Royal succession laws changed

The BBC are reporting that the rules of succession for the Royal Family are being changed. The leaders of the 16 Commonwealth countries where the Queen is head of state approved the changes at a summit in Perth, Australia.

As she opened the summit, the Queen did not directly mention the issue but said that women should have a greater role in society. David Cameron said the marriage of Prince William this year meant the issue could not be deferred any longer. “Put simply, if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were to have a little girl, that girl would one day be our queen.”

,

  • “The ban on the monarch being married to a Roman Catholic was also lifted.” [BBC link above]

    Is the link between the Monarchy and the Church of England still being maintained? Would it not be better to separate the two roles even if the Monarchy is being retained? Will these changes reinvigorate the Monarchy v elected Head of State debate? When can we expect to see the head of the Commonwealth moving around its constituent members?

  • Rory Carr

    “…the Queen did not directly mention the issue but said that women should have a greater role in society.”

    Where can she go from here? What improvement in her status? Absolute monarchy?

  • paddymcc

    So women and the spouses of Catholics can now be UK head of state (as long as they’re the eldest child of the right parents, of course). Talk about equal opportunities!

  • Jimmy Sands

    So my path to the succession has now been cleared. This will be a game changer.

  • john

    Great news if not sveeral hundred years late

  • Two birds with one stone? Great news, and long overdue. The next step must surely be disestablishment of the Church of England. Then we’ll finally be in the 20th century.

  • I see the rule banning catholics is also repealed. just wait for the waves of vitriol from DUP and Free P types

  • dwatch

    The Orange Order will be the most annoyed if the The Act of Settlement of 1701 is to be abolished. This act was designed to secure the Protestant succession to the throne.

  • HeinzGuderian

    I am not a Royal watcher !! 😉

  • Rory Carr

    Lucky old Royals so, Heinz. Being watched by you is not a prospect to be relished.

  • The succession changes will require a raft of historic legislation to be amended, including Britain’s 1701 Act of Settlement and 1689 Bill of Rights.

    Turgon, surely the succession isn’t changed until the legislation has been changed?

  • Dec

    ‘“Put simply, if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were to have a little girl, that girl would one day be our queen.”’

    Unless of course they have an elder brother. Pedantic yes, but the statement is wrong.

  • Jimmy Sands

    All that remains is for His Majesty King Francis to be restored to his rightful throne in place of the Hanoverian usurper Elizabeth.

  • Speaking for my Jacobite friends (most of whom regard me as a satanic traitor who should be hanged ….. but I feel nobody else will put the Jacobite case) they are against this………….it is pandering to the Whiggite mob and a betrayal of the law of GOD……in the name of false GOD of political correctness.
    It is also a denial of the opportunity of 2011 and beyond. The European mobs are overthrowing so called “democracy” and the reception of brave King Michael (90) who recently returned to Romania is significant. The growing threat of Islam (sic) will empower the Europeans to purge their guilt of 1688 and 1789 and beg forgiveness of the legitimate Royal Houses.
    Can it be any co-incidence that the safest bank in Europe is in Jacobite-run Liechtenstein?
    Meanwhile Jacobites have split over the Restoration Petition. Many traditionalists see this as a form of “pandering”.
    As a consequence the petition is falling a little short of its 100,000 signatures by October 2012. Actually it has just nine signatures although it would be a lot more if people from the illegal and rebellious defacto USA and Canada could sign it……….they after all living in the de jure British Dominion of North America.

  • dwatch

    $64,000 question. What if Duke and Duchess of Cambridge had twins for their first born. IE: A boy and a girl, would they both rule share the Monarchy together?

  • Tochais Síoraí

    What if the relevent prince and princess or whatever can’t have children biologically? Do the new laws allow an adopted child to become next in line?

  • Tochais Síoraí

    Twins don’t come out together, dwatch. One always pops out first.

    Now about that stork your parents told you about…….

  • galloglaigh

    The ban on a Catholic Monarch still stands. The Monarch is now allowed to marry a Catholic. Catholics are excluded from the Head of State of the UK. The UK continues to discriminate on the basis of religion. The UK is a state based on sectarian values. The UK state is still stuck in the past.

  • dwatch

    Tochais Síoraí is that the stork that brought the mystery baby boy “The old Pretender” to Mary of Modena back in 1688, and started all this nonsense to begin with?

  • dwatch

    “The ban on a Catholic Monarch still stands” Just the same as the ban on a Muslim or Protestant Pope still stands

  • Dec

    ‘Just the same as the ban on a Muslim or Protestant Pope still stands’

    Probably because a basic requirement of Head of the Catholic church is to be a Catholic. Now if a Muslim could become Pope but a Jew couldn’t, well that would be discrimination. See the difference?

  • Dec

    ‘Tochais Síoraí is that the stork that brought the mystery baby boy “The old Pretender” to Mary of Modena back in 1688, and started all this nonsense to begin with?’

    Good grief, TS dings your cretinous post about twins and your response is an anti-Jacobite dig David Starkey would be proud of (presumably because you assume TS is a Catholic). Is that seriously how your ‘thought process’ works?

  • Jimmy Sands

    I believe most monarchies are similarly restricted. The King of Spain for example si required to be a catholic. Of course the wider point I would suggest is that the very idea of trying to apply concepts of equality to a monarchy is rather Pythonesque. The only way to make a monarchy equal is to abolish it. If on the other hand you regard religious discrimination is uniquely reprehensible then the only solution is, as FJH points out, a Jacobite Restoration.

  • Stork is derived from the old anglo-saxon word for cock/penis. So, yes, the stork normally does play a role.

  • If I know my Royal History…..and clearly I do……in the event of twins, one is kept and the other abandoned in the woods.
    Or alternatively……made to wear an iron mask.
    Smuggling a baby out in a bed warmer or bed pan is also acceptable in constitutional terms.

    May I bring up the concept of test tubes and IVF or UVF or whatever its called?

  • galloglaigh

    Just the same as the ban on a Muslim or Protestant Pope still stands

    Can a Jew become the Dali-Lama? The point here is that, and I agree with you 100%, the Vatican state and the Spanish state are equally as repulsive in their choice of archaic laws, when it come to who can and can’t be head of state. They should all take the Irish head of state as an example of how not to restrict any citizen from being head of state. But even the Irish state must go further and give a vote to those Irish people stuck in the UK, who have no vote in either state.

  • “Twins don’t come out together, dwatch. One always pops out first. ”

    God forbid it’s a c-section then. Conspiracy nuts will claim that the Queen or the Duke of Edinburgh or the Lord High Chamberlain of Chamberpots demanded the boy be lifted out first…

  • Tochais Síoraí

    joe – that’s a good one. The particular body part you mention (in its elongated version) is still sometimes referred to around our way as what I always thought was a ‘stalk.’ Looks like we’ve been using an old anglo/saxon word. .

    There you go. The Brits may have brought oppression and famine but they did give us alternative words for penis.

  • I’ve often wondered if the requirement that the monarch subscribe to a particular religion is a violation of his rights under ECHR article 9.

  • unicorn

    @Andrew Gallagher

    Why would it be? If it were the case then surely Ian Paisley or Richard Dawkins could campaign to become head of state of the Vatican City with the intention of then sitting ex cathedra and declaring the Catholic church in future to be null and void, and if the College of Cardinals refused to consider voting for non-Catholics then they could sue the Vatican for money.

    I don’t see any legal difference.

  • I would say that the survival prospects of the Monarchy into the longer term future have become enhanced by the news.

  • Cynic2

    “The UK state is still stuck in the past.”

    ….great. I await the first non Catholic pope ….or indeed even the first black one or female one.Whoops. Apparently God said ‘No’

  • Cynic2

    “Royal Succession Laws Changed”

    …….. does this mean that SF will also have to change its constitution or will the nepotism continue while the Brits move into the 21st Century

  • ThomasMourne

    Hanover genes + modern medicine = long-living “royals”.

    The present Queen will retire in August 2015 after breaking Victoria’s record reign, at the age of 89.

    Charlie will take over aged 66 and give up at age 80 in 2028.

    Willy will then be 46 so he will have a long run to retirement in 2062 at 80.

    So the next in line, male or female, will take over the “reigns” about 2100.

    Any chance that full democracy might filter through to England by that time so that all the spongers will have some sort of proper job?

  • BluesJazz

    If the United States model was followed, you have to be born in the country. Llike DeValera, 2 candidates were not born in the state of which they wanted to be president. Dana was born in England and a US citizen and Martin McGuinness is Her Majesty’s subject. Indeed McGuinness is one of her public servants.

  • Jimmy Sands

    So was Childers (London).

    Incidentally you’re forgetting Senator Norris, who would have been our first African born Head of State.

  • I dont think the Pope is a “catholic” (despite what the bears in the woods might say).
    He is a cataholic. He is on a 12 step plan and says things like “Hello I am the Pope and I am a Cataholic”

  • “Hanover genes + modern medicine = long-living “royals”

    This is a bit silly. You can cite examples of a long life in the Hanovers (e.g. George III and Queen Victoria). By the same token, Prince Frederick, eldest son of George II and father of George III died at the age of 44. Queen Victoria’s father, prince Edward, died at the age of 53. The Queen’s father, King George VI died at the age of 56. Longevity is very much a lottery.

    Also, since some here like to mention Jacobites, Prince William is a descendant of James II through his mother.

  • HeinzGuderian

    Her Majesty will be pleased so many of her Loyal Subjects take such an interest.

    Long may it continue. 😉

  • Zig70

    Next in line should be decided by a lottery ticket. Would generate a fortune for good causes.

  • lamhdearg

    wimin ok taigs no way, what next a muslim pope?.

  • Dr Paisley’s views are well known

  • slappymcgroundout

    “‘”Put simply, if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were to have a little girl, that girl would one day be our queen.”’

    Unless of course they have an elder brother. Pedantic yes, but the statement is wrong.”

    Also unless, of course, both elder brother and younger sister adopt the Roman Catholic faith.

    Next:

    “….great. I await the first non Catholic pope ….or indeed even the first black one or female one.Whoops. Apparently God said ‘No’”

    And why don’t you make the head of the Heterosexual Union Association a homosexual while you are at it. So hardly a surprise that the Roman Catholic church hasn’t had an animist, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Jew, a Muslim, etc., as Pope. I wouldn’t otherwise go near the matter of “black”, since the RCC has and will continue to have more “black” Cardinals and Bishops than Her Majesty has had in equivalent positions in her government.

    Next, let me leave you all with:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUl6T2hQIbk

    So call Her Majesty, “tarnished”. And since the then Senator Kennedy mentioned the particular piece of legislation:

    Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

    Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

    And though we well know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no powers equal to our own and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.”

    So, in addition to calling her “tarnished”, you can also call Her Majesty “diminished” as well (and in the sense that the religious test is “depriving [her] injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with [her] fellow citizens [s]he has a natural right”]. Glad to see that some have that little respect for her. Oh, and Big Ian, if you read this, you’re included as well. Pointing out the other morons isn’t a saving grace but simply you noting for the record that some others fail to afford yet others freedom of conscience. On that note, might I simply suggest you all liberate your Queen.

  • Taoiseach

    the UK has a specific derogation, indeed a series of derogations in respect of the royal family allowing for discrimination based on sex and religion, and also preventing an illegitimate heir from inheriting the throne

  • This thread is being used by commenters as a punch bag to attack the system of constitutional monarchy.

    The system of Monarchy is not perfect, by any means but why would the majority of British people want an elected head of state?

    The World knows who Queen Elizabeth is but not the President of Germany. Elected Presidents come and go into obscurity. The Royal family is a ray of light that touches the lives of ordinary people in a way that no presidency could. You dont measure the benefits of Monarchy by how democratic it is. We already have enough democracy for those who exercise the power of Government, thank you very much.

  • Reader

    slappymcgroundout: (quoted the US 1st Amendment)
    Great rousing stuff from a bunch of slave owners. But it doesn’t seem to apply to the Queen anyway, since she is a woman.

  • Unicorn,

    The Holy See is not a signatory to the ECHR, so your argument is invalid.

  • HeinzGuderian

    Ayee,but The Holey Sea’s argument against the use of Condoms is invalidated,buy the immortal words of Dave Allen…..

    ” If you don’t play the game.Don’t make the rules’ !!!

  • slappymcgroundout

    “slappymcgroundout: (quoted the US 1st Amendment)
    Great rousing stuff from a bunch of slave owners. But it doesn’t seem to apply to the Queen anyway, since she is a woman.”

    Try not to betray your ignorance when you can avoid doing so. Article 6 of the US Constitution, last paragraph:

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

    The US Bill of Rights otherwise owes its existence to this:

    http://www.nationalcenter.org/VirginiaDeclaration.html

    In your circumstance, kindly see Article 4.

  • slappymcgroundout

    “The World knows who Queen Elizabeth is but not the President of Germany. Elected Presidents come and go into obscurity.”

    Try asking the Viets, the Khmer, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Koreans, etc.

    Lastly, other humans not passing into obscurity are Hitler, Stalin, Mail, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, etc. Careful with that one lad.

  • dwatch