The Prime Minister David Cameron has proposed changes to the rules governing the succession to the throne. He suggests that the firstborn should be next in succession, regardless of their gender. Currently the Act of Settlement gives succession to the first male heir. Cameron also proposes making changes to allow those in line to the throne the right to marry a Roman Catholic, although the ban on the monarch being a Catholic would remain. In addition, changes would be made to the 1772 Royal Marriages Act, which requires the many descendants of George II to obtain the permission of the monarch to marry.
However, in order for these changes to be made, the governments of the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Grenada, Belize, St Christopher and Nevis, St Lucia, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, St Vincent and the Grenadines and Papua New Guinea would all have to agree, as we share the same head of state.
Hopefully such changes will bring the monarchy into the 19th century.
Yes, firmly into the 19th century.
Can't imagine any of the current royals would have a problem with this succession change as de facto it will not change anything in the foreseeable future. Charles is next in line and also male.
And both his kids are males.
As for marrying a Catholic -- How very un-Henry VIII of them!
So what about other religions? Can a royal marry a Baptist? A Presbyterian? How about a Buddhist, Muslim, druid, or atheist?
I mean, if they're going to relax the law, they should be efficient about it.
And finally, with respect to requiring the many descendants of George II to obtain the monarch's permission to marry, I think that provision should remain. Moreover, I think it should be greatly expanded. I think ALL British subjects should be required to obtain permission from the Queen (or whoever happens to be monarch at the time). That will give the monarch something useful to occupy his/her time and might actually lower the divorce rate.
But, even if the changes were made, wouldn't it still be behind in the times? 19th Century?
What happened to bringing it into the 20th Century? or 21st?
by thekidandblue6 years ago
I have been curious about this for a while now, i don't know why.and how would you find out how many there were?sorry f I'm being morbid, I've been up for 24 hours
by herrypaul17 months ago
I have been a Hubber for 14 month, but I started to write Hubs about 3 to 4 month ago; my pageviews are 3200 more. I have written 12 Hubs so far; it's not easy to write them -I must think hard...very hard. And I do not...
by pisean2823117 years ago
why there is so much fascination in media and general people about queen , prince and such things...is it only in uk or other countries too?
by James Smith4 years ago
Wikileaks founder and activist Julian Assange has turned to partisan politics, arguing that the movement behind Ron and Rand Paul's rise to prominence in the GOP is the 'only hope' for reform in American...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.