What are your thoughts on former royals unilaterally changing succession laws?
What are your thoughts on former royals unilaterally changing succession laws? For instance, Italy's former royals unilaterally changing their succession laws in order to allow females to claim the defunct (non-existent) Italian throne?
Personally, I'm inclined to oppose this due to slippery slope concerns. If one such change could unilaterally be done to former royal succession laws, why not other changes as well? For instance, allowing illegitimate children and/or adopted children to claim a country's defunct throne? Or, for that matter, making one's second or third or fourth child (or son) one's designated successor as the claimant to a particular country's defunct throne rather than one's eldest child (or son) due to the fact that one believes that one's second/third/fourth child (or son) would be a better fit (personality-wise, et cetera) to be a monarchical claimant after one's own death than one's eldest child (or son) would be? Indeed, where exactly would one draw the line in regards to this?
This is why I am personally inclined to support keeping succession laws as they are until and unless monarchies ever actually get restored, in which case any necessary changes to these succession laws can subsequently be discussed and made. But in the absence of a monarchical restoration, I'd at the very least insist on unanimity within a former royal house about changing the succession laws to a former throne. For instance, in regards to the former Romanian throne, such changes might have been justified since AFAIK the other (non-Romanian) Hohenzollern branch had no interest in claiming the Romanian throne after King Michael's 2017 death. So, there really wasn't any viable alternative to having his eldest daughter succeed him as claimant. But if such a viable alternative would have actually existed, then things would have obviously been different, in my honest opinion.
Anyway, what do you yourself personally think about this?
What are your thoughts on former royals unilaterally changing succession laws? For instance, Italy's former royals unilaterally changing their succession laws in order to allow females to claim the defunct (non-existent) Italian throne?
Personally, I'm inclined to oppose this due to slippery slope concerns. If one such change could unilaterally be done to former royal succession laws, why not other changes as well? For instance, allowing illegitimate children and/or adopted children to claim a country's defunct throne? Or, for that matter, making one's second or third or fourth child (or son) one's designated successor as the claimant to a particular country's defunct throne rather than one's eldest child (or son) due to the fact that one believes that one's second/third/fourth child (or son) would be a better fit (personality-wise, et cetera) to be a monarchical claimant after one's own death than one's eldest child (or son) would be? Indeed, where exactly would one draw the line in regards to this?
This is why I am personally inclined to support keeping succession laws as they are until and unless monarchies ever actually get restored, in which case any necessary changes to these succession laws can subsequently be discussed and made. But in the absence of a monarchical restoration, I'd at the very least insist on unanimity within a former royal house about changing the succession laws to a former throne. For instance, in regards to the former Romanian throne, such changes might have been justified since AFAIK the other (non-Romanian) Hohenzollern branch had no interest in claiming the Romanian throne after King Michael's 2017 death. So, there really wasn't any viable alternative to having his eldest daughter succeed him as claimant. But if such a viable alternative would have actually existed, then things would have obviously been different, in my honest opinion.
Anyway, what do you yourself personally think about this?