Royal succession laws changed in UK

[One_And_Only_Wanderers]

@flodnak

Most likely but not necessarily. Before Sweden changed their succession law, the King’s second-born child Philip was ahead of his older sister Victoria. The change meant that they switched places and Victoria became Crown Princess.

Of course, since Victoria was about three and Philip was still in diapers, the kids themselves were not terribly concerned about the changes

Until he grows up and realises his destiny was thwarted. He will then have to set off on a quest with some trusty sidekicks to retrieve the fabled MacGuffin and overthrow the Despot Queen.

[Bakhesh]

@Hypnagogic_Jerk

What I’m curious to know is what is required to change the line of succession, especially for all the Commonwealth realms. It’s reported on TV here (Canada) that it’s been changed, but as the article linked in the OP points out, it will require some acts of parliament to be amended, and so in theory isn’t a done thing. But will that change the law for all Commonwealth realms, or will the other countries with Elizabeth as head of state have to pass laws as well? Or change their constitutions?

I think the announcement was made **because **the PM has had the consensus from the other Commonwealth leaders that was required to make this change.

As the PM has a (sort of) majority in Parliament, getting it through the house shouldn’t cause him any problems at all, and is effectively him just rubber stamping the law. In theory, they could reject it, but in practice, this simple wouldn’t happen.

[SanVito]

@flodnak

Most likely but not necessarily. Before Sweden changed their succession law, the King’s second-born child Philip was ahead of his older sister Victoria. The change meant that they switched places and Victoria became Crown Princess.

Of course, since Victoria was about three and Philip was still in diapers, the kids themselves were not terribly concerned about the changes

I think they are doing it now because if William had a daughter then (a) it would start a row about what a sexist institution the monarchy is and the government doesn’t like the monarchy getting a bad press and (b) changing the succession at a later date when it affects real people rather than as yet unborns would be deemed rather distasteful, and you might even find some commonwealth realms objecting for their own weird reasons

So really, now is the perfect time to do it before it becomes an annoying issue for the government.

[SanVito]

@One_And_Only_Wanderers

Until he grows up and realises his destiny was thwarted. He will then have to set off on a quest with some trusty sidekicks to retrieve the fabled MacGuffin and overthrow the Despot Queen.

Or more likely take the government to court for robbing him of his inheritance.

[Acsenray]

@Illuminatiprimus

ETA - hang on, Camilla Parker Bowles is 64! By what kind of miracle do you see her and Charles having a child?

The “Cambridges” are William and Kate. Charles and Camilla would be the “Waleses” (or the “Wales-and-Cornwalls”?).

[Mk_VII]

The Statute of Westminster requires that any [valid] changes to the succession require exactly similar legislation to be passed by all the Commonwealth countries which retain the Queen as Head of State.

[Cat_Whisperer]

@SanVito

<snip>

So really, now is the perfect time to do it before it becomes an annoying issue for the government.

You missed the opportunity to say, “The annoying issue become an annoying issue.”

[SanVito]

@Acsenray

The “Cambridges” are William and Kate. Charles and Camilla would be the “Waleses” (or the “Wales-and-Cornwalls”?).

And even if Camilla did have an immaculate conception, it wouldn’t affect the succession with or without this law change. Any miracle child would be behind Harry in the rankings and any children of William automatically knock Harry of his current no. 3 spot.

[Candyman74]

@muldoonthief

The first two times I read that, I missed the “in” in the second sentence, which was quite disturbing. Especially with the “he has the training for it”.

What, killing her is less disturbing than sleeping with her?

[muldoonthief]

It was the “sleeping with his own niece makes him the King” implication that was disturbing. I didn’t think the British royals went in for the same level of incest as the Pharoahs did.

[Acsenray]

The Pharaohs (mostly the Greek ones) married their sisters. Uncle-niece marriage is common in Arabic cultures. Arabian Nights is full of it. In fact, I think in some Muslim communities, a brother’s daughter is considered a man’s ideal match.

[Illuminatiprimus]

Thanks for everyone for pointing out that I’m ignorant of my own royal family, In some ways I’m kind of proud, given I’m a nominal republican

[AK84]

@Acsenray

The Pharaohs (mostly the Greek ones) married their sisters. Uncle-niece marriage is common in Arabic cultures. Arabian Nights is full of it. In fact, I think in some Muslim communities, a brother’s daughter is considered a man’s ideal match.

Pity that such an ideal match is within the prohibited degree of consuiganity.:rolleyes:

[Acsenray]

@AK84

Pity that such an ideal match is within the prohibited degree of consuiganity.:rolleyes:

I don’t know what’s so rolleyes about that. Religions are practiced differently among different communities.

[flodnak]

@Acsenray

The Pharaohs (mostly the Greek ones) married their sisters. Uncle-niece marriage is common in Arabic cultures. Arabian Nights is full of it. In fact, I think in some Muslim communities, a brother’s daughter is considered a man’s ideal match.

The Habsburgs also had some uncle-niece marriages. Talk about a family tree that did not fork…

[AK84]

@Acsenray

I don’t know what’s so rolleyes about that. Religions are practiced differently among different communities.

Considering that uncles are specifically forbidden in the Quran, I think not.

[Acsenray]

@AK84

Considering that uncles are specifically forbidden in the Quran, I think not.

There are a lot of ways in which theoretical ideals and real life don’t conform.

[chizzuk]

@flodnak

Most likely but not necessarily. Before Sweden changed their succession law, the King’s second-born child Philip was ahead of his older sister Victoria. The change meant that they switched places and Victoria became Crown Princess.

Of course, since Victoria was about three and Philip was still in diapers, the kids themselves were not terribly concerned about the changes

Yeah, I think it depends on each country’s specific situation. Sweden changed the titles immediately. But Spain has been contemplating a similar change and there has been no mention whatsoever of removing Crown Prince Felipe from his position, even though he has two older sisters. I believe the general sentiment is that the oldest child, Infanta Elena, is a bit woo-woo and while everyone is all for gender equality in concept, no one actually wants her on the throne over her more intelligent, better-prepared younger brother.

So far they haven’t done anything because Prince Felipe has two girls. I guess if they have a boy, Spain might go the Sweden route but only apply it onward from Felipe’s children.

[Baker]

When Victoria became Queen her father was already dead. She inherited from her uncle William IV. She had male cousins, but they were all the children of sons younger than her father had been.

[Sami41]

Is the new law retroactive?

Wiki is still showing Anne as 10th in line for the throne, but I’m not sure how fast Wiki updates. Succession to the British throne - Wikipedia

I know it’s pretty unlikely that Charles, William and Harry all die before William or Harry have kids. But if they did, under the new law, wouldn’t Anne be next in line above Andrew, his heirs, Edward and his heirs, since she would then be the eldest surviving child of Liz and Phil?