I am pleased to see that the government is going to legislate to ensure that the first born child of a monarch succeeds to the throne in the future, and that sons and daughters will be equal in that respect. If the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge have a girl first, she will be Queen in due course, and will not be relegated below a younger brother in the line of succession. The Queens of England have been a feisty lot, not least the present Queen – think of Elizabeth I and Victoria – and I am sure Princess Anne might have made a superb Queen, but the change is not retrospective.
The annoucement of the change prompted an oral question in the Lords last week by Lord Trefgarne, who asked whether the government had any plans to change the law of succession with regard to hereditary peerages. He was reassured that there were no such plans and that the succession to the throne arrangements were quite separate. Lady Saltoun, the only lady holding a hereditary peerage in the Lords, seemed to be against any change, which was surprising. I tried to interject in the discussion, in order to raise the topic I had broached in the House and in this site in December 2009, relating to the inequalities suffered by husbands of peers. The wife (all of them if he marries more than once) of a peer automatically takes the title Lady. But husbands of peers get no title. They are just as much partners in the endeavour as the wives are. Either nobody should get a title just because they have married someone who has one, or there should be equality of the sexes in this respect. If the Crown can accept equality, then so should the peerage. By the way, I did not manage to intervene, because the House is so crowded at question time that one has to stand and shout in order to be able to be heard when the question is a popular one.
This is truly fantastic news. I am thrilled to see that the outdated rules of the hereditary monarchy have been replaced with a democratically elected head of state.
Equality of privileged. It’s an oxymoron.
The Princess Royal wouldn’t become Queen even if the changes were retrospective as she is still younger than the Prince of Wales.
No-one is proposing a change to the title of a monarch’s consort either. Are you suggesting that in future the Queen’s husband should be called the King?
What title do you suggest for the husband of a female peer? Lord Norton has suggested in the past that they should be “The Honourable”, which is about as close as you can get to the Queen’s consort being a Prince (i.e. a lower rank than his wife)
There’s an ongoing blatant inequality that still hasn’t been addressed. That is, the right to claim unconditional British citizenship by descent – regardless of the parent’s gender or parent’s marital status or the age of the “child” (now adults).
It’s outrageous that children born abroad before 1983 to British mothers are treated almost the same as those without any British parent. In other words, they are required to:
Submit a nationality registration form (including two references).
Undergo a background check into their eligibility and be of “good character”.
Attend a citizenship ceremony.
However, those born anytime to a (married) UK father, can simply complete a passport application without the need to apply for citizenship via registration and without the need to attend (and pay for) a ceremony.
It’s blatatant discrimination to require an application (which can be denied) and the ceremony (which is intended for those without a British parent).
The right to “register” is not the same as the right to claim British citizenship (without conditions) which we are entitled to.
To be British by descent is a birthright. The UK currently recognises this for some but not all.
It is time for this unjust law to be corrected once and for all.
What about discrimination against British Nationals (Overseas) from Hong Kong, many of whom served the Crown loyally, and who currently have far fewer rights in this country than a Lithuanian who arrived yesterday?
It is the kind of news item we could only get during a Tory govt. It will create as many problems as it solves. I have never heard the queen described as “feisty” before.
Presumably the Trust deeds of hereditary peers vary in every case. A certain number are entailed upon the females, ie “in their own right”.
Why should parliament should be bothered with such items? Is the treasury going to shell out far more capital supporting them all,in future?
“…the inequalities suffered by husbands of peers.”
Seriously?
…the inequalities suffered by husbands of peers.”
Well Yes Take Sir Alan Beith MP for Berwick, he has to get elected, for a start.
How equal is that? He is only in the house of commons earning £150,000/annum. How equal is that?
There are things in this life which make Baronesses think!
What would be the longest-term Purpose,
of Royal,
and of other “establishmentarian”,
gender distinction &/or equality ?
Of course Baroness Deech, and most people, applaud the Monarchy’s latest step towards an egalitarian Britain;
yet there remain, seriously “stuck”, much bigger underlying issues, such as I have attempted to begin sketching below.
—————–
In the Predicament our human-race is facing, within which we are evidently destroying our own lifesupports, we need Leadership that shows by transparent example, 24/7/52/Lifespan, how we permanently-low-income-recipients
(living off just one human-living each, already legislatively set by Westminster Government at approx £143 per week;
but suggested by me to be raised to between £200 and £300 per week, egalitarianly throughout the 63 million British population, no exceptions)
could spend our equal £200 -£300 pw income more positivisingly or productively than we have been or are currently doing ?
———————-
Talking “equality”, vis a vis between human-beings “on high”, why is it that the vast majority, if not all, of such individual human-beings can not live off just one complete human-living ?
Contrastingly, why are the lowest-paid people “down below” not openly recognised as in point of fact being the most efficient lifestylers ?
i.e. able to live healthily, citizenlike, and environmentally-supportive, and make ends meet, upon one human-living* and no-capital assets ?
——————-
We are here also facing the primary Difference between fitness-for-Purpose and individual-worker efficiency in the Workplace, and individual fitness-for-Purpose and personal-efficiency in the Lifeplace.
—————–
How have these matters been addressed and with what results ? And if not, why not, and when will they be ?
I think they should abolish Kings and queens entirely and give up. It is all very childish and immature. The modern civilized world has elections and presidents.
Why draw out attention to this nonsense?
Perhaps if you are unhappy with our constitutional arrangements in this kingdom, you should go and live somewhere you feel more comfortable and leave this land to those of us who appreciate it.
We have plenty of elections in this country already (too many, maybe). So if it’s presidents you are after, may I suggest moving to Venezuela, Russia or Syria?
As Princess Anne is not the first born anyway, retrospective or not it would make no difference.
Although I agree with you. She would have been superb. Based on an addmittedly small scientific sample of one, I actually believe that female monarchs are the best.
Hereditary peerages are a different ballgame because (I believe) each Letters Patent can be written slightly differently, depending on whether only female issue existed at the time of its creation.
I would certainly favour a woman to inherit a peerage rather than for it to become extinct. That seems an entirely justifiable change. But other than in that case, I think changing the rules of inheritence would cause quite a lot of family issues. When would it come into force? Would it apply only to future, unborn generations or to existing elder daughters with a younger brother? Awkward.
Another point is this: why does it even matter? Hereditary peers are, sadly, no longer part of our Parliament. Why bother bringing something ‘into the 21st century”‘when it was shamelessly ditched in the 20th?
A Trust deed that passes on property from one generation to the next intact, does not have much to do with Letters Patent.
It is being raised in Parliament because the devotees of exclusivity, such as Cameron/Sheffield/Astor are keen to revive the laws of the middle ages.
It’s a reactionary government! Gorrit?!
And nothing the Lib dems say will prevent it.
“If the Crown can accept equality, then so should the peerage.”
But the crown isn’t and you haven’t suggested King Philip which is the obvious logic of your position.
Lady Saltoun inherited her title as a Lord of Parliament when her Father died because her brother predeceased her in 1944. Unlike south of the border Scottish titles can of course be inherited through a daughter, like the Countess of Mar, who also inherited after the death of her brother. So it is rather odd that Lady Saltoun did not support a change in the line of succession, especially as she is herself a member of the extended Royal Family. We must ask her!
My own husband is not itching for a title and like Baroness Deech, I cannot see why male life peers should be able to confer one on their wives.
Better still, let’s just abandon silly titles altogether. I particularly detest having to refer to all Lords as ‘Noble’ in the Chamber, how daft is that? And oh dear me what a hoo-ha starts up when some poor new boy/girl refers to a Minister as ‘the Noble Minister’ instead of ‘the Noble Lord the Minister’ (Ministers cannot be noble you see, only Lords). Utterly daft. I notice that in Grand Committee this arcane language is gradually fading out; not a moment too soon.
A major common theme here is Conserving-the-Good, versus Paring-off-the-Obsolete.
There is ‘nobility of conduct’; versus ‘ ‘noble’-ness of title alone ‘ perhaps to preserve actual noble conduct but essentially of some past Lord/Baroness.
As one modern leader-trainer headed a book chapter
“Being Called ‘Leader’ Will Never Make You One”.
I think there is a necessary, a vital, discipline involved, in having to refer to an upper house noble (perhaps-from-known-prior-performance/conduct) minister,
not as the ‘Noble’-minister but as the ‘Noble’-Lord-the-Minister’.
On a tiny scale this danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater is wasteful, is destructively-deceitful and diversionary, is misplaced enforcement of ‘discontinuous-mind’ FPTP winner-takes-all-debating, at the expense of rightful ‘continuous-mind’, comprehensive-deliberation, and Thrift.
————-
Incidentally, I hold that it is possible to have an Individuality-Utilitarian philosophy by which not only “greates good for the greatest number (of people)” is served but also “greatest good for every one (of the people)” –
in other words that “win-win-win utilitarianism” is not only possible but long overtdue to be written-up and implemented.
—————–
Thereby any worthy or essential ‘spirit’ within modes of address, and within other secondarily-skilled protocols, could be constitutionally and culturally carried forward:
and let us add that we would expect such improvement to also include a further requirement, that the wording be accurately descriptive of the work, activity, or ‘thing-being-governed’ itself –
e.g. that a “Select”-committee be in future called what it actually needs to be focused upon, which is being a “Scrutiny”-committee.
“Scottish titles can of course be inherited through a daughter”
Not quite. Many Scottish titles can pass through or to a female heir but most can’t. Then this is true for many old English baronies and a few higher titles.
Simple solution – lets cull the lords completely.
That gets rid of the arcane language and cross dressing. It saves us 150 million a year. It gives us a tad more democratic control.
she is herself a member of the extended Royal Family.
We all are, so that’s no argument.
Talking of equality of the sexes…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-15470936
She looks rather attractive in a feisty red-head kinda way..
Mind you Baroness Deech, always a bit of a risk in going on about equality in the HoL – I mean they’ll be talking about culling the hereditaries again if you’re not careful.
Catherine Bennett has a different take..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/30/catherine-bennett-royal-succession
First of all, does the Queen really feel well served having a convicted liar and frequenter of prostitutes, who was jailed for how long? to offer up a solution to this ridiculous dilemma? Does the Queen feel gratified by such a submission from such a person?
Next, Anne would not have made a good Queen as she is inclined to beat her husbands with crops across the face in public. Thereby reducing him and herself in the eyes of us all and confirming she is a spouse beater. Not a good place for a Queen to be. Plus, she would have had no intention of her children having titles, thank goodness. She therefore, must have felt it a burden.
If we must have a monarch then we were fortunate with Charles, who far outweighs any of his siblings for the post in waiting. And Camilla is a gem, unlike the previous woman who would have become as mad as King George at some point on the not too distant future had she stayed the course.
And lastly, lets hope and pray any child of a part Royal, William and his non royal, anorexic looking, fast aging and, frankly, common wife, doesn’t get shoved into a spot they, first of all have no entitlement to whatsoever, and secondly, make the UK citizens appear to the world as laughable lunatics. Note I wrote citizens and not subjects.
What an insult to all of us, this antiquated situation is.
Regardless, if there has to be equality, why not wait until all the children these people present become of age and choose the best of the bunch. Now there may be some reason to that thought. The country was very fortunate indeed to have Queen Elizabeth as first in line when she was thrust into this position. Her sister would have been worse than Zara Phillips with her choice of husband to be as pseudo King. And Prince Phillip turned out to have the bearing of a King, the blood line and the steadfastness to remain at his wife’s side.
The best choice from these two people would be the one who is the front runner all rounder. There stands equality of merrit not first in line. Imaging if Andrew and Fergie rulled, with those daughters being next in line. Or, the simple Edward… Go no further.
Goodness, with what we have now, a mongrel at the job, who knows what shape the issue will turn out to be. A bit like the cross breeding of a thoroughbred.
So it should end with the Duke of Cornwall. For he is the last of the best.
William and his non royal, anorexic looking, fast aging and, frankly, common wife,
You’ll regret that when you have audience!
My very good mentor the DofE does marvellously
doesn’t he at 90. Fit as a fiddle!
Whatever we may think of Royal tours, some people evidently enjoy them, including Nicholas Witchell, and who’s to deny them a little cheering?
@Gareth H:
Audeince highly unlikely…….Besides, that awful sister might be there. Now there is a put off if ever there was one.
Now stop it Maude, you’re talking about the girl I love !! I’m not a betting man, but I suspect there is more than hint of jealousy here – and that is rather unbecoming..