Monarchy,
in fact,has both waxed and waned over the years.

Monarchs have in fact ALWAYS had the authority to alter
or abolish Constitutions,Parliaments,and the like at will,
save that it is impossible for the authority of the Monarch
to be diminished even by the Monarch,for example.

However,at the present we are discussing rules of succession,
and if the rules of succession in place are in fact wrong,
they have necessarily always been wrong and the title to the
English/British Throne has been in the wrong hands since at
least 1100.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Graham Truesdale
2004-12-11 23:06:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
I personally feel that the principle that rules
of succession must never be altered once established
enormously outweighs the preferability of any one
rule over any other,save where an existing rule
threatens the complete extinction of a dynasty.
I say this even though gender-blind primogeniture
is the form of succession that I would prefer to
be the norm for all hereditary dignities.
To change the rules for an already-existing dignity
without being retroactive is to make a mockery of the
entire idea of justice.If the exclusion of elder females
is wrong it must necessarily have been wrong throughout
history and no past succession based on it defensible;
if it is not wrong there is no need ever to change it.
But right and wrong can not be a matter for passing
fashion if they are to be respected.
What are your views on past changes to the law of inheritance
as regards those related by the half-blood?
Louis Epstein
2004-12-12 17:29:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham Truesdale
Post by Louis Epstein
I personally feel that the principle that rules
of succession must never be altered once established
enormously outweighs the preferability of any one
rule over any other,save where an existing rule
threatens the complete extinction of a dynasty.
I say this even though gender-blind primogeniture
is the form of succession that I would prefer to
be the norm for all hereditary dignities.
To change the rules for an already-existing dignity
without being retroactive is to make a mockery of the
entire idea of justice.If the exclusion of elder females
is wrong it must necessarily have been wrong throughout
history and no past succession based on it defensible;
if it is not wrong there is no need ever to change it.
But right and wrong can not be a matter for passing
fashion if they are to be respected.
What are your views on past changes to the law of inheritance
as regards those related by the half-blood?
Which half?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Graham Truesdale
2005-01-08 00:19:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Graham Truesdale
Post by Louis Epstein
I personally feel that the principle that rules
of succession must never be altered once established
enormously outweighs the preferability of any one
rule over any other,save where an existing rule
threatens the complete extinction of a dynasty.
I say this even though gender-blind primogeniture
is the form of succession that I would prefer to
be the norm for all hereditary dignities.
To change the rules for an already-existing dignity
without being retroactive is to make a mockery of the
entire idea of justice.If the exclusion of elder females
is wrong it must necessarily have been wrong throughout
history and no past succession based on it defensible;
if it is not wrong there is no need ever to change it.
But right and wrong can not be a matter for passing
fashion if they are to be respected.
What are your views on past changes to the law of inheritance
as regards those related by the half-blood?
Which half?
I was referring to the old pre-1833 rule that a half-brother could
not inherit. See Blackstone, Volume 2, Chapter 14, page 227
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/bk2ch14.htm
No doubt there were men alive in 1833 who had failed to inherit
from their deceased half-brothers under the old law. But that did
not prevent Parliament from changing the law for the future.

BTW, how exactly does inheritance between half-siblings work
to-day? EG in the case of a barony by writ, does a half-brother
inherit ahead of sisters?

corbyguy
2004-12-11 17:10:26 UTC
Permalink
When this Bill comes into place (if it should ever happen) then who would be
the first 100 people in the order of succession? Would anyone here like to
compile a list out of interest?
Post by Dag T. Hoelseth
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldbills/011/2005011.htm
--
Dag T. Hoelseth
http://www.geocities.com/dagtho/royalty.html
w***@gmail.com
2004-12-11 18:35:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by corbyguy
When this Bill comes into place (if it should ever happen) then who would be
the first 100 people in the order of succession? Would anyone here like to
compile a list out of interest?
Assumption: Illegitimate / LPMS children and their descendants remain excluded.

SOV Elizabeth II Q Gt Britain (*1926) m. Philip D Edinburgh
1. Charles P Wales (*1948)
2. William P Gt Britain (*1982)
3. Harry P Gt Britain (*1984)
4. Anne Pss Royal (*1950) m1. Mark Phillips m2. Timothy Lawrence
5. Peter Phillips (*1977)
6. Zara Phillips (*1981)
7. Andrew D York (*1960)
8. Beatrice Pss Gt Britain (*1988)
9. Eugenie Pss Gt Britain (*1990)
10. Edward E Wessex (*1964)
11. Lady Louise Windsor (*2002)
12. David Armstrong-Jones V Linley (*1961)
13. Charles Armstrong-Jones (*1999)
14. Margarita Armstrong-Jones (*2002)
15. Lady Sarah Armstrong-Jones (*1964) m. Daniel Chatto
16. Samuel Chatto (*1996)
17. Arthur Chatto (*1999)
18. George E Harewood (*1923)
19. David V Lascelles (*1950)
20. Hon Alexander Lascelles (*1980)
21. Hon Edward Lascelles (*1982)
22. Hon James Lascelles (*1953)
23. Sophie Lascelles (*1973)
24. Rowan Lascelles (*1977)
25. Tewa Lascelles (*1985)
26. Hon Jeremy Lascelles (*1955)
27. Thomas Lascelles (*1982)
28. Ellen Lascelles (*1984)
29. Amy Lascelles (*1986)
30. Henry Lascelles (*1953)
31. Maximilian Lascelles (*1991)
32. Richard D Gloucester (*1944)
33. Alexander E Ulster (*1974)
34. Lady Davina Windsor (*1977)
35. Lady Rose Windsor (*1980)
36. Edward D Kent (*1935)
37. George E St Andrews (*1962)
38. Edward Ld Downpatrick (*1988)
39. Lady Marina Windsor (*1992)
40. Lady Amelia Windsor (*1995)
41. Lady Helen Windsor (*1964) m. Timothy Taylor
42. Columbus Taylor (*1994)
43. Cassius Taylor (*1996)
44. Eloise Taylor (*2003)
45. Lord Nicholas Windsor (*1970)
46. Alexandra Pss Gt Britain (*1936) m. Angus Ogilvy
47. James Ogilvy (*1964)
48. Flora Ogilvy (*1994)
49. Alexander Ogilvy (*1996)
50. Marina Ogilvy (*1966) m. Paul Mowatt
51. Zenouska Mowatt (*1990)
52. Christian Mowatt (*1993)
53. Michael P Gt Britain (*1942)
54. Lord Frederick Windsor (*1979)
55. Lady Gabriella Windsor (*1981)
56. James Carnegie 3 D Fife (*1929)
57. Lady Alexandra Carnegie (*1959) m. Mark Etherington
58. Amelia Etherington (*2001)
59. David Carnegie E Macduff (*1961)
60. Charles Ld Carnegie (*1989)
61. Hon George Carnegie (*1991)
62. Hon Hugh Carnegie (*1993)
63. Ragnhild af Norge (*1930) m. Erling Lorentzen
64. Haakon Lorentzen (*1954)
65. Olav Lorentzen (*1985)
66. Christian Lorentzen (*1988)
67. Sophia Lorentzen (*1994)
68. Ingeborg Lorentzen (*1957) m. Paulo Pereira Ribeiro
69. Victoria Lorentzen Ribeiro (*1988)
70. Ragnhild Lorentzen (*1968)
71. Astrid af Norge (*1932) m. Johan Ferner
72. Cathrine Ferner (*1962) m. Arlid Johansen
73. Sebastian Johansen (*1990)
74. Madeleine Johansen (*1993)
75. Benedikte Ferner (*1963) m. Rolf Woods
76. Alexander Ferner (*1965)
77. Stella Ferner (*1998)
78. Elisabeth Ferner (*1969) m. Tom Beckmann
79. Benjamin Ferner (*1999)
80. Carl Christian Ferner (*1972)
81. Harald V K af Norge (*1937)
82. Märtha af Norge (*1971) m. Ari Behn
83. Maud Angelica Behn (*2003)
84. Haakon P af Norge (*1973)


These are all of the living legitimate descendants of Edward VII, arranged in
gender-blind primogeniture order.

Beyond this everything becomes speculative, as Edward VII was not the oldest
child of his mother. The proposed legislation does not address what should
happen to the Succession if all of the descendants of Edward VII die out.

Possibilities:
Revert to the descendants of Empress Frederick.
Skip the descendants of Empress Frederick and go to the descendants
of the Grand Duchess of Hesse.
Go to the descendants of Alfred the Duke of Edinburgh.

And so on. Without guidance (unlikely to be forthcoming), this is probably as
far as this exercise can be taken.
Dag T. Hoelseth
2004-12-11 20:03:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by corbyguy
When this Bill comes into place (if it should ever happen) then who would be
the first 100 people in the order of succession? Would anyone here like to
compile a list out of interest?
Assumption: Illegitimate / LPMS children and their descendants remain excluded.
SOV Elizabeth II Q Gt Britain (*1926) m. Philip D Edinburgh
1. Charles P Wales (*1948)
[...]
Post by w***@gmail.com
63. Ragnhild af Norge (*1930) m. Erling Lorentzen
[...]
Post by w***@gmail.com
71. Astrid af Norge (*1932) m. Johan Ferner
[...]
Post by w***@gmail.com
81. Harald V K af Norge (*1937)
(Harald V Norges Konge)
Post by w***@gmail.com
82. Märtha af Norge (*1971) m. Ari Behn
(Märtha Louise, Prinsesse av Norge --> both names are used officially)

[...]
Post by w***@gmail.com
84. Haakon P af Norge (*1973)
(Haakon Norges Kronprins)

You forgot no. 85 Ingrid Alexandra P av Norge (*2004)

Please note that "af" is Danish while "av" is the Norwegian word for "of".
--
Dag T. Hoelseth
***@nospam.online.no
http://www.geocities.com/dagtho/royalty.html
Stan Brown
2004-12-12 02:14:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@gmail.com
Assumption: Illegitimate / LPMS children and their descendants remain excluded.
LPMS? Keske say?
--
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
w***@gmail.com
2004-12-12 15:06:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Post by w***@gmail.com
Assumption: Illegitimate / LPMS children and their descendants remain excluded.
LPMS? Keske say?
In some jurisdictions, a child is considered to become legitimate if his parents
marry after he is born. In Latin, "legitimatio per matrimonium subsequens".

In Britain, LPMS children cannot succeed to the Throne or to peerage dignities
(with the exception of Scottish peerages under certain conditions).
George Knighton
2004-12-12 16:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@gmail.com
"legitimatio per matrimonium subsequens".
It'd be an interesting exercise in human rights to talk about whether there is
any longer a real reason to legally exclude LPMS or even illegitimate children
of the sovereign from the succession.

I mean, not that you all don't already have enough to think about.

LOL.... :P
Stan Brown
2004-12-12 18:04:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by Stan Brown
Post by w***@gmail.com
Assumption: Illegitimate / LPMS children and their descendants remain excluded.
LPMS? Keske say?
In some jurisdictions, a child is considered to become legitimate if his parents
marry after he is born. In Latin, "legitimatio per matrimonium subsequens".
In Britain, LPMS children cannot succeed to the Throne or to peerage dignities
(with the exception of Scottish peerages under certain conditions).
Thanks!
--
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
Gidzmo
2004-12-15 00:04:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@gmail.com
SOV Elizabeth II Q Gt Britain (*1926) m. Philip D Edinburgh
1. Charles P Wales (*1948)
2. William P Gt Britain (*1982)
3. Harry P Gt Britain (*1984)
4. Anne Pss Royal (*1950) m1. Mark Phillips m2. Timothy Lawrence
5. Peter Phillips (*1977)
6. Zara Phillips (*1981)
7. Andrew D York (*1960)
8. Beatrice Pss Gt Britain (*1988)
9. Eugenie Pss Gt Britain (*1990)
10. Edward E Wessex (*1964)
11. Lady Louise Windsor (*2002)
12. David Armstrong-Jones V Linley (*1961)
13. Charles Armstrong-Jones (*1999)
14. Margarita Armstrong-Jones (*2002)
15. Lady Sarah Armstrong-Jones (*1964) m. Daniel Chatto
16. Samuel Chatto (*1996)
17. Arthur Chatto (*1999)
18. George E Harewood (*1923)
19. David V Lascelles (*1950)
20. Hon Alexander Lascelles (*1980)
21. Hon Edward Lascelles (*1982)
22. Hon James Lascelles (*1953)
23. Sophie Lascelles (*1973)
24. Rowan Lascelles (*1977)
25. Tewa Lascelles (*1985)
26. Hon Jeremy Lascelles (*1955)
27. Thomas Lascelles (*1982)
28. Ellen Lascelles (*1984)
29. Amy Lascelles (*1986)
30. Henry Lascelles (*1953)
31. Maximilian Lascelles (*1991)
32. Richard D Gloucester (*1944)
33. Alexander E Ulster (*1974)
34. Lady Davina Windsor (*1977)
35. Lady Rose Windsor (*1980)
36. Edward D Kent (*1935)
37. George E St Andrews (*1962)
(curr. excluded/m. a Roman Catholic)
Post by w***@gmail.com
38. Edward Ld Downpatrick (*1988)
(curr. excluded/conv. to Roman Church)
Post by w***@gmail.com
39. Lady Marina Windsor (*1992)
40. Lady Amelia Windsor (*1995)
41. Lady Helen Windsor (*1964) m. Timothy Taylor
42. Columbus Taylor (*1994)
43. Cassius Taylor (*1996)
44. Eloise Taylor (*2003)
45. Lord Nicholas Windsor (*1970)
(curr. excluded/conv. to Roman Church)
Post by w***@gmail.com
46. Alexandra Pss Gt Britain (*1936) m. Angus Ogilvy
47. James Ogilvy (*1964)
48. Flora Ogilvy (*1994)
49. Alexander Ogilvy (*1996)
50. Marina Ogilvy (*1966) m. Paul Mowatt
51. Zenouska Mowatt (*1990)
52. Christian Mowatt (*1993)
53. Michael P Gt Britain (*1942)
(curr. excluded/m. a Roman Catholic)
Post by w***@gmail.com
54. Lord Frederick Windsor (*1979)
55. Lady Gabriella Windsor (*1981)
56. James Carnegie 3 D Fife (*1929)
57. Lady Alexandra Carnegie (*1959) m. Mark Etherington
58. Amelia Etherington (*2001)
59. David Carnegie E Macduff (*1961)
60. Charles Ld Carnegie (*1989)
61. Hon George Carnegie (*1991)
62. Hon Hugh Carnegie (*1993)
63. Ragnhild af Norge (*1930) m. Erling Lorentzen
64. Haakon Lorentzen (*1954)
65. Olav Lorentzen (*1985)
66. Christian Lorentzen (*1988)
67. Sophia Lorentzen (*1994)
68. Ingeborg Lorentzen (*1957) m. Paulo Pereira Ribeiro
69. Victoria Lorentzen Ribeiro (*1988)
70. Ragnhild Lorentzen (*1968)
71. Astrid af Norge (*1932) m. Johan Ferner
72. Cathrine Ferner (*1962) m. Arlid Johansen
73. Sebastian Johansen (*1990)
74. Madeleine Johansen (*1993)
75. Benedikte Ferner (*1963) m. Rolf Woods
76. Alexander Ferner (*1965)
77. Stella Ferner (*1998)
78. Elisabeth Ferner (*1969) m. Tom Beckmann
79. Benjamin Ferner (*1999)
80. Carl Christian Ferner (*1972)
81. Harald V K af Norge (*1937)
82. Märtha af Norge (*1971) m. Ari Behn
83. Maud Angelica Behn (*2003)
84. Haakon P af Norge (*1973)
These are all of the living legitimate descendants of Edward VII, arranged in
gender-blind primogeniture order.

Assuming this bill were to become law, would it also remove the prohibition
against the Roman Church? (I've read the bill, but the legalese is a bit hard
to understand)

If so, it would affect a few members of the Kent branch of the family (as noted
above).
It might also affect some of the Norwegians on the list, but I'm not sure who
(Yvonne's current list only goes to Princess Anne's family).
Don Aitken
2004-12-15 00:37:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gidzmo
Assuming this bill were to become law, would it also remove the prohibition
against the Roman Church? (I've read the bill, but the legalese is a bit hard
to understand)
In relation to those *married* to Roman Catholics, yes, but not those
who are Catholics themselves.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Isadore
2004-12-15 01:30:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Gidzmo
Assuming this bill were to become law, would it also remove the prohibition
against the Roman Church? (I've read the bill, but the legalese is a bit hard
to understand)
In relation to those *married* to Roman Catholics, yes, but not those
who are Catholics themselves.
--
Don Aitken
Wouldn't they be setting themselves up for trouble in the future? After
all, someone whose wife is a RC might have his wife insist that the kids be
raised RC. Like James II's second wife. (I never understood how a loyal RC
would consent to have her children raised protestant, like Princess Michael.
Wouldn't Prncess M. be the exception?)
Gidzmo
2004-12-16 00:16:40 UTC
Permalink
In relation to those *married* to Roman Catholics, yes, but not those who are
Catholics themselves.

Well, that would let in the Earl of St. Andrews and Prince Michael, but still
exclude Baron Downpatrick and Lord Nicholas.

They would probably not quibble over the Duke of Kent, if he were to
succeed--the Duchess was a Protestant when they married. She converted to the
Roman Church well after their marriage.
36. Edward D Kent (*1935)
37. George E St Andrews (*1962)
(curr. excluded/m. a Roman Catholic)
38. Edward Ld Downpatrick (*1988)
(curr. excluded/conv. to Roman Church)
39. Lady Marina Windsor (*1992)
40. Lady Amelia Windsor (*1995)
41. Lady Helen Windsor (*1964) m. Timothy Taylor
42. Columbus Taylor (*1994)
43. Cassius Taylor (*1996)
44. Eloise Taylor (*2003)
45. Lord Nicholas Windsor (*1970)
(curr. excluded/conv. to Roman Church)
46. Alexandra Pss Gt Britain (*1936) m. Angus Ogilvy
47. James Ogilvy (*1964)
48. Flora Ogilvy (*1994)
49. Alexander Ogilvy (*1996)
50. Marina Ogilvy (*1966) m. Paul Mowatt
51. Zenouska Mowatt (*1990)
52. Christian Mowatt (*1993)
53. Michael P Gt Britain (*1942)
(curr. excluded/m. a Roman Catholic)
54. Lord Frederick Windsor (*1979)
55. Lady Gabriella Windsor (*1981)
Dag T. Hoelseth
2004-12-15 05:58:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by w***@gmail.com
SOV Elizabeth II Q Gt Britain (*1926) m. Philip D Edinburgh
1. Charles P Wales (*1948)
[...]
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by w***@gmail.com
63. Ragnhild af Norge (*1930) m. Erling Lorentzen
64. Haakon Lorentzen (*1954)
65. Olav Lorentzen (*1985)
66. Christian Lorentzen (*1988)
67. Sophia Lorentzen (*1994)
68. Ingeborg Lorentzen (*1957) m. Paulo Pereira Ribeiro
69. Victoria Lorentzen Ribeiro (*1988)
70. Ragnhild Lorentzen (*1968)
71. Astrid af Norge (*1932) m. Johan Ferner
72. Cathrine Ferner (*1962) m. Arlid Johansen
73. Sebastian Johansen (*1990)
74. Madeleine Johansen (*1993)
75. Benedikte Ferner (*1963) m. Rolf Woods
76. Alexander Ferner (*1965)
77. Stella Ferner (*1998)
78. Elisabeth Ferner (*1969) m. Tom Beckmann
79. Benjamin Ferner (*1999)
80. Carl Christian Ferner (*1972)
81. Harald V K af Norge (*1937)
82. Märtha af Norge (*1971) m. Ari Behn
83. Maud Angelica Behn (*2003)
84. Haakon P af Norge (*1973)
These are all of the living legitimate descendants of Edward VII, arranged in
gender-blind primogeniture order.
Assuming this bill were to become law, would it also remove the prohibition
against the Roman Church? (I've read the bill, but the legalese is a bit hard
to understand)
If so, it would affect a few members of the Kent branch of the family (as noted
above).
It might also affect some of the Norwegians on the list, but I'm not sure who
(Yvonne's current list only goes to Princess Anne's family).
If the prohibition was removed, it would affect no. 64, 68 and 70, who all
are married to Roman Catholics.

The list is not very updated, by the way, as Benedikte Ferner was divorced
from Rolf Woods several years ago (and has later married and divorced a
second man). Elisabeth Ferner was legally separated from her husband earlier
this fall.
--
Dag T. Hoelseth
***@nospam.online.no
http://www.geocities.com/dagtho/royalty.html
Graham Truesdale
2004-12-11 23:06:15 UTC
Permalink
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldbills/011/2005011.htm
Post by corbyguy
When this Bill comes into place (if it should ever happen) then who would be
the first 100 people in the order of succession? Would anyone here like to
compile a list out of interest?
Somebody has probably beaten me to it - but here goes -
Descendants of Elizabeth II
1-3 - Charles & Sons
*4-6 - Anne & Children (Peter is elder so comes first)
7-9 - Andrew & Daughters
10-11 - Edward & Daughter*
Descendants of George VI's younger daughter Princess Margaret
12-14 - Lord Linley and children - Charles PI is elder so
comes first
15-17 - Lady Sarah Chatto & Sons
That exhausts the descendants of George VI, so you have to go
back to the descendants of George V's next child, Princess Mary.
18 - Lord Harewood
19-21 - Viscount Lascelles & legitimate sons
22 - 25 - James Lascelles and legitimate children - Sophie
before Tewa
26-29 - Jeremy Lascelles and legitimate children - Thomas is
eldest so comes first
30-31 - Henry Lascelles and legitimate son
Then descendants of 1st Duke of Gloucester
32-35 - Duke of Gloucester & Sons - Lord Ulster is eldest so
comes first
36 - Duke of Kent
37 - Lord St Andrews - as far as I know he is not RC though his
wife is.
(Lord Downpatrick has been confirmed as a RC, so I think he
would still be ineligible)
38-9 - Ladies Marina & Amelia, unless and until they become RC
40-43 - Lady Helen Taylor and children - Eloise is youngest so
comes last
(Lord Nicholas Windsor is RC so ineligible)
44- Princess Alexandra
45-7 - James Ogilvy and children - Flora is eldest so comes first
48-50 - Marina Mowatt and children - Zenouska is eldest so comes first
51-53 - Prince Michael & Children - Frederick is elder so comes first

That brings us to the same number of George V's descendants as in
http://members.aol.com/eurostamm/succession_2001.html
Since then Pss Margaret has died and Margarita Armstrong-Jones,
Alexander Lascelles and Eloise Taylor have been born - so there
would be 55 people by that point in that list as of to-day. But that
list does not omit RC's and thus includes Lord Downpatrick and
Lord Nicholas.

I think I'll continue in another post.
Graham Truesdale
2004-12-12 00:08:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dag T. Hoelseth
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldbills/011/2005011.htm
Post by corbyguy
When this Bill comes into place (if it should ever happen) then who
would be the first 100 people in the order of succession? Would
anyone here like to compile a list out of interest?
Somebody has probably beaten me to it - but here goes -
Descendants of Elizabeth II
Snip
Post by Dag T. Hoelseth
Descendants of George VI's younger daughter Princess Margaret
Snip
Post by Dag T. Hoelseth
That exhausts the descendants of George VI, so you have to go
back to the descendants of George V's next child, Princess Mary.
Snip
Post by Dag T. Hoelseth
Then descendants of 1st Duke of Gloucester
Snip
I should have added that the following are descendants of 1st Duke
of Kent
Snip
Post by Dag T. Hoelseth
That brings us to the same number of George V's descendants as in
http://members.aol.com/eurostamm/succession_2001.html
Since then Pss Margaret has died and Margarita Armstrong-Jones,
Alexander Lascelles and Eloise Taylor have been born - so there
would be 55 people by that point in that list as of to-day. But that
list does not omit RC's and thus includes Lord Downpatrick and
Lord Nicholas.
I think I'll continue in another post
One then moves to the descendants of Edward VII and his daughter Louise,
Pss Royal.
54 - Duke of Fife
55 - Lady Alexandra Carnegie -
56-59 - Lord Macduff & Sons
(I may have missed some post-2001 births here)

So far it has been *reasonably* straightforward - Anne & children move
ahead of her brothers and theirs, but the position of Pss Margaret's
descendants is unaffected. The Lascelles are transplanted bodily
ahead of the Gloucesters and Kents, but as there have been so few
females in that family, Sophie seems to be the only move within it.
The Gloucesters stay the same, and in the Kents, Alexandra and her
descendants bunk Prince Michael and his (& NB Zenouska). The Duke
of Fife's position is unaffected.

Then the descendants of Edward VII's daughter Maud, Queen of Norway.
Her only child was King Olav, whose eldest child was Princess Ragnhild
She and her children seem to have very considerately had sons first, so
they are 60-67.
Princess Astrid and her descendants are the next ten - 68-77
Then King Harald and his descendants as the next five - 78 - 82. As
Maud Behn and Pss Ingrid were born after 2001, this means that there
are two more eligible descendants of Edward VII's daughters to-day than
there were then

Now here is where it gets interesting. The next level to look at is the
descendants of Victoria's eight children other than Edward VII. Princess
Victoria/Empress Frederick was actually older than him, so presumably
her descendants come in after his, as 'This Act does not affect any
succession to the Crown before the date on which this Act was passed.'

Kaiser Wilhelm II was Empress Frederick's eldest child, Crown
Prince Friedrich was *his* eldest child and Prince Wilhelm was *his*
eldest (how the Habsburgs would have envied them) and had only daughters,
so Princess Felicitas is still the first of Empress Frederick's descendants
in line to the British throne - though she moves up from 370 to 83. Her ten
descendants are from 84 to 93 (Victor Marxen having been born in 2002)
and her sister Christa at 94. Crown Prince Friedrich's next son was Louis
Ferdinand, and again his eldest child was a son (another Louis Ferdinand)
so he, his eldest child Phillipp, and the latter's children take us to 100.

Comments?
Graham Truesdale
2004-12-12 00:43:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dag T. Hoelseth
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldbills/011/2005011.htm
This makes it interesteing to review
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/browse_frm/thread/cf931
8e3acdc0f3d/f46897b7ed798eb3?tvc=1&q=gender-blind+Sophia+group:alt.talk.roya
lty&_done=%2Fgroups%3Fhl%3Den%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26safe%3Dactive%26q%3Dgender
-blind+Sophia+group:alt.talk.royalty%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&scrollSave
=&&d#f46897b7ed798eb3
Has Google beta sentenced us to long links?
Graham Truesdale
2004-12-18 01:21:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dag T. Hoelseth
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldbills/011/2005011.htm
One point that I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned is how
this would affect Counsellors of State. AFAIK these are
currently Philip (if he is ever in the UK when HM is not), and
the first four over-21's in line, namely Charles, William, Andrew
and Edward. As the law now stands, the latter will be pushed off
the end when Harry turns 21 on 15th September 2005. But if the
Bill is passed and brought into force before that date, Princess
Anne and Peter Phillips will be 3rd and 4th in line, with Peter being
the one who is pushed off by Harry next September.

(The next paragraph is subject to "whom God long preserve")

As the law now stands, if HM were to leave us after September,
the first four over-21's in line would be William, Harry, Andrew
and Edward (until Beatrice's 21st in August 2009). The Bill would
change this to William, Harry, Anne and Peter.

Of course, if the next reign were to begin before September,
Anne would be brought back on without the Bill having to pass.
And in the event of the Bill passing *and* the next reign beginning
before that time, the Council of State would be Philip, William,
Anne, Peter and Zara.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...