Her Majesty The Queen, about to visit Australia

[Peter Crowe]

The Queen!
As for the change to the succession, one wonders whether the EU is putting pressure on Britain to drop male primogeniture.
It is certainly a politically correct move (which to me means avoid it at all costs!).
And how long will it take to get every Dominion to agree to the change?
Regards,
Mike

Mike,
I am happy to drink the loyal toast anytime!

However, I doubt this proposed change to the Act of Succession (1701) has anything to do with the EU which has various member states which are constitutional monarchies (UK, Spain, Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxemburg, Denmark, and Sweden). Of these only Sweden has gone to (eldest child) primogeniture over male primogeniture, although the Norwegians (outside the EU) have followed the Swedes.
This first came up around 20 years ago when it was proposed by Lord (Geoffrey) Archer, and both the Queen herself and UK governments of right and left have made generally supportive noises. The complexity is securing the consent and a workable timeline from all the Commonwealth realms (they are not called Dominions anymore), for something that while of public interest is a low political priority.

[Mike_Oettle]

Okay, Peter, Commonwealth realms it is now. But when South Africa belonged, it was a Dominion, and it still seems appropriate.
A while back I read an amusing piece speculating that the succession could go to Princess Anne and through her to her daughter Zara. The writer suggested that “Queen Zara” could make her husband king – just imagine rugger player Mike Tindall lolling around as the king!
Regards,
Mike

[Peter Crowe]

One of the arguments used for changing the law of succession at this time in favour of the oldest child regardless of sex, is that it would make no difference to anyone currently alive. Prince Charles (born 1948) is older than Princess Anne (born 1950), with Prince William being Charles oldest child.

[McClef]

The last time it could have made a difference was when the eldest child of Queen Victoria was a female - Victoria, Princess Royal who later became Empress Frederick of Germany and Queen of Prussia. She was the mother of Kaiser Wilhelm II.

Had she been the heir it is possible that that she would have married differently than she did and produced different offspring than she did.

But she would only have outlived her mother by just over five months, dying on August 5th 1901.

Ah, the ifs of history!

[Peter Crowe]

From the BBC, regarding the future succession in those Commonwealth nations where HM Queen Elizabeth II is Head of State.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15492607

[McClef]

Darn you beat me to it!

It's not retrospective so the scenario referenced by Mike could not happen (and Peter would be before Zara in any case).

The difference will not be seen if William and Kate have a girl first but only if they afterwards have a boy who would previously have displaced his elder sister.

[Mike_Oettle]

Just to clarify things, Peter, while the four self-governing colonies (each with its own parliament until that time) that came together in 1910 formally styled themselves the Union of South Africa, there was no doubt in the mind of the government (leaving aside the republican faction) that the country was in fact a British Dominion.
And Dominion status became even more important following the Act of Westminster, because it meant that South Africa (like Canada, Newfoundland, Australia and New Zealand) became a sovereign state equal in status to Great Britain.
Also remember that under British rule (up to 1947), India was not a Dominion. It took up that status at independence, but quickly wriggled out of it, becoming a republic within the Commonwealth in 1950. Pakistan took a bit longer, only becoming a republic in 1956.
Until 1950 the concept of a republic within the Commonwealth was unthinkable (which is why Éire ducked out on becoming a full-scale republic).
But in the mind of the apartheid government, adopting the status of a republic within the Commonwealth was too much like kow-towing. It wanted out completely, because it did not want the “Club” to tell it how to run the country.
The “Club” likewise did not want to permit apartheid South Africa to continue under its ægis.
The referendum which brought about the Republic of South Africa was in fact contrary to law, because it permitted only white people to vote (Coloured men in the Cape Province still possessed a parliamentary franchise) and it extended the franchise to white residents of South West Africa, a country which never did become part of South Africa, even though at the time it had MPs sitting in Parliament in Cape Town.
The outcome was the result of knoeierey and verneukery, and it put a question mark on South Africa’s international legitimacy for the next three decades.
While these last remarks are entirely off on a tangent, I thought I should add that even before the National Party came to power in 1948, South Africa was running contrary to international opinion: Prime Minister Jan Smuts, who had helped found the League of Nations and the United Nations (and had a key role in transforming the British Empire into the Commonwealth) was already defying the UN by telling it that it had no business in South West Africa.
Getting back on topic, I am proud of having been born a subject of King George VI, and retain my affection for and loyalty to his daughter, the first and only British sovereign to bear the title Queen of South Africa.
Regards,
Mike

[Chas]

According to the Canadian Government, when I asked them last year, The official name of Canada is "The Dominion of Canada"

Regards

Chas

[Peter Crowe]

According to the Canadian Government, when I asked them last year, The official name of Canada is "The Dominion of Canada"

Regards

Chas

What you say is true of Canada, and was true of New Zealand but their government prefer to let it fall in to disuse. In any event the term Dominion wasn't universal. Australia and the Bahamas are 'Commonwealths', and India (1947-1950), and South Africa (c.1910-1961) were 'Unions'. Ireland was the Irish Free State from 1921 until 1937 when it changed it's name to simply Ireland (Eire), and pretty much wrote the King-Emperor out of it's Constitution although it did not formally become a republic and leave the Commonwealth until 1949. It's official English language name is still Ireland but it is often referred to as the Republic of Ireland in the UK (to avoid confusion with Northern Ireland).

It was normal for my grandfather's generation to refer to the 'Self Governing Dominions of the Empire', but as each country has it's own Independent Crown (stemming from the Statute of Westminster 1931) the term Dominion denotes subject status to the United Kingdom, which is no longer the case.

[Peter Crowe]

Mike,
I am happy to drink the loyal toast anytime!

However, I doubt this proposed change to the Act of Succession (1701) has anything to do with the EU which has various member states which are constitutional monarchies (UK, Spain, Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxemburg, Denmark, and Sweden). Of these only Sweden has gone to (eldest child) primogeniture over male primogeniture, although the Norwegians (outside the EU) have followed the Swedes.
This first came up around 20 years ago when it was proposed by Lord (Geoffrey) Archer, and both the Queen herself and UK governments of right and left have made generally supportive noises. The complexity is securing the consent and a workable timeline from all the Commonwealth realms (they are not called Dominions anymore), for something that while of public interest is a low political priority.

First of all apologies to the OP for taking the thread on this tangent but I just wanted to correct what I previously posted (believing it to be true at the time). According to the BBC there are more Constitutional Monarchies in Europe that have changed their laws of succession in favour of the oldest child regardless of sex from the previous practice of male primogeniture than what I stated above. These are all in Northern Europe; (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg).

Sorry to post duff information on the above, that's what comes of relying on memory rather than thoroughly checking to make sure my information was fully current and up to date. In any case, I doubt it has anything to do with either the EU or the larger Council of Europe, and a lot more to do with the prevailing Spirit of the Age.