|
|
Post by vittoria on Jan 8, 2009 0:01:21 GMT
The Chief of Guest, if the succession laws are changed, they will almost certainly be changed regarding future generations and as-yet-unborn children, meaning that any alterations will not affect people living now. In other words, there will be no "grandfathering." Princess Anne might, in fact, make a good Queen, but her two children have not been raised to expect that they might inherit the throne, and from what I know of them, they would not be interested.
A new Act of Succession would probably apply, first, to the great-grandchildren of the current Queen. That is, it would state that the eldest child, male or female, of Prince William, then Prince Harry, and down through subsequent generations, would precede any younger children. So, if William's first child were a girl, she would become the heir after him, even if her parents later had a son. This is how the other European monarchies are now handling the matter, and I think it's past time for the U.K. to make the same change.
But there would be no good reason for a new Act to apply, retroactively, to the generation of Prince Charles, his siblings, and already existing grandchildren, most of whom are adults and who, besides Prince William (and maybe Harry), haven't been prepared for the possibility of inheriting the throne.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chief of on Jan 19, 2009 9:42:10 GMT
Making a law to make it LEGAL FOR ALL WOMEN to succeed to the throne, and then NOT letting the most prominent woman int he family, aside from the Queen, succeed to the throne, seems disgusting and completly defeating the whole point of the change.
And to your comments about Princess Anne's children not "being raised" to be King or Queen, I invite you to look as Sweden, and the succession change there.
|
|
|
|
Post by vittoria on Jan 20, 2009 1:09:22 GMT
Chief of Guest, I'm not sure that you are familiar with what happened in Sweden. When Princess Victoria was born, in 1977, she was not the heir apparent but merely the heir presumptive. At that time, in Sweden, as in the U.K. now, a male heir preceded a female. In 1979, after Victoria's brother, Carl Philip, was born, HE was the heir, until the Swedish Parliament made a switch to "absolute primogeniture" -- that is, to inheritance by the first-born child, regardless of sex. This change was made in 1980.
In other words, Victoria was raised as the Crown Princess, the future Queen, from about three years after her birth. That's plenty early enough for the necessary education and preparation, which Victoria has received.
But, if you were now, at this moment, the 20-something child of Princess Anne, untitled, unprepared and uneducated for the throne, and having been left relatively free to live your life as you pleased, would you want to become the heir?
|
|
|
|
Post by Chief of Guest on Jan 20, 2009 18:13:37 GMT
Hmm...interesting. To answer your question, YES, I would want the "job" of Prince or Princess, not simply for the title or throne, but fairness and equality. Equality means EQUAL FOR ALL, not for the select few.
When I mentioned the Succession of Sweden change, I meant the latter part of the history. I am knowledgeable of the Swedish Succession changhe of 1980, and was refering to it when I spoke of it. No matter age or title, euality of right, is equality of right. It is always interesting to hear other peoples thoughts on the matter though. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by HRISMH Duke Rico on Jan 29, 2009 9:58:05 GMT
Prior to 1980 Swedish succession operated by the system of Semi Salisim, whereby females could only inherit the throne after all male dynasts had either been excluded or died out. Prince Bertil, the current kings uncle did not marry Princess Lillian until after Carl XVI Gustaf approved of the marriage therefore he was heir presumtive until 1979, when Carl Philip was born (Carl Philip became heir apparent). Victoria did not have succession rights as there was at least one other male dynast entitled to succede. Bertil remained second in line until 1980.
When the change in law came into effect they (the Swedish government) included Bertil in the succession even though the effect of the law restricted succession to the Kings descendants.
|
|
|
|
Post by briar69rose on May 7, 2009 20:46:41 GMT
I think they should exercise and take their vitiamins and herbs and be okay to produce whatever kids......
|
|
|
|
Post by briar69rose on May 8, 2009 23:17:15 GMT
why would prince william adopt a child anyways?
|
|
|
|
Post by briar69rose on Jun 8, 2009 22:02:42 GMT
why would william adopt instead of having some of his own?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ibelieveinfairytales on Jun 8, 2009 22:10:26 GMT
why would william adopt instead of having some of his own? He probably won't but its interesting to speculate. |
|
|
|
Post by briar69rose on Jul 29, 2009 22:40:48 GMT
im taking it that kate middleton cant have any kids?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cinderella on Jul 30, 2009 1:17:53 GMT
This is just a "what if" discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by briar69rose on Jul 31, 2009 0:14:51 GMT
Oh okay.... because some people just dont want kids....if thats the case then she would need to move on to someone else , and let will and harry carry on that blood line with someone else for he needs to carry on through history.....
|
|
|
|
Post by HRISMH Duke Rico on Sept 7, 2009 15:52:19 GMT
Interesting... I would hope that if the laws were to be amended to rearrange succession, the people who re-write the laws would make it to where everyone were created EQUAL. In doing so, I would say that if it is made to be EQUAL primogeniture, they would make Anne as the to-be-Queen (aka Princess of Wales?), otherwise they would be doing nothing more than snubbing women, especially Prince Anne. <snipped>. Even if the succession laws were to change to cognatic succession, Anne will never be heir apparent to anyone unless her brother and two eldest nephews predeceased the current queen. She is the second child in her family so she was never higher than 2nd in line to the throne (3rd @ birth after her elder brother). |
|
|
|
Post by sempereademlady on Oct 18, 2009 1:26:00 GMT
I think if Prince William adopted a child, it would be viewed as the same as if he had made a morganatic marriage. In that case, the child would have no claim to the throne or to any of William's titles but would be considered as a legitimate child other inheritances such as lands, goods, and money.
Essentially, Prince William could give the child his name and love but he wouldn't be able to insert any child into the succession unless the child was born an heir of his body.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cinderella on Oct 18, 2009 21:47:13 GMT
Sempereademlady, welcome to the board.
|
|
