Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

gotosy

British royal succession rules to change

Recommended Posts

(Reuters) - Centuries of British royal discrimination came to an end on Friday after Commonwealth leaders agreed to drop rules that give sons precedence as heir to the throne and bar anyone in line for the crown from marrying a Roman Catholic.

The 16 countries that have Queen Elizabeth as their monarch agreed to the changes put forward by British Prime Minister David Cameron, who had called the rules of succession outdated.

"The idea that a younger son should become monarch instead of an elder daughter simply because he is a man, or that a future monarch can marry someone of any faith except a Catholic, this way of thinking is at odds with the modern countries that we've all become," Cameron told reporters.

The agreement came on the sidelines of a Commonwealth summit presided over by the Queen in the remote west Australian city of Perth.

Current succession rules dating back to 1688 and 1700 were designed to ensure a Protestant monarchy, and bar anyone in line to the throne from marrying a Catholic.

Only a Catholic link is barred. There are no restrictions on marrying members of other religions or atheists.

The rules have their roots in a turbulent period of English history dating back to Henry VIII's break with Rome in the mid- 16th century. The laws were imposed at a time when Catholics were seen as a threat to the state.

However, the British monarch remains head of the Church of England.

The leaders also agreed to drop the practice of giving precedence to male over female heirs to the throne, regardless of age.

The issue has been brought into focus by this year's wedding of Prince William, second-in-line to the throne, and Kate Middleton.

Without a change, their first son would eventually become king even if he had an older sister.

A group will now be set up to coordinate the necessary legislation for the changes.

Reuters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine if girls had always had the same rights as boys. The following kings would not have succeeded because all of them had living older sisters at the time:

William II, Henry I, John, Edward II, Henry IV, Edward IV, Edward V, Richard III, Henry VIII, Edward VI, Charles I, George III and Edward VII.

What a difference to British history that would have made!! B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine if girls had always had the same rights as boys. The following kings would not have succeeded because all of them had living older sisters at the time:

William II, Henry I, John, Edward II, Henry IV, Edward IV, Edward V, Richard III, Henry VIII, Edward VI, Charles I, George III and Edward VII.

What a difference to British history that would have made!! B)

No kidding. Thanks for pointing that out. Yowzah.

Will all this change the current order of succession or will it just apply to heirs born from this point forward?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine if girls had always had the same rights as boys. The following kings would not have succeeded because all of them had living older sisters at the time:

William II, Henry I, John, Edward II, Henry IV, Edward IV, Edward V, Richard III, Henry VIII, Edward VI, Charles I, George III and Edward VII.

What a difference to British history that would have made!! B)

There would've been more queens!! :lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No kidding. Thanks for pointing that out. Yowzah.

Will all this change the current order of succession or will it just apply to heirs born from this point forward?

It will only apply to future heirs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would've been more queens!! :lol::lol:

Edward II and Richard II would probably have pouted, turned on their high heels and flounced off to hear you say that! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the world would have been a better and more peaceful place if this law was enacted hundreds of years ago for all monarchs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the world would have been a better and more peaceful place if this law was enacted hundreds of years ago for all monarchs...

Shudda-cudda... :rolleyes: Not necessarily. There have been some terribly brutal and cruel women chieftains as well. There's no saying how well or less well they could've done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<_< Interesting to see the general opinion of the Commonwealth is the the top three most popular monarchs are women - Elizabeth I, Victoria, and Elizabeth II. The dawn of empire, the height of empire, the end of empire and creation of commonwealth respectivley.

One poigient moment in the darkening world of the 1930s was when the ill George V said "I pray to god that my eldest son doesn't have children so to clear the way for Bertie and Liilibet to succeed."- Phew! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what me wonders when the rule that the british queen/king is not allowed to be catholic was introduced - before Elisabeth I. ruled Mary I, daughter of Henry VIII. and Catherine, England - she was catholic - that means the rule must had been adopted later...

Does anybody known when?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the world would have been a better and more peaceful place if this law was enacted hundreds of years ago for all monarchs...

Catherine, Elizabeth, Marie Theresa and Isabella were no angels. They were ruthless, indecisive, power-hunger and empire builders just the same as the men. Marie Theresa was Frederick's main adversary in his pursuit of German hegomony. And lets not forgot that Mary, Elizabeth and Alexandra were iron-willed ladies.

<_< Interesting to see the general opinion of the Commonwealth is the the top three most popular monarchs are women - Elizabeth I, Victoria, and Elizabeth II. The dawn of empire, the height of empire, the end of empire and creation of commonwealth respectivley.

One poigient moment in the darkening world of the 1930s was when the ill George V said "I pray to god that my eldest son doesn't have children so to clear the way for Bertie and Liilibet to succeed."- Phew! :blink:

It may be the general will, but it might require constitutional change in Canada, if so it will not happen.

what me wonders when the rule that the british queen/king is not allowed to be catholic was introduced - before Elisabeth I. ruled Mary I, daughter of Henry VIII. and Catherine, England - she was catholic - that means the rule must had been adopted later...

Does anybody known when?

It is apart of a few Acts in the 18th century. And probably before. Elizabeth certainly eroded Rome's power in the UK during her reign and I suspect it happened within her time or just after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is apart of a few Acts in the 18th century. And probably before. Elizabeth certainly eroded Rome's power in the UK during her reign and I suspect it happened within her time or just after.

I am sure it was right after she got her cousin, Mary, Queen of Scots, out of the way...and legislation sealed the doors for any Catholics (either her half-sister or her other cousins) to darken her Anglican threshold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what me wonders when the rule that the british queen/king is not allowed to be catholic was introduced - before Elisabeth I. ruled Mary I, daughter of Henry VIII. and Catherine, England - she was catholic - that means the rule must had been adopted later...

Does anybody known when?

The last Catholic monarch was James II & VII, reigned 1685-1688. After he fled the country following the so-called 'Glorious Revolution', Parliament enacted the 1689 Bill of Rights and later the 1701 Act of Settlement. Both regulated the future course of the succession and both contained clauses banning 'Papists' ie. Catholics from succeeding in the future. Futhermore, future monarchs were even banned from marrying Catholics which the current reforms being discussed proposes to abolish.

1689 Bill of Rights

1701 Act of Settlement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure it was right after she got her cousin, Mary, Queen of Scots, out of the way...and legislation sealed the doors for any Catholics (either her half-sister or her other cousins) to darken her Anglican threshold.

Plot against her or not, the fact that Elizabeth was willing to kill her own cousin, Queen Mary, shows that these female monarchs can be just as devious and ruthless as the males.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plot against her or not, the fact that Elizabeth was willing to kill her own cousin, Queen Mary, shows that these female monarchs can be just as devious and ruthless as the males.

Mary wanted to kill Elizabeth first! E's hand was tied when it came to M's execution, she didn't want it but a power vacuum was developing and E's advisors warned her to act decisivley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mary was betrayed by Elizabeth's spies who set her up by getting her to believe in a plot to remove Elizabeth from the throne. Mostly she was betrayed by her own son King James VI who would not help his mother by rescuing her and installing her as Dowager.

Her death however has made her a Martyr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mary was betrayed by Elizabeth's spies who set her up by getting her to believe in a plot to remove Elizabeth from the throne. Mostly she was betrayed by her own son King James VI who would not help his mother by rescuing her and installing her as Dowager.

Her death however has made her a Martyr

<_< Don't you just luuuuuuv families? <_<:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<_< Don't you just luuuuuuv families? <_<:D

LOL yeah some things never change.

I can imagine it..... Coronation Street ala 1587

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The German who would be queen of England

LONDON: A homoeopathic doctor from Germany has been identified as the person who would be on the British throne if new rules on the royal succession had been adopted in the time of Queen Victoria.

Friederike Thyra Marion Wilhelmine Dorothea von der Osten, 52, from Halle, a city in Germany, is descended from the long-serving monarch's eldest daughter Princess Victoria.

Speaking about succession, she said she had always known that if the rules were different she could have been queen - but that she could not see British people now accepting ''a German-educated person'' in the role.

Advertisement: Story continues below

Her heir apparent would be Felicitas Catharine Malina Johanna von Reiche, a 25-year-old marketing manager who lives in Berlin, who said she was ''easy-going'' about her family history, but probably knew more than most people about English royalty. Mother and daughter can trace their links to the British royal family back through Wilhelm II, the last German emperor and King of Prussia, who took his country into the First World War.

Dr von der Osten, who was born in Bonn in what was then West Germany, moved east after the fall of the Berlin Wall and has a medical practice in Halle.

She said: ''I have always been aware of my place as descendant of Queen Victoria and that, if different succession rules had been observed, I could have had a right to the British throne. As a young girl, my mother met the Queen Mother but, as far as I know, she had no further contact. I have never met any members of the British royal family.

''I cannot imagine the Crown itself or the British people would vote for a change that would see a German-educated person in the role.''

Ms von Reiche told The West Australian newspaper: ''We have no monarchy any more in Germany. Germans are less interested in their former royal dynasties than other European peoples that still have a king or queen. That is why most Germans are not aware of my background.''

She said her work colleagues had recently found out about her status thanks to media interest in her position.

It came after an announcement last week that rules were changing to allow first-born females to accede to the throne even if they had a younger brother.

Sydney Morning Herald (Via Telegraph)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically a German already is the Queen of England

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the percentage would be fairly small. They are also Danish and Greek and Greek-Danish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are also Danish and Greek and Greek-Danish.

???

on the throne? he was talking about on the throne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

???

on the throne? he was talking about on the throne.

On the throne currently is someone that has German (through Victoria's husband and Victoria herself and through Mary of Teck), Scottish (through Queen Elizabeth), Danish (through Queen Alexandra of Denmark) and there has to be some English in there.

When Charles takes the throne, Greek will be added through his father and more Danish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the throne currently is someone that has German (through Victoria's husband and Victoria herself and through Mary of Teck), Scottish (through Queen Elizabeth), Danish (through Queen Alexandra of Denmark) and there has to be some English in there.

When Charles takes the throne, Greek will be added through his father and more Danish.

thanks for the wikipedia-cribbed history lesson, but no one is talking about WHEN charles takes the throne except you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...