Royal succession bill passes

December 11th, 2013 at 11:42 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

New Zealand is now able to have a Queen regardless of whether she has younger brothers, after Parliament passed a new law changing the rules of royal succession.

The Royal Succession Bill puts in place changes that were agreed in 2011 by the 16 realms who share the Queen as head of state.

All realms, including New Zealand, must have the same succession laws. …

Changes to the royal succession rules mean the order of succession will no longer be based on gender and will allow an elder daughter to precede a younger son as heir to the throne.

This rule will apply to any children in the line of succession born after October 28, 2011, including the recently born Prince George of Cambridge.

Assuming most Monarchs will live to 100 or so, Prince Charles will probably become King in around 2026 at the age of 78. Prince William may become King around 2048 at the age of 66 and Prince George become King around 2082 at the age of 69.

I supported this law change, but it is interesting to consider who would be King of New Zealand if this law change has applied from 1840 onwards.

Queen Victoria would have been succeeded by her daughter Victoria (Princess Royal) in 1901. Queen Victoria II would have reigned for eight months until August 1901 and then her son would have been King Wilhelm I (also Kaiser Wilhelm II) reigning until 1941. The King Wilhelm II would have reigned from 1941 to 1951. After that it would be King Louis Ferdinand I (who unlike his father did not support the Nazis) from 1951 to 1994. The current King of New Zealand would probably be King Friedrich Wilhelm who was born in 1939.

Tags:

21 Responses to “Royal succession bill passes”

  1. Auberon (816 comments) says:

    Long live the Queen. And long may her family reign over us.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. kowtow (6,685 comments) says:

    How ridiculous?

    A law to prove equality in relation to an institution based on royal birth.

    Just leave it alone.

    Long Live the queen.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Fentex (656 comments) says:

    If the Brits passed a similar law it’s unlikely the line of succession would have remained the same, pressures on heirs to remain in Britain would likely have forestalled marriage to foreign monarchs.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. redqueen (342 comments) says:

    So we would have potentially avoided the Great War, and all the wonders that followed it…God save the Queen!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. tvb (3,937 comments) says:

    That would have meant another abdication crisis as King Wilhelm would have been sacked by the British as I assume he would be a German.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. davidp (3,319 comments) says:

    So if the law had been backdated to 1840, our head of state would reside in Germany rather than the UK so no significant change there. But the head of state of the UK would live in Germany, so they’d be in the same position as NZ with a foreign domiciled ruler. Strangely, the head of state of both NZ and the UK wouldn’t have been the head of state of Germany for a long time.

    At the moment, the head of state of NZ is subject to the laws of the UK and the European Union. I find it very strange that a European court could decide to rule on NZ issues via our head of state.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Sequel (12 comments) says:

    I strongly suspect there would have been no chance that Wilhelm II would have become King of GB, Emperor of India etc etc. More likely would be an insistence that he would abdicate one throne (either GB or Germany) and rule just one terriroty. An interesting what if would be if he had abdicated Germany and ruled GB – I can’t see him taking that well to Parliamentary democracy!

    A possibility is some form of personal union such as the Elector of Hannover/King of GB that existed from George I until Victoria, though that seems unlikely.

    Sequel

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Weihana (4,469 comments) says:

    Prince William may become King around 2048 at the age of 66

    Nah. Prince Charles will live long enough to take advantage of life extending technologies and William will only be king if there’s an “accident”. Long live King Charles!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Andrei (2,428 comments) says:

    Good to to our political class focusing on things that really matter and make a difference to the welfare and prosperity of ordinary kiwis as they go about there every day lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Linda Reid (385 comments) says:

    “Queen Victoria would have been succeeded by her daughter Victoria (Princess Royal) in 1901. Queen Victoria II would have reigned for eight months until August 1901 and then her son would have been King Wilhelm I (also Kaiser Wilhelm II) reigning until 1941. The King Wilhelm II would have reigned from 1941 to 1951. After that it would be King Louis Ferdinand I (who unlike his father did not support the Nazis) from 1951 to 1994. The current King of New Zealand would probably be King Friedrich Wilhelm who was born in 1939.”

    except Queen Victoria II would have married a UK ‘prince’ or someone who would move to the UK, and stayed in the UK and none of the rest would have happened.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    This is the head of the Church of England Andrei.

    Of course it’s important. :neutral:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. tvb (3,937 comments) says:

    Having the Kaiser in line for the British throne would not have been allowed. The Windsors would have got there. But could they have survived a second abdication crisis after the Kaiser was sacked when Edward succeeded.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. s.russell (1,486 comments) says:

    All hail King Fred! That would be a bit of a dag wouldn’t it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Andrei (2,428 comments) says:

    I challenge any of you who gave my 12:04 the thumbs down to explain to me why a law that just might possibly affect a single individual , and one who wont be born until the 2030s at the very earliest and probably not until sometime after 2040 and then not in New Zealand but in England is important in any way shape or form.

    This is just more”progressive” silliness, not in the same league as so called “gay” marriage I grant you but extreme silliness just the same

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. SGA (509 comments) says:

    Linda Reid at 12:16 pm

    except Queen Victoria II would have married a UK ‘prince’ or someone who would move to the UK, and stayed in the UK and none of the rest would have happened.

    Exactly – if the “rules” had been different then it’s unreasonable to predict exactly the same behaviour.

    DPF – that’s the second time you’ve posted this notion, and the second time people have pointed this out.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Grizz (474 comments) says:

    In 1840 times were a bit different. Heirs to the throne now have more choice about who they marry and can now marry commoners. Princess were married off for the sake of politics and appeasement. If queen Victoria daughter was 1st in line for succession the chances are she would not have married a Prussian prince. Nevertheless if she did, Wilhelm II would have been more English than Germany. Should he be the monarch of both kingdoms then it is unlikely the events leading up to WW1 would have ever happened, Germany and Britain would not have gone to war, Adolf Hitler would not rise to prominence and Europe would be one big Jewish homeland.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    “Let’s see what would have been the case if this change, which only applies from now, was applied at a time when it never would have been made…”

    And the value of that is what exactly???

    Why not from James I, or back to the time of the Magna Carta?

    About as much use as the theoretical possibility that if we have become a republic at some point in the past, John Minto could be our President right now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. CharlieBrown (784 comments) says:

    Ironic – so a law has been changed to extend the birth right to becoming a head of state to females to make it somehow more moral. At least before the rule change you could say it was about tradition. What a pointless waste of money and time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Johnboy (13,335 comments) says:

    What a shame it couldn’t be backdated.

    Charlie could have accidentally fallen off his polo pony.

    The grand old Duke of York could have succumbed from the excitement of Sarah baring her freckles and we would have had an eminently suitable Monarch in Good Queen Anne who thinks that folk should eat horse’s more than they do! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Daigotsu (444 comments) says:

    Thank you Linda and SGA. This whole ‘equal succession means a Nazi King, OMG’ drum DPF just keeps on pounding is a ridiculously weak argument and his refusal to engage with critics just shows that.

    It’s also worth noting that even if Wilhelm had been King it wouldn’t have been some kind of disaster. He was actually personally very Anglophilic. Ironically because he had limitations on his powers in Germany he couldn’t stop the war, just as he wouldn’t have been able to as British King either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Harriet (4,002 comments) says:

    If the nosey fuckers in Wellington can get involved in the Royal family and design that to their wishes – imagine the wishes they have in store for your ‘common’ family! They can fuck off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.