Royal succession debated

[AndyHB]

I notice that the deputy PM has announced that discussions are on-going with other - mostly Commonwealth - nations about doing away with the primogeniture law.  I wonder whether, regardless of of what other nations feel, we ought to just get on with it.  I know it would probably break up the Commonwealth, but isn't this a point of law that is just too important to be dealyed by other nations' views?   

[Boudi]

Since the problem affects the Monarch, personally, and positionally, there is a need to discuss it with other nations that would be affected, so that a positive solution could be reached.  Unilateral action would perhaps get backs up unneccesarily, especially since the future is secured for the next couple of crown-hand-ons.  It's a good time to get discussions going, get legislation through, and there should be time for even the slowest to get their finger out by the time Williams daughter comes to the throne.  Remmeber that while Elizabeth can be Governor of the Church of England she can't have a female Archbishop, so perhaps other laws should have a bit of a push too.

[ecuworrier]

i have to confess that when i saw under recent posts Royal succession being debated ... i immediately thought of Spiritual Royal Succession


GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

[AndrewF]

What options are they offering? Currently (I believe) the men are before the women and within the sexes it goes in birth order.
Are they suggesting replacing this with just birth order regardless of gender, or are they offering the option of the current monarch choosing which of his/her offspring is most suitable for the job - or indeed of the offspring themselves making the choice?? and if either of the latter two, at what stage is the choice to be made?
what do you think it should be?
Assuming we are to have a monarch as head of state (and we have to have some head of state) have you any other suggestions as to how the succession should be decided?

[AndrewF]

Oh, and Boudi, while yo are right about women bishops at the moment I think it is fair to say that this position will not last for more than a very few more years... - and the change will not be before time IMO!

[Boudi]

The new rule would be that the first born would become monarch, even if they are a woman!

[AndrewF]

Yes, I thought that was probably the answer to the first part, but what about the second part of my post?
Any suggestions?

[AndyHB]

..., but what about the second part of my post?
Any suggestions?

Not sure that there is much we can do about which of the children should be given the role, other than via the overall promogeniture system.  I suppose that, if an eldest child was born with Downs or some other problematic condition, there might be a case for skipping them for that generation.

In fact, and here's a slight tangent to the general topic of the thread, what health conditions can currently/could in the future debar an eldest child from succeeding their parent?

[pow wow]

As a Canadian I want the succession left exactly the way it is. Why create trouble when things are working fine? Some want it changed because it discriminates against women. Well how about asking the very women it is discriminating against. So if we change it will it stop there? No, next we will be dealing with the fact that it discriminates against the second, third and fourth born. Yikes!

[Jan]

As a British lass - I can't see why it has to be the first born male - when obviously a female is equally capable of being monarch. At present the rules do seem to be outdated (IMO)

[AndrewF]

As a British lass - I can't see why it has to be the first born male - when obviously a female is equally capable of being monarch. At present the rules do seem to be outdated (IMO)
well - As a British lad - I can't see why it has to be the first born male (either!) - when obviously a female is equally capable of being monarch. At present the rules do seem to be outdated (IMO)  :-)

[pow wow]

Women make great monarchs. For example our present Queen, Victoria, Elizabeth the first. My people the Cree called Victoria the Great White Mother. I'm saying that that change won't stop there. Why discriminate against the second, third or fourth? Some of them have been our greatest monarchs. Being an aboriginal I admit to being biased about following tradition.

[Jan]

As a British lass - I can't see why it has to be the first born male - when obviously a female is equally capable of being monarch. At present the rules do seem to be outdated (IMO)
well - As a British lad - I can't see why it has to be the first born male (either!) - when obviously a female is equally capable of being monarch. At present the rules do seem to be outdated (IMO)  :-)

lol 

Women make great monarchs. For example our present Queen, Victoria, Elizabeth the first. My people the Cree called Victoria the Great White Mother. I'm saying that that change won't stop there. Why discriminate against the second, third or fourth? Some of them have been our greatest monarchs. Being an aboriginal I admit to being biased about following tradition.

Hi there pow wow - I am not really seeing it as discriminating against the third or fourth - just that first born is first born - whether male or female - it has to be someone 

Change in general doesn't stop really - some might call it 'progression' 

[pow wow]

Hello Jan,
Nice to chat with you. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The heir and the spare. One is obviously seen as less important. That's discrimination. I pray that should this change happen it won't mean we here in Canada have to open up our constitution again. The monarchs office is enshrined in ours and any change has to have the approval of every single province in our country. The last time we tampered with the constitution we almost lost Quebec in a separation vote. I think what will happen here is we will lose our monarchy. I don't won't that. If we open up the constitution over this we will have to choose between Quebec and the Queen. The separatist will use this opportunity to get rid of the monarchy.

[Jan]

Hello Jan,
Nice to chat with you. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The heir and the spare. One is obviously seen as less important. That's discrimination. I pray that should this change happen it won't mean we here in Canada have to open up our constitution again. The monarchs office is enshrined in ours and any change has to have the approval of every single province in our country. The last time we tampered with the constitution we almost lost Quebec in a separation vote. I think what will happen here is we will lose our monarchy. I don't won't that. If we open up the constitution over this we will have to choose between Quebec and the Queen. The separatist will use this opportunity to get rid of the monarchy.

I can hear Doris Day singing in my head 'Que Sera, Sera' - Whatever Will Be, Will Be