Ship of Fools: How the Monarchy Remains Sexist

Thread: How the Monarchy Remains Sexist Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027458

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Now that the eldest child of the British monarch is first in line to the throne regardless of his/her sex, there still is a gender inequity in that the wife of a King can become Queen Consort but that the husband of a Queen can only become a Prince Consort and not a King Consort - a title that has never existed anywhere but perhaps it is now time to create it.

In addition, if there was a monarch in a same-sex marriage (and assuming that the Church of England, in this alternate reality, allows same-sex marriage), what could the spouse's title be? Could there be a King Regnant married to a King Consort? A Queen Regnant married to a Queen Consort? Why not?

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Couldn't you just call him a queen? I'll get my coat.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

One is not amused.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Now that the eldest child of the British monarch is first in line to the throne regardless of his/her sex, there still is a gender inequity in that the wife of a King can become Queen Consort but that the husband of a Queen can only become a Prince Consort and not a King Consort - a title that has never existed anywhere but perhaps it is now time to create it.

It might be simpler to replace the title "Queen Consort" with something else (Princess Consort?) rather than create the title King Consort. This would clear up one level of ambiguity insofar as a Queen can be either a reigning monarch or the wife of a reigning monarch, an ambiguity that does not, as you have noted, apply to the title of King.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

This certainly seems like the hill to die on when it comes to the monarchy.

Regardless, it is not true that 'king consort' has never existed; it is just rare. Francis II of France, during his marriage to Mary, Queen of Scots, was King Consort of Scots. Of course, he was never the legal co-sovereign of Scotland; it was a title only. Same goes for her later husband, Lord Darnley.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This would clear up one level of ambiguity insofar as a Queen can be either a reigning monarch or the wife of a reigning monarch . . . .

Or the widow of a deceased monarch.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Prince/ss Someone, Royal Consort

Would be reasonable.

Widowed and/or abdicated versions of royalty could always be emeritus ?

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

The Dowager Princess? (Just because it's such a lovely word)

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

Why not the queen dowager? That is what the Queen Mum was; a queen mother is a more specific kind of queen dowager.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Sorry to be rude, but why on earth is a non-British-or-Commonwealth-subject be interested in this? And even if he or she were, why should anyone heed their view on the point?

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Anyway, about this business about capitalising or not capitalising the word "god"...

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Sorry to be rude, but why on earth is a non-British-or-Commonwealth-subject be interested in this? And even if he or she were, why should anyone heed their view on the point?

I'm book-marking this quote for the next inevitable gun thread.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Sorry to be rude, but why on earth is a non-British-or-Commonwealth-subject be interested in this?

Because nomenclature is inherently interesting to some of us, as are discussions of sexism.

quote:
And even if he or she were, why should anyone heed their view on the point?

Because the perspective of outsiders is frequently enlightening.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Sorry to be rude, but why on earth is a non-British-or-Commonwealth-subject be interested in this? And even if he or she were, why should anyone heed their view on the point?

You were not being rude, you were just being foolish.

Surely you will refrain in the future from commenting on the domestic issues of other countries, lest your interest be found unusual and your view go unheeded.

[ 24. July 2014, 17:35: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

Mary I of England created her husband a King Regnant. It lasted for her reign only and was ignored by his sister-in-law Elizabeth I. Just saying.

Posted by Robertus Liverpolitanae (# 12011) on :

The problem is wider than the monarchy.

If I were knighted, I would become Sir Robertus, and my wife Lady Liverpolitanae

If I were ennobled I would become Baron Liverpolitanae, and my wife Baroness Liverpolitanae.

But, if my wife receives a damehood, she becomes Dame Roberta, I become nothing: she becomes Baroness Liverpolitanae, again I remain plain Mr Liverpolitanae. There are similar problems with same sex couples.

The obvious answer is to abolish all titles. An alternative answer is to drop all together the custom of courtesy titles for spouses. Just because I’m outstanding enough to be rewarded with a civic honour, or lucky enough to be born in the right bed, doesn’t mean my spouse should get the same honour or luck.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

royal.gov.uk doesn't mention Philip of Spain as a monarch but the wikipedia site gives constitutional law geeks the parliamentary references making him King during Queen Mary's reign. The legislation related to William and Mary mandates that the survivor of the two would carry on as ruling sovereign, unlike the Mary & Philip situation.

Given that the two incidents of male spouses being made kings by parliamentary rule by proclamation rather than letters patent and that other male royal spouses (George of Denmark, Albert, and Phil the Greek) didn't get the king title, my guess is that it's now a dead letter unless some odd dynastic circumstances drive parliament to it.

There was muttering a few years ago in the Langevin building (where the PMO is in Ottawa) about what to do with Camilla's title when the time comes and, before those involved were distracted by something on twitter, they decided not to think about it for the time being. My now-retired source notes that Camilla will be called whatever Charles wishes to call her, as long as the Commonwealth premiers agree.

As far as non-subjects go, they are quite free to talk about it as far as I am concerned. There are worse topics of conversation and, as they bask in the reflected glow of monarchic splendour, why not chat about the rays of brilliance?

[ 24. July 2014, 18:54: Message edited by: Augustine the Aleut ]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robertus Liverpolitanae:
The problem is wider than the monarchy.

If I were knighted, I would become Sir Robertus, and my wife Lady Liverpolitanae

If I were ennobled I would become Baron Liverpolitanae, and my wife Baroness Liverpolitanae.

But, if my wife receives a damehood, she becomes Dame Roberta, I become nothing: she becomes Baroness Liverpolitanae, again I remain plain Mr Liverpolitanae. There are similar problems with same sex couples.

The obvious answer is to abolish all titles. An alternative answer is to drop all together the custom of courtesy titles for spouses. Just because I’m outstanding enough to be rewarded with a civic honour, or lucky enough to be born in the right bed, doesn’t mean my spouse should get the same honour or luck.

Alas, Canada has dispensed with all such titles, you can't get one nor use one, except we seem to call elected politicians things like His Worship and Right Honorable (there's no His Honesty is there?). I would have thought it would be a money maker, to sell various titles. It is possible to pay to have a vanity vehicle license plate, meaning you can pick interesting letter and number combinations or actual words, and it raises a bit of cash. We should thus probably bring them back. And maybe create a few new ones at premium rates. I would suggest Stephen Harper be awarded the title His Stiffedness.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

While No Prophet is basically right about titles in Canada, there are some notable exceptions: inherited UK titles can be used as can two French titles (the barony of Le Moyne and the marquisate of Rigaud de Vaudreuil), a few knighthoods were given to Canadians with Canadian government permission, and the Aga Khan (a Canadian citizen) has His Highness which the Queen granted him in (I think) 1956. Non-UK knighthoods can also be accepted (usually a few dozen a year, mainly from France, but also from Spain and Italy) with permission, but the titles are not to be used although armigerous Canadians can get supporters to their arms should they wish to cough up a few thousand smackers for the fees. Permission has not been granted for a number of foreign knighthoods; in the case of the UK, prior contact is usually made--- I don't think that there have been any since the 1980s.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
As far as non-subjects go, they are quite free to talk about it as far as I am concerned. There are worse topics of conversation and, as they bask in the reflected glow of monarchic splendour, why not chat about the rays of brilliance?

I actually give a hearty "amen" to this, and I am very glad that some form of the monarchy and related things lives on in the UK. [Axe murder]

Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
I'm book-marking this quote for the next inevitable gun thread.

Why? Is someone smuggling monarchs into the US for underground receptions and driveby knightings?

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

Portugal had kings consort before the 1910 revolution. In the UK, parliament did not let Queen Victoria confer the title King Albert on her spouse.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
I'm book-marking this quote for the next inevitable gun thread.
Why? Is someone smuggling monarchs into the US for underground receptions and driveby knightings?

In case he wishes to opine on gun control, or the lack thereof, in the States. That topic often draws in participants who have never set foot in the U.S..

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Since the Duke of Edinburgh seems fairly happy with his titles, I think this is probably a bridge best crossed when it needs to be, probably in a hundred years or so.

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

His Royal Highness could be a solution and if the Monarch wanted to give her husband a title well let her. I mean before he was Duke of Edinburgh Prince Phillip was a Greek prince. And he seems to have worked out alright as did HRH Prince Albert a former German prince .
But didn't the fact of a Queen as consort to the King come from an era which was more male dominated than, I think, we are now ? God save the Queen

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I've always favoured being called Lord High Potentate of Time and Space, but my pesky kids won't play along...

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Sorry to be rude, but why on earth is a non-British-or-Commonwealth-subject be interested in this? And even if he or she were, why should anyone heed their view on the point?
I'm book-marking this quote for the next inevitable gun thread.

It's terribly important to know whether, should a future male spouse of a monarch want to go wandering into your living room, you would need a gun to stop them or not.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Now that the eldest child of the British monarch is first in line to the throne regardless of his/her sex,

Is that in fact the case?

I know it was widely bruited before the birth of Prince George rendered the matter moot for the next 60-80 years. But such a change requires the consent of all the countries currently subject to the Crown (since the Crown is agreed to be indivisible).

I think Westminster passed something, and I know there was a hasty teleconference or something, and general consent was given. There was certainly a push to get legislation passed before Prince George's birth.

But in Canada at least, such a change would have to be made by legislation -- none has been passed -- and with the consent of the provinces (who have not been asked as yet, much less agreed). No provinces=no Canadaa; no Canada=no consensus or legal consent; no consensus=no change. For all I know, the Australian states have a similar stake in the matter (I would be surprised indeed to learn that they, or some of them, don't).

John

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Sorry to be rude, but why on earth is a non-British-or-Commonwealth-subject be interested in this? And even if he or she were, why should anyone heed their view on the point?
I'm book-marking this quote for the next inevitable gun thread.
It's terribly important to know whether, should a future male spouse of a monarch want to go wandering into your living room, you would need a gun to stop them or not.

Of course, the future male spouse of a british monarch might be the husband of a male British monarch. And no one has yet worked out what to call the husband of a Duke, or an Earl, or a King.

John

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Now that the eldest child of the British monarch is first in line to the throne regardless of his/her sex,
Is that in fact the case?

I know it was widely bruited before the birth of Prince George rendered the matter moot for the next 60-80 years. But such a change requires the consent of all the countries currently subject to the Crown (since the Crown is agreed to be indivisible).

I think Westminster passed something, and I know there was a hasty teleconference or something, and general consent was given. There was certainly a push to get legislation passed before Prince George's birth.

But in Canada at least, such a change would have to be made by legislation -- none has been passed -- and with the consent of the provinces (who have not been asked as yet, much less agreed). No provinces=no Canadaa; no Canada=no consensus or legal consent; no consensus=no change. For all I know, the Australian states have a similar stake in the matter (I would be surprised indeed to learn that they, or some of them, don't).

John

*Canadian Constitution geekery alert!!* Alas, no. By the Statute of Westminster, all that is needed is Canada's consent to the imperial statute. Your precedent here is the 1936 abdication of Edward VIII. Cabinet agreed and, when the instrument of abdication was prepared, Ottawa cabled an order-in-council "advising and consenting" to the Abdication Act passed at Westminster. In an entry in his diary, Mackenzie King indicated his satisfaction that Parliament was not in session, so a cabinet decision was enough--- the law officers had been consulted on December 5.

De Valera in Ireland had hoped to ignore the whole episode but found out that they still had Edward VIII the day after so, rather than assent as provided by the Statute of Westminster, Dail Éireann passed the External Relations Act with its convoluted wording.

John Holding is right that alterations to the office of the Crown requires unanimous consent of provinces to a constitutional change, but perhaps it's not necessary simply for a technical or personnel change. As recent change required amendments to the Union of Scotland Act and the Act for the Protestant Succession (both part of the Canadian Constitution), that would be done by Westminster, and Canada would send an order-in-council accepting it.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Oooh, you're both off, John and Augustine. [Eek!]

Provinces do not have to be asked. "Office of Queen" means the existence of the Office and the powers of the same, it does not refer to the person who holds the office. This wording is very specific to preserve Parliament's role as it was in 1937. The Succession to the Throne Act, 1937 ratified the earlier Order-in-Council.

And we have changed the succession in Canada, we passed the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 which assented to the Succession to the Crown Act (UK) 2013.

The change away from primogeniture was hardly a "teleconference"; it was the subject of an in-person meeting between the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth Realms at Perth, Australia in 2012.

Lastly, the provinces are not contesting the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013. Even Quebec threw in the towel after Prince George was born. There is a quixotic effort by some law professors from Laval to have it declared unconstitutional, but Quebec's Justice Department clearly does not consider it a priority.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Now that the eldest child of the British monarch is first in line to the throne regardless of his/her sex, there still is a gender inequity in that the wife of a King can become Queen Consort but that the husband of a Queen can only become a Prince Consort and not a King Consort - a title that has never existed anywhere but perhaps it is now time to create it.

Are these titles actually written in legislation somewhere, in the same way the rules of succession are? Or are they just convention?

Because if it's just convention it can be dealt with if and when the need arises.

[ 25. July 2014, 03:07: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I clearly got over-excited after reading 40pp of Mackenzie King's diaries.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Not only not "just a bit of teleconferencing" or even the CHOGM, but lots of legislation as well. Here, that involved legislation by each of the States and that looked like going off the rails when Queensland - governed as so often by half-witted populists - wanted to go its own way and not use the standard and agreed legislation. Probably any change would involve the agreement of each of the States as well as the Commonwealth, the States having their own relationship directly with the monarch and totally separate from that of the Commonwealth.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
I'm book-marking this quote for the next inevitable gun thread.
Why? Is someone smuggling monarchs into the US for underground receptions and driveby knightings?

What a wonderful idea. Her Majesty slipping over the Canadian border at dead of night, the King of the Netherlands being smuggled by fast boat from the Dutch Caribbean...

Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robertus Liverpolitanae:
An alternative answer is to drop all together the custom of courtesy titles for spouses. Just because I’m outstanding enough to be rewarded with a civic honour, or lucky enough to be born in the right bed, doesn’t mean my spouse should get the same honour or luck.

Though to be fair, people who get knighthoods or peerages [often] only manage to achieve it because their spouse sacrificed their own career to allow the outstanding person to concentrate entirely on what they do. Imagine trying to be that "outstanding member of the community" while also having to do the housework, go shopping, pay the bills, maintain the household accounts, and all the other mundane things of life. The honorary title for wives are there because traditionally the man could never have done what he did without the hard work of the wife.

[ 25. July 2014, 10:45: Message edited by: Dal Segno ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
I'm book-marking this quote for the next inevitable gun thread.
Why? Is someone smuggling monarchs into the US for underground receptions and driveby knightings?
What a wonderful idea. Her Majesty slipping over the Canadian border at dead of night, the King of the Netherlands being smuggled by fast boat from the Dutch Caribbean...

The Queen seems to have managed getting to Scotland quite openly (for the Commonwealth Games) ... but did anyone actually see her passing?

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Sorry to be rude, but why on earth is a non-British-or-Commonwealth-subject be interested in this? And even if he or she were, why should anyone heed their view on the point?

I don't presume that you don't have the right to criticize US politis or the US constitutional framework. Besides, this applies to all monarchies, not just the British one. Also, based on magazine covers, USonians take great interest in who's who in the British Royal Family and what their title is - just as non-USonians do in USonian politicians and celebrities. Plus, constitutional monarchy a la the UK has had somewhat of an influence on the way other countries think of the ideas of "sovereignty," "heads of state," etc., whether or not those other countries are republics. (Judges in the US use the Magna Carta and other medieval English legal documents as precedent all the time, even if those judges are not operating in a monarchical framework).

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Some questions:

In an alternate reality where the C of E was ok with same-sex marriages - and there was a British monarch with a same-sex spouse...

1. Would a monarch's eldest child only be automatically the heir apparent if it was a biological child born from the womb of a biologically female monarch or female spouse of that monarch, conceived by nothing other than sexual intercourse between the monarch and his/her spouse, and having genetic material exclusively from the monarch and his/her spouse? (With the exception, of course, of any mutations that went on in the fetus in the womb.)

2. Does this mean that an eldest adopted child is not automatically the heir apparent? Would major constitutional changes be required to allow an adopted child to inherit the throne?

3. What about children conceived in vitro? Children born by a surrogate that is neither the monarch or his/her spouse? The surrogate could be carrying an embryo conceived in vitro whose biological parents are the monarch and his/her opposite sex spouse, or it could be carrying an embryo conceived in vitro whose biological parents are the monarch and either a relative of the monarch's same-sex spouse or some other person. Would, in this latter case, the child be considered "legitimate" under the law if the child was immediately adopted by the monarch's same-sex spouse and both the surrogate and the other biological parent of the child gave up their rights of parentage?

4. In the near future we may be able to conceive embryos in vitro that have primarily (or perhaps entirely) the genetic material of two same-sex spouses. One is to take an egg cell from a female monarch, then take a sperm cell from any male (perhaps a brother of the female monarch's same-sex spouse) and replace its nucleus with one from an egg cell of the monarch's same-sex spouse. Since the brother and sister have the same mother, their mitochondrial DNA should be practically identical, so no need to worry about that (or is there?). You could also have an egg cell from a sister of a male monarch, with its nucleus replaced with a nucleus from a sperm cell of the monarch, fertilized by a sperm cell from the same-sex partner of the monarch. In this case you would need a surrogate to bear the child.

There is also a possibility in the future that we might be able to conceive embryos in vitro using exclusively cells from two same-sex partners without needing the egg or sperm of any third person (and in the more distant future we may have artificial wombs that would obviate the need for a surrogate).

With all of these technological possibilities, would a monarch's child conceived and carried to term using such methods be automatically considered the heir apparent? If not, would there be major constitutional hurtles to overcome in crafting legislation to allwo such succession - (such as the whole notion of what constitutes a "legitimate" child and whether adoption (even of a child that could be thought of as the monarch's biological nephew) can function smoothly as a means of succession)?

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Oh, and I don't know if surrogacy is legal in the UK, so for the purposes of this discussion assume that it is, even if it is not.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Oh, and I don't know if surrogacy is legal in the UK, so for the purposes of this discussion assume that it is, even if it is not.

You don't even need to have surrogacy to get to the essence of the scenario you're describing. A male monarch could impregnate the female relative of his SS partner thru artificial insemination, or a female monarch could be impregnated the same way thru donated sperm from a relative of her SS partner.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

A much simpler solution is to abolish the monarchy.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:

In addition, if there was a monarch in a same-sex marriage (and assuming that the Church of England, in this alternate reality, allows same-sex marriage), what could the spouse's title be? Could there be a King Regnant married to a King Consort? A Queen Regnant married to a Queen Consort? Why not?

The only thing that is standardized is that the wife of a King is a Queen. There is no standard for the title of the husband of the Queen - we haven't had enough ruling Queens to establish a standard practice - and it's not automatic. Each husband of a Queen has had titles awarded by letters patent (or another document with similar standing), as men do not automatically derive titles from their wives.

So your answer is that the husband of a Queen is called whatever the Queen and the various governments of her realms agree on. The same principle would apply to a ruling monarch with a same-sex spouse - there's no automatic rule, so something would be made up.

My guess would be that if, for example, HRH Prince George of Cambridge married a man, that man would be granted a title one notch lower than that held by Prince George at the time. So if His Royal Highness was created a Duke when he married, his husband would probably be created an Earl.

Far more likely than this becoming an issue is that the "problem" will have been solved in the aristocracy already, and provide a pattern to follow. There are many more aristocrats than royals, and there are campaigns (if that's not too vulgar a concept) to alter the descent of hereditary peerages to pass to the eldest child regardless of sex, and to grant automatic titles to husbands of titled wives. Some of these campaigns also address the question of titles for married same-sex partners, and it would be natural to roll the whole lot up at once.

But don't hold your breath - this is hardly top of anyone's political agenda.

Re adopted children, the current state of play in the UK is that adopted children cannot inherit titles from their parents. With regard to royalty specifically, the 1701 Act of Succession specifies "heirs of the body" of Sophia, Electress of Hanover. This must require, at least (the assumption of) genetic descent. "Heirs of the body" must also be legitimate, which excludes your various surrogacy scenarios.

[Under English law, the woman who gives birth to a child is that child's legal mother, whether or not she is the child's genetic parent. If that woman is married, her partner will also be the child's legal parent.

Legal parenthood can be transferred to a genetic parent of the child and his or her spouse via a Parental Order, with the consent of the birth parents above.

A Parental Order is basically a special-purpose mini-adoption for surrogacy arrangements.]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:

In addition, if there was a monarch in a same-sex marriage (and assuming that the Church of England, in this alternate reality, allows same-sex marriage), what could the spouse's title be? Could there be a King Regnant married to a King Consort? A Queen Regnant married to a Queen Consort? Why not?
The only thing that is standardized is that the wife of a King is a Queen. There is no standard for the title of the husband of the Queen - we haven't had enough ruling Queens to establish a standard practice - and it's not automatic. Each husband of a Queen has had titles awarded by letters patent (or another document with similar standing), as men do not automatically derive titles from their wives.

So your answer is that the husband of a Queen is called whatever the Queen and the various governments of her realms agree on. The same principle would apply to a ruling monarch with a same-sex spouse - there's no automatic rule, so something would be made up.

My guess would be that if, for example, HRH Prince George of Cambridge married a man, that man would be granted a title one notch lower than that held by Prince George at the time. So if His Royal Highness was created a Duke when he married, his husband would probably be created an Earl.

Far more likely than this becoming an issue is that the "problem" will have been solved in the aristocracy already, and provide a pattern to follow. There are many more aristocrats than royals, and there are campaigns (if that's not too vulgar a concept) to alter the descent of hereditary peerages to pass to the eldest child regardless of sex, and to grant automatic titles to husbands of titled wives. Some of these campaigns also address the question of titles for married same-sex partners, and it would be natural to roll the whole lot up at once.

But don't hold your breath - this is hardly top of anyone's political agenda.

Re adopted children, the current state of play in the UK is that adopted children cannot inherit titles from their parents. With regard to royalty specifically, the 1701 Act of Succession specifies "heirs of the body" of Sophia, Electress of Hanover. This must require, at least (the assumption of) genetic descent. "Heirs of the body" must also be legitimate, which excludes your various surrogacy scenarios.

[Under English law, the woman who gives birth to a child is that child's legal mother, whether or not she is the child's genetic parent. If that woman is married, her partner will also be the child's legal parent.

Legal parenthood can be transferred to a genetic parent of the child and his or her spouse via a Parental Order, with the consent of the birth parents above.

A Parental Order is basically a special-purpose mini-adoption for surrogacy arrangements.]

So this gets exactly to what I suspected - that if adoption, surrogacy, or any situation in which the birth mother, biological mother, or biological father of the child are not either the monarch or the monarch's same sex spouse, then there is not way that a royal same sex couple can have a child who is a legitimate heir. At least, this seems to be the case for male same-sex couples (until an artificial womb is invented, which would still require a change in inheritance law for titles).

For female same sex royal couples, as long as either the monarch or her wife bear the child, what is required for the child's legitimacy? Would artificial insemination from a sperm donor (perhaps one of the spouses' brother) be illegitimate, even if it is accompanied by papers everyone signs at birth to transfer parentage, or is that just adoption and therefore invalid under the Act of Succession? What if the Queen's embryo is fertilized in vitro and then implanted in her wife's womb? Does the fact that the semen came from a man outside the marriage make it illegitimate?

And then there are the more technological possibilities I listed. If one female same sex spouse had her genetic material from her egg cell nucleus inserted into a sperm cell of her brothers' to replace his own, and this sperm cell was allowed to fertilize an egg of the other same sex spouse (perhaps the Queen), who would carry it to term, would this be legitimate? (Interestingly enough, in this case any child conceived would have to be female.)

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

While this really doesn't touch the OP, shipmates might be interested in this reference from the College of Arms:
Her Majesty The Queen granted by her Warrant dated 1 April 2011, that such styles and courtesy titles as are proper to the younger children of Peers, shall be accorded to the children of Peers who are the subject of Parental Orders within the meaning of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 or the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, and the children of Peers who are born as a result of assisted reproduction techniques with donated gametes or embryos under the terms of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 as amended by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, notwithstanding that no right of succession to any dignity or title of honour nor any precedence is thereby conferred upon them. College reference: Coll Arm Ms I.85/257

So it would likely require legislation to secure succession under peerage law. As far as the Crown is concerned, succession is determined by Parliament under various acts, and could be regulated further by it. Commonwealth practice is to secure a uniform succession law so if we are to go for royal surrogacy etc, we'll have to draft something interesting. I imagine that this is not an immediate problem...

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:

For female same sex royal couples, as long as either the monarch or her wife bear the child, what is required for the child's legitimacy?

For the parent who does not bear the child to have a Y chromosome and a penis. So your scenario is, I think, technically possible if one of the couple was a trans woman who hadn't had surgery.

For a child to be legitimate from the point of view of the royal succession, the child must be the genetic offspring of both his parents, who must have been married at the time of his birth.

I suspect that none of your exotic genetic manipulation schemes would qualify, but in practice, given how far away this kind of technology is from anything envisioned 300 years ago, we'd need some new laws if it ever looked like it might become an issue.

And yes, the point of my discussion of the Parental Order in relation to surrogacy was exactly that, at birth, that child is the child of his birth mother and her spouse, and so from the point of view of the succession laws, a surrogacy arrangement is the same as an adoption.

There is no way, under the current succession law, for a monarch and his or her same-sex spouse to produce a legitimate heir (with the small exception of the transgender example.)

Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Sorry to be rude, but why on earth is a non-British-or-Commonwealth-subject be interested in this? And even if he or she were, why should anyone heed their view on the point?

It is relevant in a non-British context, as most other European monarchies are ahead on the absolute primogeniture game and have female heirs-apparent.

It's an interesting question, although I suspect that "King" is still considered a higher title, and will not be used for a consort. The Swedes have adopted equality of titles for spouses - the non-heir daughter's husband was offered a title, and their daughter was given the title of Princess and the traditional royal duchy - but I expect the Crown Princess' husband will still be titled Prince in some way, shape, or form when she becomes Queen. We'll see how things develop.

In some other monarchies (Morocco and Jordan come to mind) the King's wife is only the Queen if the King specifically grants the title.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

The possibility of any of this being relevant to the monarchy is pretty remote. It would be far more useful to focus on the population as a whole for these kinds of questions, because they DO affect somebody, somewhere. Questions of surrogacy and adoption and allowing 2 parents of the same sex on the birth certificate - all of the questions being raised - are real life issues for real life couples. I personally know of a lesbian couple, one of them transgender, who have a baby.

I'm sure it can be sorted out for the royals just fine in a century or two if we've sorted out the rules for ordinary people in the meantime.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

I'm sure it can be sorted out for the royals just fine in a century or two if we've sorted out the rules for ordinary people in the meantime.

It is (more or less) sorted out for ordinary people. All the statutes that talk about the status of children conceived by surrogacy, donor sperm and the like say "these are all children of the marriage, however they were acquired. But this doesn't affect the inheritance of titles of nobility etc."

There are still some corner cases involving artificial insemination and unmarried parents that are going through the courts.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

And why would any true Englishman want to do that leo?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

I'm sure it can be sorted out for the royals just fine in a century or two if we've sorted out the rules for ordinary people in the meantime.
It is (more or less) sorted out for ordinary people. All the statutes that talk about the status of children conceived by surrogacy, donor sperm and the like say "these are all children of the marriage, however they were acquired. But this doesn't affect the inheritance of titles of nobility etc."

There are still some corner cases involving artificial insemination and unmarried parents that are going through the courts.

Well it isn't sorted out everywhere. And that's only dealing with married couples - which of course means in many places that it's only dealing with heterosexual couples.

[ 27. July 2014, 01:54: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

The UK could solve the problem of sexist nomenclature in the monarchy by abolishing it and becoming a republic. Just look at how many woman presidents we've had in the US . . . er . . . never mind.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And why would any true Englishman want to do that leo?

If you mean my post two days ago, there is no such thing as 'a true Englishman'. We are a diverse, plural society and privilege should have no place.

(And, to counter that, a 'true Englishman' might ask why our monarchy is German.)

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

quote:
(And, to counter that, a 'true Englishman' might ask why our monarchy is German.)

Your queen is about as German as I am Scottish and Swiss (which is to say, hardly at all).

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:

quote:
(And, to counter that, a 'true Englishman' might ask why our monarchy is German.)
Your queen is about as German as I am Scottish and Swiss (which is to say, hardly at all).

The old ethnicity-as-identity or ethnicity-as-ancestry debate. Days of my life passed in meetings with the Dominion Bureau of Statistics on this. We could always refer to Our Sovereign's Maghrebin ancestry, of course, through the Black Prince and the Emir of Cadiz.

I am always surprised why monarchists do not campaign for the return of succession-by-challenge-and-combat. Given the filmic achievements of Angelina Jodie and Uma Thurman, I would suggest that woman candidates could easily take their place.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Ok, so the next time that we wind up with a monarch and opposite sex spouse who are for some biological reason or other infertile but could conceive a child through artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, a sperm donor, an egg donor, surrogacy, or more complicated means (someone else donates the sperm or egg, but the genetic material of the monarch or his/her spouse is inserted into it to replace the genetic material of the donor (although the mitochondrial DNA of the donor will remain, which would be the same if the donor has the same mother as the person whose genetic material is being injected into the sperm or egg cell) - assume also (don't ask why) that one of the spouses in the royal couple is the woman carrying the pregnancy in all cases other than surrogacy. This is a thought experiment so lets pretend that it's a really weird kind of infertility (or perhaps a high chance of inheriting a certain genetic disease) that might require these seemingly unnecessary measures.

So it seems surrogacy would not produce a legitimate heir under current law. Would any of these other methods be able to produce a legitimate heir? In the modern world, are we to assume that it is preferable for the monarchy to pass to the monarch's niece, nephew, sibling, or more distant relative rather than to their own biological children, planned and conceived openly within the couple's marriage (as the modern world would understand it)? Why am I tempted to write R + L = J at this point?

Interesting about noble titles. Since there is no issue of the stability and peace of the country, why should it matter nowadays how a noble couple conceive and bear their children in terms of inheritance? The only beneficiaries of not changing the laws to accommodate reproductive technology are more distant relatives trying to snatch titles and estates from otherwise childless couples.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Would the quickest solution not be to allow the succession to pass to an adopted child, provided they are adopted before reaching their majority ?

(No adult adoptees for the avoidance of political shenanigans.)

Any child produced by whatever tech available now, or in the future, would then be covered.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

I'm not sure we fully understand the mystical significance of the succession*

* As explicated here...

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
In the modern world, are we to assume that it is preferable for the monarchy to pass to the monarch's niece, nephew, sibling, or more distant relative rather than to their own biological children, planned and conceived openly within the couple's marriage (as the modern world would understand it)?

I suspect much of the modern world wouldn't care one way or the other, because it would question the entire notion that a job can be passed on in this way at all. You have to buy into the notion that genetic inheritance of a job is important before you can become involved in a debate as to what the precise rules of genetic inheritance of a job should be.

Posted by Bernard Mahler (# 10852) on :

Would the eldest child of the monarch succeed to the Duchy of Cornwall and Principality of Wales, and by what titles if that eldest child were female?

Posted by womanspeak (# 15394) on :

Our incredibly backward - looking and fore-lock tugging Australian Government have re-introduced Damehoods and Knighthoods to much laughter and many great jokes.

The biggest joke being the Prime Minister Tony Abbott ( ex-trainee Catholic Priest). Abbott, his wife and three hot daughters were the subject of a great painting entered in the Bald Archies ( a satirical portrait prize). It depicted a uniformed Prince Harry running away from our first family's attempts at offering him a spare daughter.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by womanspeak:
Our...Australian Government have re-introduced Damehoods and Knighthoods.

Excellent news. Evelyn Waugh complained that the problem with the Conservative Party is that it never put the clock back by one minute. I'm glad to see that our brethren overseas are bolder.

Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:

quote:
(And, to counter that, a 'true Englishman' might ask why our monarchy is German.)
Your queen is about as German as I am Scottish and Swiss (which is to say, hardly at all).

Not to mention why this 'true Englishman' appears to be confusing the Scots with the Germans.

Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:

For female same sex royal couples, as long as either the monarch or her wife bear the child, what is required for the child's legitimacy?
For the parent who does not bear the child to have a Y chromosome and a penis. So your scenario is, I think, technically possible if one of the couple was a trans woman who hadn't had surgery.

For a child to be legitimate from the point of view of the royal succession, the child must be the genetic offspring of both his parents, who must have been married at the time of his birth.

I have to ask, is this really the case? Wasn't the law that, if the couple was married and a child was born, the husband was legally assumed to be the child's father unless some sort of protest was filed.

I can see (in a future time) succession issues being clear for children born of a female dynast in a same-sex marriage, because it's easy to tell who the baby's mother is and determine inheritance accordingly.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
I have to ask, is this really the case? Wasn't the law that, if the couple was married and a child was born, the husband was legally assumed to be the child's father unless some sort of protest was filed.

There was an "assumption of" in some previous version of that comment that seems to have vanished. You're right - with sufficient discretion (and possibly with the connivance of the male party), a Queen could conceive a child with another man, and pass that child off as a legitimate heir.

Accusations that one Queen or another had placed horns on the head of a reigning King have been thrown around on several occasions in order to claim that the occupant of the throne was a bastard, and so the rightful heir was the guy over there with the big army.

It hasn't happened with British ruling Queens, but the only ruling Queen to be succeeded by her children was Victoria...

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
The only beneficiaries of not changing the laws to accommodate reproductive technology are more distant relatives trying to snatch titles and estates from otherwise childless couples.

You're viewing the noble title as the personal property of the current incumbent. That's a terribly French viewpoint.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

One possible example was Alfonso XII of Spain, who succeeded his mother Isabella II but who was widely believed not to have been fathered by Francis, King Consort, but by an officer of the guards.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0