Comments on: Definitely Reform The Succession

By: Disestablishmentarianism | The Wardman Wire

Disestablishmentarianism | The Wardman Wire — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:40:33 +0000

[...] As for the “consequences for the monarchy”, they are minor. The only differences are that the titles “Defender of the Faith” and the “Supreme Governor” would become within the rights of the Church of England to offer to the monarch - essential if the rights of succession are reformed. [...]

By: Disestablishmentarianism | ThunderDragon Blog

Disestablishmentarianism | ThunderDragon Blog — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:12:15 +0000

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 16:44:04 +0000

>But still, hopefully a Conservative government will get round to it at some point

They need to. If they had got round to the Lords last time, we woudn’t be saddled with the current Lords cockup. Reform is far better done by people who don’t have an obsession about the institution in question.

By: ThunderDragon

ThunderDragon — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 16:20:23 +0000

Whether or not it would change anything doesn’t matter. What does is that there is no prevention on such spurious grounds.

FYI - Henry VII was king through some convoluted genealogy, and conquest. He married his wife AFTER becoming king and primarily to end the War of the Roses. William of Orange was king through his wife, but he is the only one who has been.

By: Crushed

Crushed — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 16:07:29 +0000

Of the top hundredin line to the throne, about ten are excluded on grounds of Catyholicism.

A further three or so are excluded due to the fact that though they are lergal heirs in peerage terms, due to marriages validated AFTER their birth, those marriages don’t count in succession terms.

Of course, wee’ve never had the Salc Law here, not quite.

Though Henry VII was King in right of his wife.