October 29, 2011 in Nation/World

Time for a royal revision

Old succession rules favor males, ban Catholic spouses
Cassandra Vinograd Associated Press
Associated Press photo

If Prince William and Kate have a daughter first, under the agreement she would inherit the throne.
(Full-size photo)

From now on

The new rules would only apply to future heirs and would have no impact on the current line of succession.

LONDON – If Will and Kate’s first child is a girl, it’s now clear that she’ll probably become queen one day – and not even getting a little brother can mess that up.

The Commonwealth countries agreed Friday to change centuries-old rules of succession that put sons on the throne ahead of any older sisters. So that hypothetical daughter of Prince William and Kate Middleton – now known as Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge – would have a prime place in history: the first princess to beat out any younger brothers and accede to the throne.

Had these rules been in place in the 1500s, Henry VIII would have just been a rather large historical footnote.

The move is only an initial step: Before taking effect, the changes still must be approved by the legislatures of the 16 nations where Queen Elizabeth II is head of state. Still, the agreement, which was reached at a meeting of Commonwealth nations in Perth, Australia, represents a triumph over practices now considered outdated and sexist in much of the world.

Nations including Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands and Norway have already taken similar steps.

Historians think it’s about time.

“You shouldn’t muck around too much with the constitution, but it’s a good idea to change this at this time,” said royal expert Hugo Vickers. “It’s much better to have it sorted out before any babies come along.”

William is second in line to the throne after his father, Prince Charles, who is the queen’s firstborn child. Charles’ sister, Anne, is lower in the line of succession than her younger brothers Andrew and Edward by virtue of their male gender.

Charles had only sons, William and Prince Harry, so the issue of gender was never raised.

In 2009, the government of then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown considered a bill that would end the custom of putting males ahead of females in the succession line. It also would lift a ban on British monarchs marrying Roman Catholics. The government did not have time to pursue it before Brown left office.

The rule has kept women from succeeding to the throne in the past. Queen Victoria’s first child was a daughter – also called Victoria – but it was her younger brother who became King Edward VII.

If Queen Victoria had been able to pass her crown to her firstborn, Britain’s Princess Victoria would have had a brief reign before her death in 1901.

That would have made her son – Wilhelm II, who at that time was the German Kaiser – king. With Wilhelm II ruling both Germany and Britain, there may not have been two world wars.

Neither Henry VIII nor Charles I would have been king because both had older sisters who would have been monarch. As king, Henry VIII set in motion the creation of the Church of England. Elizabeth II succeeded her father, King George VI, because he had no sons. If she had had a younger brother, he would have jumped above her in the line of succession.

New Zealand will now chair a working group of Commonwealth countries to discuss how to accomplish the reforms. It’s not a simple process. Getting all 16 countries to begin the legislative changes is what has held them up for decades.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

There are four comments on this story. Click here to view comments >>

Get stories like this in a free daily email