|
|
Post by sullyo on Apr 20, 2008 12:41:22 GMT
The law that forces the daughter of a British Monarch to make way for her younger brother is to be abolished.
|
|
queenk
Member of the Court
Posts: 53
|
Post by queenk on Apr 20, 2008 14:32:53 GMT
Hmmm, interesting, so does that mean Anne and her children could change positions? She's not the youngest like I thought she was, she's the 2nd born  |
|
|
|
Post by sullyo on Apr 20, 2008 20:29:49 GMT
No Prince Charles will still become King .
|
|
|
|
Post by observer on Apr 20, 2008 23:59:30 GMT
The law that forces the daughter of a British Monarch to make way for her younger brother is to be abolished. If, and only if, all the other countries in which the British sovereign is also monarch agree - as agreed under the 1931 Statute of Westminster. The succession rule is not actually part of the Act of Settlement, either, which the British Solicitor-General, Vera Baird, should know. |
|
queenk
Member of the Court
Posts: 53
|
Post by queenk on Apr 21, 2008 1:04:58 GMT
No Prince Charles will still become King . Well yeah he's first born but Anne is older than Andrew and the other brother ( can't remember his name) but currently she behind all her brothers because of the law and her children (though in line for the throne) do not have titles. Except of course because of the "no Catholics" law her son, Petter Phillips is no longer in line. |
|
|
|
Post by donald1941 on Apr 21, 2008 21:57:33 GMT
If this legislation should ever be enacted I doubt if it will be retroactive, meaning that nothing will change until it affects William's heirs.
The law could be enacted in the U.K. but rejected in the "other realms" so that a situttion could occur that there would be a female monarch in the U.K. but her brother or uncle would succeed in say, Canada or Jamaica.
The preamble to the Statue of Westminister is not binding legally and thus each of the 16 realms the Queen is sovereign of don't have to agree. That would be a violation of the sovereignty of each of these nations. However, in practice I imagine serious consoltations between all of them would occur over any law.
The most likely result would be that many of the 15 other realms would use this as an excuse to declare themselves a republic and break from the British monarchy. Therefore the law needs to be examined quite seriously before it is enacted.
|
|
hovite
Member of the Court
Posts: 40
|
Post by hovite on Apr 24, 2008 10:48:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by thequeenofcastile on May 26, 2008 7:29:45 GMT
The current positions of those in line for the throne, should absolute primogeniture be introduced, is if the rule is effective retrospectively. For instance, when Sweden introduced this law it was effective retroactively; therefore Crown Prince Carl become Prince Carl and Princess Victoria became Crown Princess Victoria.
However when this law was enacted in Norway, it was made effective for those born after 1990, the Netherlands those after 1983 amd Belgium those after 1991. Therefore the positions of succession remained the same.
If it was to be brought in, I would bet on it not being retroactive. It would be effective from the year of enactment.
|
|
|
|
Post by HRISMH Duke Rico on May 27, 2008 1:56:19 GMT
If a change of succession from male prefered to absolute primogeniture were to be made in Britian, it would be better to make it effective in a way that the current lines are locked in their current collateral posisitons (except Edwards children and future decendants). Annes decendnants should always come after Edwards, since the adult and teenaged children have always known their positions relative to the throne.
Having said this, if Andrew eventually has a legitiamte son, then that son should be placed after Eugenie. They should also ammend the line of succession to only the decendants of Victoria
|
|
