royal succession

**robbiethepiper** · 28th October 11, 02:01 PM

The BBC today announced that future monarchs would no longer be selected by male primogeniture i.e. if the first born chid is female, she will become queen even if a brother is born later. Also a monarch or heir will henceforth be legally allowed to marry a roman catholic. I post this as information, without comment, except to say I'm celebrating!

**Peter Crowe** · 28th October 11, 02:06 PM

This was being discussed earlier on

http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/f...7/#post1030390

In any event, without being political I would say I too welcome these developments.

**madmacs** · 28th October 11, 06:10 PM

One has to wonder how much of the decision was the Queen's and how much was the rest of the commonwealth's... The country will never be the same again...

**JSFMACLJR** · 28th October 11, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by madmacs

One has to wonder how much of the decision was the Queen's and how much was the rest of the commonwealth's... The country will never be the same again...

Does it matter whose decision it was?

**Peter Crowe** · 28th October 11, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by madmacs

One has to wonder how much of the decision was the Queen's and how much was the rest of the commonwealth's... The country will never be the same again...

To be honest when this was first raised as a Private Bill in the House of Lords by Lord Archer (about 20 years ago), the Queen was asked for her permission that such a Bill be tabled, and she graciously assented.

As to never being the same again, Britain has never remained the same. The Constitution of the United Kingdom (the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament) has meant that the country has always been changing, and continues to change by piecemeal political and constitution reform. Great Britain as a legal entity is only 304 years old (with the Treaty and Acts of Union between Scotland and England). The United Kingdom a mere 210 years old (Union between Great Britain and Ireland) subsequently modified 90 years ago with the independence of the then Irish Free State. From 1832 when the upper middle classes in towns and cities were admitted to the franchise until 1969 when all adults over 18 got the vote, there has been a process of continual but gradual extension of voting rights. Reforms have continued down to the present with devolution to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, the abolition of voting rights for hereditary peers, and the establishment of the UK Supreme Court to replace the judicial role of the House of Lords.

The Commonwealth Realms have Independent Crowns (of the United Kingdom and each other) and had to be consulted because this change could only proceed on the basis of their unanimous agreement.

In my view (and purely from a Scottish and/or UK perspective) this is just another step in the British polity's evolution from the Revolution settlement(s)1688/90.

**madmacs** · 28th October 11, 09:27 PM

I would have to say here... I never said there was anything wrong with it...

**pascs** · 28th October 11, 09:57 PM

I hope that when the Queen finally lets go that Prince William will take over and not Charles. I think Prince William and his wife are by far the most popular of the royals at this point in time and would do far more for the image of British royalty than Charles. I guess this just isnt going to happen though.

Unfortunately I dont think William is much of a kilt wearer LOL

**davidg** · 29th October 11, 12:30 AM

I think you will find that this is not a "done deal" just yet. The heads of the other governments may have agreed but legislation will still have to go through parliament

**Jock Scot** · 29th October 11, 01:23 AM

Alright so they are going to move the goal posts, it is hardly a problem(whichever set of rules are being used) that is going to crop up too often when all said and done. The world will carry on spinning around, nonetheless. Now could you please pass me the toast.

**McClef** · 29th October 11, 02:33 AM

It's not a case of the frequency but of the principle. Whenever it has happened, however rarely, it has been discriminatory.

Remember that Her Majesty would not have attained the Throne had she had a younger brother and that she remained Heir Presumptive and never Heir Apparent until she actually succeeded her Father.

Nor will the prohibition upon not marrying a Roman Catholic have any immediate effect, those who did and this had to surrender their rights in the order of succession (such as Prince Michael of Kent) have been fairly well down the list in any case. Autumn Kelly converted from Catholicism to Anglicanism before she married Peter Phillips and thus he kept his 11th place even though there was statistically little chance of his ever succeeding to the throne.

Now Jock has got me fancying some toast also!