The Daily Telegraph reports today (external link) that British Prime Minister David Cameron has written a letter to the prime ministers of the fifteen (the article erroneously says sixteen) other countries of which Queen Elizabeth II is head of state proposing certain changes to the succession to the throne.
Cameron wants to introduce gender-neutral succession (like in all other European kingdoms except Spain), to end the ban on those who have married Catholics from succeeding to the throne and to limit the need to ask the monarch’s permission for marrying to the first six people in line to the throne. The issue will also be discussed at the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth in Australia later this month.
While there is widespread support for these changes the complicating fact is that all the countries of which Elizabeth II is queen must make the same changes to their acts of succession to avoid a scenario whereby the various thrones are inherited by different heirs based on different rules.
This is obviously not in danger of happening as these changes would not affect the positions of the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge as first and second in line to the throne, but were Prince William to have a daughter as his first child, this might become an issue.
Thus this is probably the best time to make these changes, although some have feared that raising the issue of the succession to the throne in the overseas realms may be like opening a can of worm in relating to the various countries’ links to the British monarchy.
Were Prince William to have a firstborn daughter before the changes are made the changes will be retroactive, the BBC adds. It could also be added that the changes will only apply to the descendants of Prince Charles, meaning that his brothers and their descendants will still be ahead of Princess Anne in the order of succession.
Wednesday 12 October 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Great news! Is the full text of the letter available anywhere?
ReplyDeleteA minor nitpick: I believe the proposal is only to end the ban on Catholic spouses, not the ban on non-Anglicans acceding to the throne.
I wonder whether this might lead to reforms concerning titles and peerages somewhere down the line? I know it's not on the agenda for now, and that other European monarchies that have changed their royal succession laws have not done the same for their noble succession laws (although Spain has) - which I find illogical - but as peerage titles and the Prince of Wales title are so integral to the British monarchy, I could see the current rules becoming an issue if and when Prince William's firstborn daughter marries or becomes the heir apparent.
I looked for the text of the letter, but was unable to find it on the website of No 10.
ReplyDeleteYou may be right, but I was under the opinion that one intended to remove the discrimination against Catholics in general (although were a Catholic to succeed to the throne it would of course have implications for his/her role as head of the Church of England).
I have never seen anyone mention reforming the inheritance of peerages too (so far) and in connection with the reforms of the House of Lords one seems to have adopted the line of treating monarchy and hereditary peerages as something completely unrelated.
But again I would not be surprised if the issue was raised that if a first-born girl is to be queen a first-born girl should also inherit a peerage rather than her younger brothers.
But it will indeed be interesting to see what the royal family do about titles if these changes go through. I suppose they will have to rethink the rules whereby the style HRH and the title prince(ss) is limited to the children and the children of the sons of the monarch, whether princesses should be given dukedoms and whether a female heir apparent should become Princess of Wales in her own right.
In my eyes it would only be logical to introduce "title equality" as a logical consequence, but I am not sure British traditionalists will see it the same way.
Ah, yes, you were right concerning the Catholics, according to the Guardian: "Cameron is also proposing that Catholics should continue to be debarred from being head of state, but that anyone who marries a Catholic should not be debarred. The family would be entitled to bring up their children as Catholics as long as heirs do not seek to take the throne as a Catholic". (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/12/cameron-commonwealth-royal-succession-reform). I shall correct that.
ReplyDeleteTrond, have you seen this interesting recent reform relating to the Duchy of Cornwall revenue?
ReplyDeleteSovereign Grant Act, Section 9
This change had been presented as a preparation for gender-neutral succession, but I'm not sure whether it achieves its purpose. The new law specifies that when the Duchy of Cornwall is "vested in Her Majesty" (I assume that this implicitly applies to future monarchs as well), the heir to the throne will receive a grant equivalent to the Duchy's revenues. So if the future King William has only daughters, so far, so good.
But what if he has a daughter before a son, and the laws governing the dukedom's inheritance are unchanged? If the son were the Duke of Cornwall, it appears that not only would he receive all of the Duchy revenues, but the daughter and heir would receive no compensatory grant at all.
It might be that the bill's authors assumed that an eldest son who was not the heir would not be Duke of Cornwall. But is this true? I briefly searched online and did not find any law specifically addressing that possibility. Perhaps you might know more than I do?
To me, the most logical thing would be to introduce gender-neutral succession for peerages as well, but I'm sure that, like the royal succession, it will only be done if and when it becomes a pressing matter with practical implications for the royal family.
Yes, I am familiar with the Sovereign Grant Act, which is one of the most important reforms of Elizabeth II's reign in that it replaces the Civil List and thus revolutionises the way the British monarchy is funded.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure of what are the legal basis for the Cornwall arrangements, but if gender-neutral succession is introduced they would obviously have to find a way to ensure that the eldest child as heir gets the duchy whether that child is a son or a daughter.
An arrangement whereby William V's eldest child Princess Victoria was the heir to the throne but his second child Prince James got the Duchy of Cornwall would obviously be illogical as well as undermining the very reason for the arrangement (that the Duchy should provide an income for the heir apparent).
(I might add that there is a similar challenge coming up in Sweden, relating to the so-called Galleria collection, which includes some excellent artworks. Napoléon I made his adopted granddaughter Joséphine Duchess of Galleria with the collection as an entailed property to be passed on to the eldest son. Thus, when Queen Josephina died in 1876 it passed to Oscar II, from him to Gustaf V, then to Gustaf VI Adolf and from him to Carl XVI Gustaf, after whose death it will, by the terms of Napoléon's grant, pass not to Crown Princess Victoria but to Prince Carl Philip - unless something may be done to alter the terms).
Personally I think one would do well not to mix up the issue of succession to the throne with the issue of how peerages are inherited. Although the issues are similar they are unrelated and some argue that the removal of (most) hereditary peer from the House of Lords has actually made things easier for the monarchy as heredity thus ceased being a political issue. These days inheritance of peerages is strictly speaking an issue which directly concerns only private individuals (the noble families), while the succession to the throne is a national concern.
Yes, it will be interesting to see how the governments deal with the male inheritance rules.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the peerage issue was addressed in the House of Lords today, and the government's rationale for not changing the peerage succession law was that it was firstly too complicated and secondly would affect the expectations of living male heirs.
Both reasons are transparently fallacious, of course - governments engage in complex legislation all the time, and the legislation could easily be written not to apply retroactively. I suspect the real reason is that the government sees no political benefit to initiating such a change, and the likely opponents (male peers) have disproportionate influence.
I'm afraid I must disagree with you that it is logical to leave sexism in the peerage succession laws while removing it from the monarchy. Many types of legal gender discrimination, such as in marriage and inheritance laws (and I understand that inheritance laws in Britain today generally do not discriminate by gender, making the inheritance of estates tied to peerages an anomaly), could be said to only affect private individuals. But they are still important to society on a symbolic level and have practical implications for the individuals involved. If one accepts that continuing legal gender discrimination is not justified (recognizing that many do not believe this), then I see no reason why the aristocracy ought to be exempted.
(And I do not quite understand your contention that this issue has no relation to the royal family. Wouldn't Prince William's daughter, like Princess Beatrice and Lady Louise Windsor, be barred from inheriting her father's peerage under the current laws?)
When did I say that "it is logical to leave sexism in the peerage succession laws while removing it from the monarchy"? Certainly I have never expressed any such opinion. What I said is that one "would do well not to mix up the issue of succession to the throne with the issue of how peerages are inherited".
ReplyDeleteMonarchy (a form of government) and nobility (a largely irrelevant social class) are two entirely different notions. Thus I can simply not see the link between reforming the monarchy and reforming the nobility any more than the link between reforming the monarchy and reforming corporate boards (which could surely need more women too).
Reforming the monarchy and reforming corporate boards, which both have an actual role in society, are more urgent concerns than reforming the way mostly empty titles are inherited by private individuals, but that does obviously not mean that I find it "logical to leave sexism in the peerage succession laws while removing it from the monarchy".
To answer your last point: If gender-neutral succession is introduced I would find it only logical that princesses were granted peerages in the same manner as that happens to princes (given, of course, that peerages continue to be granted to princes) as there would be no reason to differentiate between princes and princesses with equal succession rights (cf. Sweden, where Crown Princess Victoria was granted a dukedom following the introduction of gender neutral succession in 1980 and Princess Madeleine at the time of her birth in 1982). Under such a scenario the monarch could quite simply decide that for instance the dukedom of Clarence granted to Princess Victoria upon her marriage should be inherited by her eldest child regardless of its sex. This could be done in every individual case when a new peerage is created for a member of the royal family, while changing the way existing peerages (royal and non-royal) are inherited would require acts of Parliament.
Please understand that if I do not correctly interpret your meaning, it is not a personal attack on you. I have the impression that you believe I am twisting your words in order to win an argument, but I assure you I have no such intention. I enjoy reading your blog and thus I enjoy hearing your thoughts on issues such as this one, and I have never sought anything except a friendly discussion.
ReplyDeleteOn this issue, I suppose we see it in quite different terms. In my view, monarchy and nobility are two aspects of the same tradition - the tradition of an elite class officially defined not by wealth or power, but by supposedly superior and even divinely-sanctioned bloodlines. I have heard many people cite this sort of argument as a reason to retain sexist traditions in the monarchy and nobility alike, but clearly the same sort of arguments are not made with respect to corporate boards.
I also disagree that titles, royal or noble, are empty - if they were of no significance, there would not be such objections to changing their succession rules. Aside from their social importance, I believe many British peerage titles are also attached to considerable wealth and property holdings.
Unlike you, I see the reform of the monarchy as being primarily a symbolic issue, unlike sexism in corporations. Only two people will be directly affected if Prince William's younger son supersedes his elder daughter, and there is no guarantee that one of them would make a better or worse constitutional monarch than the other. Indeed, peerage reform would directly affect a larger number of individuals.
Clearly, my views differ from yours - but that does not mean that I do not enjoy hearing your perspective (which is why I post comments on your blog), and I hope you will take my comments in the same spirit.
I do appreciate your comments in general, but taking part in a discussion where I am ascribed opinions far from what I have ever expressed is quite frustrating and not very fruitful.
ReplyDeleteMonarchy today has nothing to do with "supposedly superior and even divinely-sanctioned bloodlines". Monarchy today fills a role in society, as does corporate boards, whereas nobility per se has no actual function in society today. Thus royal titles are not empty - they signify persons who fill a role in the nation's life. Noble titles are - they signify that the person in question belongs to a noble family (of whom some are indeed attached to considerable wealth and property holdings, but many (if not most) are not), but since noble privileges hav been abolished this does not accord them any role in society unless they achieve it by other means.
That is what I mean when I say that the nobility today is a largely irrelevant social class. The same cannot be said about the royal family, which clearly fills a role.
I do not consider monarchy and nobility two sides of the same thing; thus I also do not think that reforms relating to one must or should necessarily lead to the same reform relating to the other. If the last hereditary peers are evicted from the House of Lords that does not mean that the monarchy must be abolished; if gender-neutral succssion to the throne is introduced that does not mean that the same must be applied to noble titles. And I think the monarchy has actually benefited from being considered a separate case from the issue of nobility.
I do appreciate your comments in general, but taking part in a discussion where I am ascribed opinions far from what I have ever expressed is quite frustrating and not very fruitful.
ReplyDeleteWell, yes, no one likes being misinterpreted, but it happens now and then and quite honestly I don't understand why you seem to get upset with me when it happens, as if I were doing so intentionally. I already read your words carefully before I reply to them and try to ask for clarification when I am unsure of your meaning. Is there anything else you would like me to do?
Monarchy today has nothing to do with "supposedly superior and even divinely-sanctioned bloodlines".
I would like to agree with you, but that is not my personal experience. The sentiments and arguments I have read from supporters of monarchy and hereditary nobility, especially in Britain, are strongly infused with that type of thinking. The strongest opposition to making either institution gender-neutral appears to stem from people who believe such changes would threaten the elite status of these institutions, which in their view depends on the families' biological male lineage.
Monarchy today fills a role in society, as does corporate boards, whereas nobility per se has no actual function in society today.
If I understand you correctly (and correct me if I do not), you are referring to the fact that the British monarchy has a constitutional role and legal privileges, whereas the peerage no longer does (although it is still regulated by law). If so, I understand your point; however, this role would not be affected by the proposed royal succession reform, and so I consider it to be of primarily symbolic importance
My point was not that monarchy and nobility need always operate by the exact same rules, but that when the same arguments (appeals to the hereditary tradition, a belief in the sanctity of the male "bloodline") are used to justify rules in both institutions, then rejecting these arguments logically means rejecting the justification in both cases.
Er, did you get my last comment? I think my computer may have shut down after I hit post.....
ReplyDeleteI am travelling this week, so my reply will be a brief one:
ReplyDeleteThe idea that monarchy is based on "supposedly superior and even divinely-sanctioned bloodlines" is a viewpoint I very rarely see being put forward and then mostly by some very conservative persons or by people with no actual experience of monarchy from their own countries. It is hardly ever used as a serious argument in more political debates about the monarchy, if I may put it that way.
No, I do not primarily refer to the constitutional role the monarchy (unlike the nobility has), but to the role it fills in national life, which is probably more important for the way it is perceived today (and as Sweden shows, monarchy may fill that role without having any constitutional role).
Nobility today has no similar role in the society, indeed it has become something very different from monarchy. And that is what I mean when I say that a debate on reforming the rules of succession to the throne would do well not to mix in succession to peerages, which is a different debate about a different institution and not as much a public concern. (If debating apples, why bring in oranges, to put it that way).
Happy travels! By the way, please do not feel as if I am demanding you answer everything I say :) I would appreciate it if you left a quick note telling me when you cannot answer a question I ask, but I'm sure you don't have the time or inclination to answer every comment left on your blog.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that monarchy is based on "supposedly superior and even divinely-sanctioned bloodlines" is a viewpoint I very rarely see being put forward...It is hardly ever used as a serious argument in more political debates about the monarchy, if I may put it that way.
I am glad to hear it! I hope your experience is more representative than mine.
the role it fills in national life, which is probably more important for the way it is perceived today
I see; thank you for clarifying. But if you believe the social (not only legal) importance of the monarchy justifies government legislation, then doesn't the social prestige of nobility justify legislation as well?
(If debating apples, why bring in oranges, to put it that way)
Let's agree to disagree - I see your point about the institutions being separate, but I simply can't see any logical justification for retaining male succession in the peerage.
I always try to reply to questions asked, but comments which are literally just comments I sometimes choose not to reply to.
ReplyDeleteThe role the monarchy fills in society is in my opinion not comparable to the "social prestige of nobility" - one is about society as "the national stage", the other about society as "high society". Norway has no nobility, so let us use Denmark as an example: the Danish nobility is the cream of the upper class, but they do not fill a role in national life. Unlike the royal family they lead private existences, although some are celebrities or outstanding names in the fields in which they work.
There is certainly no logical justification for retaining male succession in the peerage, but on the other hand I see also cannot see any logical justification for mixing legislation concerning the nobility (private citizens) in with legislation concerning the monarch (the headship of state).
As a postscript I could add that the Leader of the House of Lords has stated that changing the way peerages are inherited will indeed not be mixed in with the changes to the succession to the throne:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/8840016/Ministers-bar-hereditary-peerages-from-passing-to-women.html
Yes, those were the remarks I was referencing in my comment of 20 October 2011 19:15. A full transcript is available on Parliament's website.
ReplyDeletePerhaps it is a difference of interpretation, but I did not see any reference to "not mixing in" changes - rather it seems the British government is altogether ruling out any future changes to the peerage succession rules, which is what I expected to happen.
As I said in my earlier comment, I find the government's arguments both deceptive, since reform does not have to be retroactive, and hypocritical, since the same arguments could equally well be made about succession to the throne and the government has clearly seen through those arguments in that case.
I confess I cannot comprehend what you mean by "mixing legislation concerning the nobility with legislation concerning the monarch." I originally assumed you were arguing that the nobility ought to retain male-line succession, but judging from your reaction to my earlier comments it seems that this is not what you meant (although I'm not entirely certain), so I admittedly am at a loss.
The Leader of the House of Lords did not use the exact term "mixing in", but that is what he says: the issue of succession to peerages will not be brought into the process to change the succession to the throne which is now starting.
ReplyDeleteObviously he cannot rule out "any future changes" as that will be up to the parliamentary majority at any time to decide, but he makes it quite clear that it will not be part of this process.
And indeed I see no reason why succession to peerages should be part of the legislative process leading to changes to the succession to the throne as these are two entirely different institutions and should therefore not be mixed up with each other in the legislative process (as I have explained many times now). I fail to see how I could make that any clearer.
Obviously he cannot rule out "any future changes" as that will be up to the parliamentary majority at any time to decide
ReplyDeleteThat is the truth, but that has never discouraged sweeping pronouncements before...
And indeed I see no reason why succession to peerages should be part of the legislative process leading to changes to the succession to the throne as these are two entirely different institutions and should therefore not be mixed up with each other in the legislative process (as I have explained many times now). I fail to see how I could make that any clearer.
Er, all right. Yes, I see now that your words themselves were very clear, but I had the impression you were disagreeing with something I said, which is why I kept trying to explain my own views. Given that I never advocated combining both reforms in the same piece of legislation and that (as far as I know) no one else has either, it did not occur to me that you could be disagreeing with a position that no one had yet taken. But yes, peerage legislation (if it ever occurs) should be kept separate.
By the way, I apologize if it's the case that my assumption was mistaken - and please don't hesitate to correct any of my assumptions in the future! It would certainly be preferable to talking past one another endlessly.
ReplyDeleteYes indeed, reforming a vital institution of state should be kept apart from reforms to a completely different thing governed by different rules.
ReplyDeleteBut has anyone so much as suggested otherwise? I don't understand why you seem to consider that the choice is between reforming both institutions in the same legislation, and not reforming the peerage at all. The British government could easily reform both institutions using separate pieces of legislation.
ReplyDeleteHere we go again... I have said no such thing. I have said that monarchy and nobility are two entirely different concepts and that reforming one of them is not in itself a reason for reforming the other. The monarchy (a vital institution of state) would most likely benefit from not being mixed up with a largely irrelevant group of (mostly) upper-class people.
ReplyDeleteHere we go again...
ReplyDeletePlease don't say that to me; I've only been trying to respond to your points. If that was unwelcome, I sincerely apologize.
I have said that monarchy and nobility are two entirely different concepts and that reforming one of them is not in itself a reason for reforming the other.
Certainly, but where have I ever said otherwise? Please understand that I have no interest in arguing with you, but since I've apparently frustrated you by misunderstanding, I feel the need to ask: What exactly is it that you disagree with me about?
I recommend you to go back and read what I wrote on 20 October: "Personally I think one would do well not to mix up the issue of succession to the throne with the issue of how peerages are inherited. Although the issues are similar they are unrelated and some argue that the removal of (most) hereditary peer from the House of Lords has actually made things easier for the monarchy as heredity thus ceased being a political issue. These days inheritance of peerages is strictly speaking an issue which directly concerns only private individuals (the noble families), while the succession to the throne is a national concern".
ReplyDeleteThere I stated my personal view, not my disagreement with any view expressed by you, which you then misinterpreted in a wildly inaccurate way, making it necessary to explain several times what I actually meant. Agreeing or disagreeing with you was not the issue here.