Discussion:
New royal baby's line in succession
(too old to reply)
d***@gmail.com
2012-12-04 15:49:04 UTC
Permalink
Hello.

In the news about the Duchess of Cambridge's pregnancy, The Daily Telegraph says:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/kate-middleton/9719408/Kate-Middleton-is-pregnant.html

"The baby will become the third in line to the throne, ahead of Prince Harry, regardless of whether it is a girl or boy, following a change to the ancient rule of royal primogeniture, which was scrapped last year following an agreement between heads of the Commonwealth nations."

I have two questions here:

1. I know Mr Cameron tried getting agreement amongst the Commonwealth nations for conversion of Primogeniture into Absolute Primogeniture.
But, in my understanding, he need to amend constitutional laws such as Act of Settlement to do it. Has it been done?

2. UK's succession follows "Heir of line by Primogeniture".
So, even if the above new law is not applied, and if the baby daughter would be born, she would be anyway 3rd in line to succession until her brother is born.
My understanding correct?

I would be grateful if you could confirm these points to me.

Ken
Graham
2012-12-04 22:32:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@gmail.com
Hello.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/kate-middleton/9719408/Kate-Middleton-is-pregnant.html
"The baby will become the third in line to the throne, ahead of Prince Harry, regardless of whether it is a girl or boy, following a change to the ancient rule of royal primogeniture, which was scrapped last year following an agreement between heads of the Commonwealth nations."
1. I know Mr Cameron tried getting agreement amongst the Commonwealth nations > for conversion of Primogeniture into Absolute Primogeniture.
But, in my understanding, he need to amend constitutional laws such as Act of > Settlement to do it. Has it been done?
I believe not. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_proposals_to_change_the_rules_of_royal_succession_in_the_Commonwealth_realms
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20600543 The PM is operating on the basis that, if he pretends that nothing is the matter, nothing will be.
Post by d***@gmail.com
2. UK's succession follows "Heir of line by Primogeniture".
So, even if the above new law is not applied, and if the baby daughter would > be born, she would be anyway 3rd in line to succession until her brother is
born.
My understanding correct?
Again, I believe so. Of course, there might not be a brother, any more than
there was for Her Present Majesty.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I would be grateful if you could confirm these points to me.
Ken
I suspect that the birth of a girl might inject some urgency into the proposals
Louis Epstein
2012-12-18 08:38:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham
Post by d***@gmail.com
Hello.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/kate-middleton/9719408/Kate-Middleton-is-pregnant.html
"The baby will become the third in line to the throne, ahead of Prince Harry, regardless of whether it is a girl or boy, following a change to the ancient rule of royal primogeniture, which was scrapped last year following an agreement between heads of the Commonwealth nations."
1. I know Mr Cameron tried getting agreement amongst the Commonwealth nations > for conversion of Primogeniture into Absolute Primogeniture.
But, in my understanding, he need to amend constitutional laws such as Act of > Settlement to do it. Has it been done?
I believe not. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_proposals_to_change_the_rules_of_royal_succession_in_the_Commonwealth_realms
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20600543 The PM is operating on the basis that, if he pretends that nothing is the matter, nothing will be.
Post by d***@gmail.com
2. UK's succession follows "Heir of line by Primogeniture".
So, even if the above new law is not applied, and if the baby daughter would > be born, she would be anyway 3rd in line to succession until her brother is
born.
My understanding correct?
Again, I believe so. Of course, there might not be a brother, any more than
there was for Her Present Majesty.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I would be grateful if you could confirm these points to me.
Ken
I suspect that the birth of a girl might inject some urgency into the proposals
I long for the birth of a boy to make those who jump up and down about
the proposals as their legacy to history deflate and shut up.
Declaring that the rules under which the Queen came to the Throne
are wrong and should not apply is unseemly...the rules NEVER changing
is far more important than whatever their details are.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
CJ Buyers
2012-12-04 22:49:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@gmail.com
Hello.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/kate-middleton/9719408/Kate-Middleton-is-pregnant.html
"The baby will become the third in line to the throne, ahead of Prince Harry, regardless of whether it is a girl or boy, following a change to the ancient rule of royal primogeniture, which was scrapped last year following an agreement between heads of the Commonwealth nations."
1. I know Mr Cameron tried getting agreement amongst the Commonwealth nations for conversion of Primogeniture into Absolute Primogeniture.
But, in my understanding, he need to amend constitutional laws such as Act of Settlement to do it. Has it been done?
2. UK's succession follows "Heir of line by Primogeniture".
So, even if the above new law is not applied, and if the baby daughter would be born, she would be anyway 3rd in line to succession until her brother is born.
My understanding correct?
I would be grateful if you could confirm these points to me.
Ken
Yes, they have all (meaning Prime Ministers of Commonwealth realms) agreed. But they have actually done nothing since. Bar New Zealand, which has at least put it on the list of government intentions to legislate. Even the agreement in the cases of the Australian and Canadian Prime Ministers are insuffient. The Canadian provinces need to unanimously agree to any constitutional change and in Australia, the change will need to be approved by each of the state parliaments.

Yes as regards the child. If it is a girl, she would be automatically third in line anyway, until and unless a brother is born.
R Davidovich
2012-12-07 15:49:13 UTC
Permalink
Yes, Canada's Constitution Act 1982 does suggest the possible
interpretation that the Legislatures of all 10 provinces might be
needed to change the Rules of Succession for the Canadian Crown.

However, I think it can be reasonably argued that this would not be
necessary. The former Section 2 of Constitution Act 1867 (BNA) says
that all references to Her Majesty (Queen Victoria) should be
understood as referring to her heirs and successors. Although this
section was repealed, it was not repealed because the idea was
overturned; rather it was repealed to avoid redundancy with another
act.

The Statute of Westminster only requires the consent of the Canadian
Parliament for succession issues. Therefore, the wording of the 1982
Act could be read as referring only to "the office of the Queen", i.e.
the Monarchical system of government. It was a check that Canada
would not become a republic unless all ten provinces were in
agreement, which is highly unlikely. If a Canadian Government would
issue a position paper approving of this view, I doubt the Quebec
government, even under the PQ, would care to take it to court.

By the way, the reason nobody is in a rush to produce the legislation
is because it would not be relevant unless this child was a girl AND
until the Duchess of Cambridge was expecting again.
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by d***@gmail.com
Hello.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/kate-middleton/9719408/Kate-Mi...
"The baby will become the third in line to the throne, ahead of Prince Harry, regardless of whether it is a girl or boy, following a change to the ancient rule of royal primogeniture, which was scrapped last year following an agreement between heads of the Commonwealth nations."
1. I know Mr Cameron tried getting agreement amongst the Commonwealth nations for conversion of Primogeniture into Absolute Primogeniture.
But, in my understanding, he need to amend constitutional laws such as Act of Settlement to do it.  Has it been done?
2. UK's succession follows "Heir of line by Primogeniture".
So, even if the above new law is not applied, and if the baby daughter would be born, she would be anyway 3rd in line to succession until her brother is born.
My understanding correct?
I would be grateful if you could confirm these points to me.
Ken
Yes, they have all (meaning Prime Ministers of Commonwealth realms) agreed. But they have actually done nothing since. Bar New Zealand, which has at least put it on the list of government intentions to legislate. Even the agreement in the cases of the Australian and Canadian Prime Ministers are insuffient. The Canadian provinces need to unanimously agree to any constitutional change and in Australia, the change will need to be approved by each of the state parliaments.
Yes as regards the child. If it is a girl, she would be automatically third in line anyway, until and unless a brother is born.
Donald4564
2012-12-07 20:45:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by R Davidovich
By the way, the reason nobody is in a rush to produce the legislation
is because it would not be relevant unless this child was a girl AND
until the Duchess of Cambridge was expecting again.
From my experience the law is terribly slow to move on anything. The Cambridges may well be up to their 10th child before anything is enacted.

Regards
Donald Binks
CJ Buyers
2012-12-07 22:00:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
Post by R Davidovich
By the way, the reason nobody is in a rush to produce the legislation
is because it would not be relevant unless this child was a girl AND
until the Duchess of Cambridge was expecting again.
From my experience the law is terribly slow to move on anything. The Cambridges may well be up to their 10th child before anything is enacted.
We have already had a taste for how difficult things can get from Oz. The recent meeting of the PM, Premiers and Chief Ministers failed to achieve any decision. The Commonwealth PM took it as an opportunity to grab more power at federal level by proposing that the states give the Commonwealth the power to legislate on behalf of them all. Queensland immediately said no. It will not be giving up its sovereign powers and is quite happy to do the legislating itself. According to the Queensland Constitution, the Queen is Queen of Queensland quite separate from her position as Queen of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Donald4564
2012-12-08 00:37:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by Donald4564
Post by R Davidovich
By the way, the reason nobody is in a rush to produce the legislation
is because it would not be relevant unless this child was a girl AND
until the Duchess of Cambridge was expecting again.
From my experience the law is terribly slow to move on anything. The Cambridges may well be up to their 10th child before anything is enacted.
We have already had a taste for how difficult things can get from Oz. The recent meeting of the PM, Premiers and Chief Ministers failed to achieve any decision. The Commonwealth PM took it as an opportunity to grab more power at federal level by proposing that the states give the Commonwealth the power to legislate on behalf of them all. Queensland immediately said no. It will not be giving up its sovereign powers and is quite happy to do the legislating itself. According to the Queensland Constitution, the Queen is Queen of Queensland quite separate from her position as Queen of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Over the years we have seen how the sovereign States of Australia have re-acted on issues where a general consensus would make common sense - which is why this archaic branch of Government left over from the days of the Colonies should be abolished. Australia in reality needs the Federal Parliament and local government only for such a small population. I am afeared it may take at the very least, a decade, before something is sorted out.

Regards
Donald Binks
CJ Buyers
2012-12-08 02:06:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by Donald4564
Post by R Davidovich
By the way, the reason nobody is in a rush to produce the legislation
is because it would not be relevant unless this child was a girl AND
until the Duchess of Cambridge was expecting again.
From my experience the law is terribly slow to move on anything. The Cambridges may well be up to their 10th child before anything is enacted.
We have already had a taste for how difficult things can get from Oz. The recent meeting of the PM, Premiers and Chief Ministers failed to achieve any decision. The Commonwealth PM took it as an opportunity to grab more power at federal level by proposing that the states give the Commonwealth the power to legislate on behalf of them all. Queensland immediately said no. It will not be giving up its sovereign powers and is quite happy to do the legislating itself. According to the Queensland Constitution, the Queen is Queen of Queensland quite separate from her position as Queen of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Over the years we have seen how the sovereign States of Australia have re-acted on issues where a general consensus would make common sense - which is why this archaic branch of Government left over from the days of the Colonies should be abolished. Australia in reality needs the Federal Parliament and local government only for such a small population. I am afeared it may take at the very least, a decade, before something is sorted out.
That may be so, but in the meantime the Constitution of the State of Queensland is what it is. The current Premier did not make it, but has to deal with the consequences. Wasn't it Mizz Gillard's lot that amended the state constitution to say that the people of Queensland were sovereign?
Donald4564
2012-12-08 07:15:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by Donald4564
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by Donald4564
Post by R Davidovich
By the way, the reason nobody is in a rush to produce the legislation
is because it would not be relevant unless this child was a girl AND
until the Duchess of Cambridge was expecting again.
From my experience the law is terribly slow to move on anything. The Cambridges may well be up to their 10th child before anything is enacted.
We have already had a taste for how difficult things can get from Oz. The recent meeting of the PM, Premiers and Chief Ministers failed to achieve any decision. The Commonwealth PM took it as an opportunity to grab more power at federal level by proposing that the states give the Commonwealth the power to legislate on behalf of them all. Queensland immediately said no. It will not be giving up its sovereign powers and is quite happy to do the legislating itself. According to the Queensland Constitution, the Queen is Queen of Queensland quite separate from her position as Queen of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Over the years we have seen how the sovereign States of Australia have re-acted on issues where a general consensus would make common sense - which is why this archaic branch of Government left over from the days of the Colonies should be abolished. Australia in reality needs the Federal Parliament and local government only for such a small population. I am afeared it may take at the very least, a decade, before something is sorted out.
That may be so, but in the meantime the Constitution of the State of Queensland is what it is. The current Premier did not make it, but has to deal with the consequences. Wasn't it Mizz Gillard's lot that amended the state constitution to say that the people of Queensland were sovereign?
I thought all the States were sovereign and had their own Constitutions? It may be that Queensland recognises the Queen as Queen of Queensland as well as Queen of Australia whereas the rest of the states used to use the old U.K. style of titles until fairly recently when they started utilising the Queen of Australia monicker.

Because politicians have been tinkering with all the rules and regulations over the years, nobody has a clue what is going on or what's supposed to be what.

Regards
Donald Binks
CJ Buyers
2012-12-07 22:36:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by R Davidovich
Yes, Canada's Constitution Act 1982 does suggest the possible
interpretation that the Legislatures of all 10 provinces might be
needed to change the Rules of Succession for the Canadian Crown.
However, I think it can be reasonably argued that this would not be
necessary. The former Section 2 of Constitution Act 1867 (BNA) says
that all references to Her Majesty (Queen Victoria) should be
understood as referring to her heirs and successors. Although this
section was repealed, it was not repealed because the idea was
overturned; rather it was repealed to avoid redundancy with another
act.
The Statute of Westminster only requires the consent of the Canadian
Parliament for succession issues. Therefore, the wording of the 1982
Act could be read as referring only to "the office of the Queen", i.e.
the Monarchical system of government. It was a check that Canada
would not become a republic unless all ten provinces were in
agreement, which is highly unlikely. If a Canadian Government would
issue a position paper approving of this view, I doubt the Quebec
government, even under the PQ, would care to take it to court.
I am afraid you fail to take note of the fact that in UK law the UK Parliament cannot legislate on behalf of Canada. It divested itself of that power when the Canada Act was passed in 1982. Section 2 reads "No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act, 1982 comes into force shall extend to Canada as part of its law". Consequently, as things stand the position is that even if Canada wants the UK Parliament to legislate on its behalf, the UK Parliament does not have the power to do so.

As regards the changing of the succession in Canadian law is concerned, I fail to follow your reasoning. If it were true, then Ottawa could change the system of succession to the "office" of Queen to annual election, appointment or whatever else it desired. Merely retaining the "office". That was not the meaning of the inclusion of the section at all. Change to the "office" of Queen refers to everything to do with that position. As much to how a person comes to occupy that "office" as anything else.
s***@example.com
2012-12-14 18:29:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@gmail.com
Hello.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/kate-middleton/9719408/Kate-Middleton-is-pregnant.html
"The baby will become the third in line to the throne, ahead of Prince Harry, regardless of whether it is a girl or boy, following a change to the ancient rule of royal primogeniture, which was scrapped last year following an agreement between heads of the Commonwealth nations."
A "Succession to the Crown Bill" has been published by the UK
government. See
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/successiontothecrown.html
for the bill and explanatory notes.
CJ Buyers
2012-12-14 20:52:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@example.com
A "Succession to the Crown Bill" has been published by the UK
government. See
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/successiontothecrown.html
for the bill and explanatory notes.
Thanks for posting.

Interesting to see new additional restrictive provisions to the Royal Marriages Act. It seems that once this bill is passed, all six persons in the immediate line of succession need the permission of the Soveriegn to marry at all times, at whatever age. The RMA held good any marriages contracted after the person had reached the age of 25, even though permission was not sought or given. The only requirement being that they give 12 months notice to the Privy Council.

It would be interesting to see a list of those who would be affected by the restrospective clause regarding Roman Catholic marriages. And, if the effect of the retrospection also makes reduntant the permission aspects of the RMA as they applied at the time of such marriage. One assumed that those who married Roman Catholics did not seek or receive permission to marry, nor gave 12 months notice to the Privy Council if aged over 25. On those scores their marriages would have been void in then UK law.
CJ Buyers
2012-12-14 23:05:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by s***@example.com
A "Succession to the Crown Bill" has been published by the UK
government. See
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/successiontothecrown.html
for the bill and explanatory notes.
Thanks for posting.
Interesting to see new additional restrictive provisions to the Royal Marriages Act. It seems that once this bill is passed, all six persons in the immediate line of succession need the permission of the Soveriegn to marry at all times, at whatever age. The RMA held good any marriages contracted after the person had reached the age of 25, even though permission was not sought or given. The only requirement being that they give 12 months notice to the Privy Council.
It would be interesting to see a list of those who would be affected by the restrospective clause regarding Roman Catholic marriages. And, if the effect of the retrospection also makes reduntant the permission aspects of the RMA as they applied at the time of such marriage. One assumed that those who married Roman Catholics did not seek or receive permission to marry, nor gave 12 months notice to the Privy Council if aged over 25. On those scores their marriages would have been void in then UK law.
Another interesting Constitutional conundrum raised by the new Succession to the Crown Bill with respect to Section 3: 3 Consent of Sovereign required to certain Royal Marriages

The question is who advises the Sovereign? Is the UK government or the UK Privy Council? Either way, are they arrogating to themselves the power to alter the succession for the Commonwealth realms. A power they apparently ceased to exercise in UK legislation re the Australia Act and the Canada Act.
Graham
2012-12-16 13:02:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
Snip
The question is who advises the Sovereign? Is the UK government or the UK Privy Council? Either way, are they arrogating to themselves the power to alter the succession for the Commonwealth realms. A power they apparently ceased to exercise in UK legislation re the Australia Act and the Canada Act.
Hasn't it always been the case that the UK Government controlled the sealing with the UK Great Seal of consents under the RMA?
Graham
2012-12-16 12:59:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by s***@example.com
A "Succession to the Crown Bill" has been published by the UK
government. See
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/successiontothecrown.html
for the bill and explanatory notes.
Thanks for posting.
Interesting to see new additional restrictive provisions to the Royal Marriages Act. It seems that once this bill is passed, all six persons in the immediate line of succession need the permission of the Soveriegn to marry at all times, at whatever age. The RMA held good any marriages contracted after the person had reached the age of 25, even though permission was not sought or given. The only requirement being that they give 12 months notice to the Privy Council.
It would be interesting to see a list of those who would be affected by the restrospective clause regarding Roman Catholic marriages. And, if the effect of the retrospection also makes reduntant the permission aspects of the RMA as they applied at the time of such marriage. One assumed that those who married Roman Catholics did not seek or receive permission to marry, nor gave 12 months notice to the Privy Council if aged over 25. On those scores their marriages would have been void in then UK law.
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/successiontothecrown.html

(ObFWIW) states that Prince Michael of Kent received permission
to marry on 1st August 1979 'not gazetted; HO124/62'
http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/1987-01-01;1988-01-31/exact=royal+marriages+act/start=1
has no reference to the marriage of the courtesy Earl of St
Andrews in 1988.
Graham
2012-12-16 13:08:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by s***@example.com
A "Succession to the Crown Bill" has been published by the UK
government. See
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/successiontothecrown.html
for the bill and explanatory notes.
Thanks for posting.
Interesting to see new additional restrictive provisions to the Royal Marriages Act. It seems that once this bill is passed, all six persons in the immediate line of succession need the permission of the Soveriegn to marry at all times, at whatever age. The RMA held good any marriages contracted after the person had reached the age of 25, even though permission was not sought or given. The only requirement being that they give 12 months notice to the Privy Council.
It would be interesting to see a list of those who would be affected by the restrospective clause regarding Roman Catholic marriages. And, if the effect of the retrospection also makes reduntant the permission aspects of the RMA as they applied at the time of such marriage. One assumed that those who married Roman Catholics did not seek or receive permission to marry, nor gave 12 months notice to the Privy Council if aged over 25. On those scores their marriages would have been void in then UK law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Marriages_Act_1772
(obFWIW) states that Prince Michael of Kent received permission under the RMA on 1st August 1979. 'not gazetted; HO124/62'.

http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/1987-01-01;1988-01-31/exact=royal+marriages+act/start=1 makes no mention of any consent to the 1988 marriage of the courtest Earl of St Andrews.
Stan Brown
2012-12-15 01:37:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@example.com
Post by d***@gmail.com
Hello.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/kate-middleton/9719408/Kate-Middleton-is-pregnant.html
"The baby will become the third in line to the throne, ahead of Prince Harry, regardless of whether it is a girl or boy, following a change to the ancient rule of royal primogeniture, which was scrapped last year following an agreement between heads of the Commonwealth nations."
A "Succession to the Crown Bill" has been published by the UK
government. See
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/successiontothecrown.html
for the bill and explanatory notes.
"

In determining the succession to the Crown, the gender of a person
born after 28 October 2011 does not give that person, or that
person?s descendants, precedence over any other person (whenever
born)."

In other words, males born >= 2011-10-28 no longer have precedence
over females in the same degree who were born earlier.

I ought to know the significance of that date. Which male was born
_before_ 2011-10-28 whose place in the succession is thus being
preserved?

"(1) A person who (when the person marries) is one of the 6 persons
next in the line of succession to the Crown must obtain the consent
of Her Majesty before marrying. ... (3) The effect of a person's
failure to comply with subsection (1) is that the person and the
person's descendants are disqualified from succeeding to the Crown."

The first part doesn't seem controversial to me. Instead of all
descendants of George II (except for princesses who marry
foreigners), only the next six in succession need the Prime
Minister's permission. But (3) This is a fairly significant change.
Formerly a marriage without permission was invalid, just like a
bigamous marriage. If the bill passes, the marriage will be valid but
morganatic. This will be the first occurrence of morganatic marriage
in British law.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
CJ Buyers
2012-12-15 03:42:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Post by s***@example.com
Post by d***@gmail.com
Hello.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/kate-middleton/9719408/Kate-Middleton-is-pregnant.html
"The baby will become the third in line to the throne, ahead of Prince Harry, regardless of whether it is a girl or boy, following a change to the ancient rule of royal primogeniture, which was scrapped last year following an agreement between heads of the Commonwealth nations."
A "Succession to the Crown Bill" has been published by the UK
government. See
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/successiontothecrown.html
for the bill and explanatory notes.
"
In determining the succession to the Crown, the gender of a person
born after 28 October 2011 does not give that person, or that
person?s descendants, precedence over any other person (whenever
born)."
In other words, males born >= 2011-10-28 no longer have precedence
over females in the same degree who were born earlier.
I ought to know the significance of that date. Which male was born
_before_ 2011-10-28 whose place in the succession is thus being
preserved?
That is the date of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers Conference in Perth, Western Australia, when they agreed to change the rules of succession.
Post by Stan Brown
"(1) A person who (when the person marries) is one of the 6 persons
next in the line of succession to the Crown must obtain the consent
of Her Majesty before marrying. ... (3) The effect of a person's
failure to comply with subsection (1) is that the person and the
person's descendants are disqualified from succeeding to the Crown."
The first part doesn't seem controversial to me. Instead of all
descendants of George II (except for princesses who marry
foreigners), only the next six in succession need the Prime
Minister's permission.
Escept that if they waited until they were 25, they did not need permission. They only needed to give the Privy Council 12 months notice, after which they marriage the marriage would be recorded by the PC.
Post by Stan Brown
But (3) This is a fairly significant change.
Formerly a marriage without permission was invalid, just like a
bigamous marriage. If the bill passes, the marriage will be valid but
morganatic. This will be the first occurrence of morganatic marriage
in British law.
Not quite so. It says nothing about either status or rank of the spouse or children. Only that they would be disqualified from succession to the throne. One could forsee a Prince and Princess Michael of Kent situation, where he retained his Royal rank and titles and she enjoys the equivalent as his wife.
Donald4564
2012-12-15 12:48:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Post by s***@example.com
Post by d***@gmail.com
Hello.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/kate-middleton/9719408/Kate-Middleton-is-pregnant.html
"The baby will become the third in line to the throne, ahead of Prince Harry, regardless of whether it is a girl or boy, following a change to the ancient rule of royal primogeniture, which was scrapped last year following an agreement between heads of the Commonwealth nations."
A "Succession to the Crown Bill" has been published by the UK
government. See
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/successiontothecrown.html
for the bill and explanatory notes.
"
In determining the succession to the Crown, the gender of a person
born after 28 October 2011 does not give that person, or that
person?s descendants, precedence over any other person (whenever
born)."
In other words, males born >= 2011-10-28 no longer have precedence
over females in the same degree who were born earlier.
I ought to know the significance of that date. Which male was born
_before_ 2011-10-28 whose place in the succession is thus being
preserved?
"(1) A person who (when the person marries) is one of the 6 persons
next in the line of succession to the Crown must obtain the consent
of Her Majesty before marrying. ... (3) The effect of a person's
failure to comply with subsection (1) is that the person and the
person's descendants are disqualified from succeeding to the Crown."
The first part doesn't seem controversial to me. Instead of all
descendants of George II (except for princesses who marry
foreigners), only the next six in succession need the Prime
Minister's permission. But (3) This is a fairly significant change.
Formerly a marriage without permission was invalid, just like a
bigamous marriage. If the bill passes, the marriage will be valid but
morganatic. This will be the first occurrence of morganatic marriage
in British law.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Is a similar Bill in the process of being enacted in any other parliaments of the Realms - or is it to be passed in the Imperial parliament with the rest of the Realms expected to catch up - eventually?

I would have thought a simultaneous situation was the more likely?

Regards
Donald Binks
Stan Brown
2012-12-15 15:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
Is a similar Bill in the process of being enacted in any other
parliaments of the Realms - or is it to be passed in the Imperial
parliament with the rest of the Realms expected to catch up -
eventually?
I would have thought a simultaneous situation was the more likely?
There is no "imperial parliament". The UK is not legally in a
different position from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. It can
no more legislate the succession to their thrones than New Zealand
can legislate the succession to the UK throne.

It _used_ to be rule that any change in the succession had to be
agreed to by all of HM realms or it would not be effective in any.
But in discussions in this group, if I remember correctly, I learned
that that is no longer the case and e.g. Canada is free to change the
Canadian succession even if no other country follows suit. That's
not to say that anyone thinks it advisable, but it would be legally
possible.

Someone here suggested that the Bill itself ought to include language
that it takes effect only when passed in all HM realms. But if there
is any such language I missed it.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Donald4564
2012-12-15 21:03:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Donald4564
Is a similar Bill in the process of being enacted in any other
parliaments of the Realms - or is it to be passed in the Imperial
parliament with the rest of the Realms expected to catch up -
eventually?
I would have thought a simultaneous situation was the more likely?
There is no "imperial parliament". The UK is not legally in a
different position from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. It can
no more legislate the succession to their thrones than New Zealand
can legislate the succession to the UK throne.
It _used_ to be rule that any change in the succession had to be
agreed to by all of HM realms or it would not be effective in any.
But in discussions in this group, if I remember correctly, I learned
that that is no longer the case and e.g. Canada is free to change the
Canadian succession even if no other country follows suit. That's
not to say that anyone thinks it advisable, but it would be legally
possible.
Someone here suggested that the Bill itself ought to include language
that it takes effect only when passed in all HM realms. But if there
is any such language I missed it.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
The parliament buildings on the banks of the Thames in London have been referred to as the "Imperial Parliament" since Adam was a boy - can't think why you haven't heard? (There is still the Order of the British Empire without there being an Empire?)

Because politicians have passed "separation" laws over the years, the parliaments in each of Her Majesty's Realms will have to pass legislation affecting the succession. In the case of Canada and Australia, legislation will also be required in the Provinces/States.

If like legislation is not passed in all the Realms, the stupid situation could arise where there is a different Sovereign in the Realm that does not pass legislation.

It seems to me that the Imperial parliament is the only parliament so far to have introduced the legislation, hence my question.

Regards
Donald Binks
CJ Buyers
2012-12-15 22:53:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Donald4564
Is a similar Bill in the process of being enacted in any other
parliaments of the Realms - or is it to be passed in the Imperial
parliament with the rest of the Realms expected to catch up -
eventually?
I would have thought a simultaneous situation was the more likely?
There is no "imperial parliament". The UK is not legally in a
different position from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. It can
no more legislate the succession to their thrones than New Zealand
can legislate the succession to the UK throne.
It _used_ to be rule that any change in the succession had to be
agreed to by all of HM realms or it would not be effective in any.
But in discussions in this group, if I remember correctly, I learned
that that is no longer the case and e.g. Canada is free to change the
Canadian succession even if no other country follows suit. That's
not to say that anyone thinks it advisable, but it would be legally
possible.
Someone here suggested that the Bill itself ought to include language
that it takes effect only when passed in all HM realms. But if there
is any such language I missed it.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
The parliament buildings on the banks of the Thames in London have been referred to as the "Imperial Parliament" since Adam was a boy - can't think why you haven't heard? (There is still the Order of the British Empire without there being an Empire?)
Because politicians have passed "separation" laws over the years, the parliaments in each of Her Majesty's Realms will have to pass legislation affecting the succession. In the case of Canada and Australia, legislation will also be required in the Provinces/States.
If like legislation is not passed in all the Realms, the stupid situation could arise where there is a different Sovereign in the Realm that does not pass legislation.
Well, this is being run by politicians, so somewhere along the line a stupidity is inevitable.
Post by Donald4564
It seems to me that the Imperial parliament is the only parliament so far to have introduced the legislation, hence my question.
Looks like section 3 contravenes existing UK legislation, so whatever they have introduced may not even be valid in UK law, let alone the other realms. As it reads the UK Parliament is conferring new powers on the British government over the first six people aged 25 and over in the line of succession to the thrones of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Powers it never had before.

The New Zealand Parliament website says that it will introduce legislation, but there does not appear to be an actual bill that I can find. Their situation is slightly different in that they specifically consolidated the 1700 Act of Settlement into their Constitution Act in 1986.
Graham
2012-12-16 14:09:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
Looks like section 3 contravenes existing UK legislation, so whatever they have introduced may not even be valid in UK law, let alone the other realms. As it reads the UK Parliament is conferring new powers on the British government over the first six people aged 25 and over in the line of succession to the thrones of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Powers it never had before.
AIUI, if a later Westminster statute contravenes an earlier one, the general rule is that the later one prevails. Lex posterior derogat lege priori.

If (say) the UK Lord Chancellor had refused to affix the Great Seal to the consent to Prince Andrew's marriage, and the marriage had gone ahead in the UK, would Princess Beatrice have been in line to the other Commonwealth thrones? Similar to the question of whether the D'Estes and Fitzgeorges were in line to the throne of Hanover.
Stan Brown
2012-12-16 17:43:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham
Post by CJ Buyers
Looks like section 3 contravenes existing UK legislation, so
whatever they have introduced may not even be valid in UK law,
let alone the other realms. As it reads the UK Parliament is
conferring new powers on the British government over the first
six people aged 25 and over in the line of succession to the
thrones of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Powers it never
had before.
What nonsense. The government (well, officially Her Majesty, but she
always acts "on advice") currently has power to allow deny marriage
to everyone descended from George II, with certain exceptions. The
Bill, if passed, would reduce that in two important ways.
Post by Graham
AIUI, if a later Westminster statute contravenes an earlier one,
the general rule is that the later one prevails. Lex posterior
derogat lege priori.
Correct.
Post by Graham
If (say) the UK Lord Chancellor had refused to affix the Great Seal
to the consent to Prince Andrew's marriage, and the marriage had
gone ahead in the UK, would Princess Beatrice have been in line to
the other Commonwealth thrones? Similar to the question of whether
the D'Estes and Fitzgeorges were in line to the throne of Hanover.
Is the Great Seal currently required? I don't know, but say for the
sake of argument that it is. In that case there would have been no
marriage. If Andrew and Sarah went through a form of marriage and
produced children, those children would have been legally
illegitimate and ineligible to inherit any throne.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
CJ Buyers
2012-12-17 02:51:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Post by CJ Buyers
Looks like section 3 contravenes existing UK legislation, so
whatever they have introduced may not even be valid in UK law,
let alone the other realms. As it reads the UK Parliament is
conferring new powers on the British government over the first
six people aged 25 and over in the line of succession to the
thrones of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Powers it never
had before.
What nonsense. The government (well, officially Her Majesty, but she
always acts "on advice") currently has power to allow deny marriage
to everyone descended from George II, with certain exceptions. The
Bill, if passed, would reduce that in two important ways.
No

1) the government does not have power to intervene under pre 1982/1986 legislation in respect of those aged 25 or over.
2) the proposed UK bill grants the UK government or PM a new power or right to intervene for the first time in the case of the first six persons in the line of succession to the thrones of Australia, Canada and the other realms. It cannot so legislate after 1982/1986 under existing legilation.
CJ Buyers
2012-12-18 02:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham
Post by CJ Buyers
Looks like section 3 contravenes existing UK legislation, so whatever they have introduced may not even be valid in UK law, let alone the other realms. As it reads the UK Parliament is conferring new powers on the British government over the first six people aged 25 and over in the line of succession to the thrones of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Powers it never had before.
AIUI, if a later Westminster statute contravenes an earlier one, the general rule is that the later one prevails. Lex posterior derogat lege priori.
Except in the case of both the Canada Act and the Australia Act, the very intention of both of them was the very opposite of the doctrine, i.e. the sole purpose was to restrict the application of future laws.

The Canada Act (1982 c. 11) Section 2 reads:
No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act, 1982 comes into force shall extend to Canada as part of its law.

Thus it is specifically binding on future laws.

I fancy there must be some legal doctrine somehwere in law which says that legislation trumps mere doctrine.
Antonio
2012-12-18 03:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by Graham
Post by CJ Buyers
Looks like section 3 contravenes existing UK legislation, so whatever they have introduced may not even be valid in UK law, let alone the other realms. As it reads the UK Parliament is conferring new powers on the British government over the first six people aged 25 and over in the line of succession to the thrones of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Powers it never had before.
No it is not. The Bill grants no powers on the UK Government over the first six people in the line of succession to the thrones of Canada, Australia and new Zealand. This Bill, once enacted, will only affect succession to the Crown of the United Kingdom.

There is no provision in the Act itself to the contrary.

It will be for the Canadian, the Australian, etc, statutes to regulate in Canadian, Australian, etc, Law this new rule about Royal Marriages.

And this can be done in two ways, namely:

either (1) The Law of a Realm making reference to the necessity of a Consent signifyed before the UK Privy Council; in that case, it is the new law of the Realm that is grating powers and effects to an action performed before the (Imperial) Privy Council; it is not the UK that is assuming those powers with respect to the Realms;

or (2) The Law of a Realm requiring Consent to the Marriage before a local authority, say, Consent signifyed before the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.

Scenario 2 could lead to consent being granted in one Realm and denied in another. So it is unilikely. Probably scenario 1 will be adopted, but with the promise of a new unwritten constitutional convention among the Realms, to the effect that the Prime Ministers of all Realms will be consulted and will have to approve a marriage before the UK PM tenders his advice for a marriage to be approved by the Queen in (Imperial) Council.
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by Graham
AIUI, if a later Westminster statute contravenes an earlier one, the general rule is that the later one prevails. Lex posterior derogat lege priori.
Except in the case of both the Canada Act and the Australia Act, the very intention of both of them was the very opposite of the doctrine, i.e. the sole purpose was to restrict the application of future laws.
No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act, 1982 comes into force shall extend to Canada as part of its law.
Thus it is specifically binding on future laws.
I fancy there must be some legal doctrine somehwere in law which says that legislation trumps mere doctrine.
CJ Buyers
2012-12-18 05:15:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antonio
Post by CJ Buyers
Looks like section 3 contravenes existing UK legislation, so whatever they have introduced may not even be valid in UK law, let alone the other realms. As it reads the UK Parliament is conferring new powers on the British government over the first six people aged 25 and over in the line of succession to the thrones of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Powers it never had before.
No it is not. The Bill grants no powers on the UK Government over the first six people in the line of succession to the thrones of Canada, Australia and new Zealand.
Yes it does, because the status quo is that there is no separate line of succession. The legal pronouncements in Canada and New Zealand, at least, make it clear. They define their Crown as the Crown of Great Britain. Whosoever is the King/Queen or Great Britian, is the King/Queen of Canada/New Zealand, etc, etc.

You could say that the Bill, if passed into law, will have the eventual effect of creating a distinct line of succession in the future. But that in itself is changing the status quo for those countries.
Post by Antonio
This Bill, once enacted, will only affect succession to the Crown of the United Kingdom.
Now that may well be the eventual effect of it passing into law, and is my chief concern.
Post by Antonio
There is no provision in the Act itself to the contrary.
It will be for the Canadian, the Australian, etc, statutes to regulate in Canadian, Australian, etc, Law this new rule about Royal Marriages.
either (1) The Law of a Realm making reference to the necessity of a Consent signifyed before the UK Privy Council; in that case, it is the new law of the Realm that is grating powers and effects to an action performed before the (Imperial) Privy Council; it is not the UK that is assuming those powers with respect to the Realms;
There is no such thing in the abtract. H.M. consents or refuses on advice. Moreover, that advice given by the UK Prime Minister. There is no current constitutional provision in any of the realms, for him to act on behalf of them.

The simplest solution would be for all the Commonwealth PMs to be made members of the UK Privy Council and for them to form a "committe of advice" or something similar to give collective advice to HM.
Post by Antonio
or (2) The Law of a Realm requiring Consent to the Marriage before a local authority, say, Consent signifyed before the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.
All very well for Canada, but except for Jamaica and Barbados the other realms do not have permanent bodies that even resemble the Privy Councils. In Australia and the states there is the Executive Council, but that is more or less a pro-tem body consisting of the inner cabinet and Governor-General/Governor. The body stands and falls with each government.

Unlike Privy councils, judges, speakers, ambassadors and top civil servants are not members, so the EXCOs are devoid of such expertise and advise to call upon in their deliberations. So is the opposition, so no opportunity to discuss matters with opposition parties on "privy council terms" and form some sort of consensus.

New Zealand is similar to Australia but perhaps more clear cut in that members of EXCO are defined as "Ministers of the Crown" and must be serving MPs, plus/minus 30 days.
Post by Antonio
Scenario 2 could lead to consent being granted in one Realm and denied in another. So it is unilikely. Probably scenario 1 will be adopted, but with the promise of a new unwritten constitutional convention among the Realms, to the effect that the Prime Ministers of all Realms will be consulted and will have to approve a marriage before the UK PM tenders his advice for a marriage to be approved by the Queen in (Imperial) Council.
Yes indeed. Something of this sort. As I said earlier, the simplest solution would be a committee of the UK Privy Council of which the Prime Ministers of the Realms are members and give HM collective advice. But it looks like nothing of the kind has either been discussed or aired in public.

I have been in touch with the two UK parliamentary committees as well as the NZ Prime Ministers Office and they are all obviously flummoxed by this part of the proposal. Apparently, Clegg had not discussed it with any of them before proposing the legislation.
CJ Buyers
2012-12-18 05:17:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by Antonio
Post by CJ Buyers
Looks like section 3 contravenes existing UK legislation, so whatever they have introduced may not even be valid in UK law, let alone the other realms. As it reads the UK Parliament is conferring new powers on the British government over the first six people aged 25 and over in the line of succession to the thrones of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Powers it never had before.
No it is not. The Bill grants no powers on the UK Government over the first six people in the line of succession to the thrones of Canada, Australia and new Zealand.
Yes it does, because the status quo is that there is no separate line of succession. The legal pronouncements in Canada and New Zealand, at least, make it clear. They define their Crown as the Crown of Great Britain. Whosoever is the King/Queen or Great Britian, is the King/Queen of Canada/New Zealand, etc, etc.
You could say that the Bill, if passed into law, will have the eventual effect of creating a distinct line of succession in the future. But that in itself is changing the status quo for those countries.
Post by Antonio
This Bill, once enacted, will only affect succession to the Crown of the United Kingdom.
Now that may well be the eventual effect of it passing into law, and is my chief concern.
Post by Antonio
There is no provision in the Act itself to the contrary.
It will be for the Canadian, the Australian, etc, statutes to regulate in Canadian, Australian, etc, Law this new rule about Royal Marriages.
either (1) The Law of a Realm making reference to the necessity of a Consent signifyed before the UK Privy Council; in that case, it is the new law of the Realm that is grating powers and effects to an action performed before the (Imperial) Privy Council; it is not the UK that is assuming those powers with respect to the Realms;
There is no such thing in the abtract. H.M. consents or refuses on advice. Moreover, that advice given by the UK Prime Minister. There is no current constitutional provision in any of the realms, for him to act on behalf of them.
The simplest solution would be for all the Commonwealth PMs to be made members of the UK Privy Council and for them to form a "committe of advice" or something similar to give collective advice to HM.
Post by Antonio
or (2) The Law of a Realm requiring Consent to the Marriage before a local authority, say, Consent signifyed before the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.
All very well for Canada, but except for Jamaica and Barbados the other realms do not have permanent bodies that even resemble the Privy Councils. In Australia and the states there is the Executive Council, but that is more or less a pro-tem body consisting of the inner cabinet and Governor-General/Governor. The body stands and falls with each government.
Unlike Privy councils, judges, speakers, ambassadors and top civil servants are not members, so the EXCOs are devoid of such expertise and advise to call upon in their deliberations. So is the opposition, so no opportunity to discuss matters with opposition parties on "privy council terms" and form some sort of consensus.
New Zealand is similar to Australia but perhaps more clear cut in that members of EXCO are defined as "Ministers of the Crown" and must be serving MPs, plus/minus 30 days.
Post by Antonio
Scenario 2 could lead to consent being granted in one Realm and denied in another. So it is unilikely. Probably scenario 1 will be adopted, but with the promise of a new unwritten constitutional convention among the Realms, to the effect that the Prime Ministers of all Realms will be consulted and will have to approve a marriage before the UK PM tenders his advice for a marriage to be approved by the Queen in (Imperial) Council.
Yes indeed. Something of this sort. As I said earlier, the simplest solution would be a committee of the UK Privy Council of which the Prime Ministers of the Realms are members and give HM collective advice. But it looks like nothing of the kind has either been discussed or aired in public.
I have been in touch with the two UK parliamentary committees as well as the NZ Prime Ministers Office and they are all obviously flummoxed by this part of the proposal. Apparently, Clegg had not discussed it with any of them before proposing the legislation.
Louis Epstein
2012-12-18 08:48:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by Graham
Post by CJ Buyers
Looks like section 3 contravenes existing UK legislation, so whatever they have introduced may not even be valid in UK law, let alone the other realms. As it reads the UK Parliament is conferring new powers on the British government over the first six people aged 25 and over in the line of succession to the thrones of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Powers it never had before.
AIUI, if a later Westminster statute contravenes an earlier one, the general rule is that the later one prevails. Lex posterior derogat lege priori.
Except in the case of both the Canada Act and the Australia Act, the very intention of both of them was the very opposite of the doctrine, i.e. the sole purpose was to restrict the application of future laws.
No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act, 1982 comes into force shall extend to Canada as part of its law.
Thus it is specifically binding on future laws.
I fancy there must be some legal doctrine somehwere in law which says
that legislation trumps mere doctrine.
If a party composed of my minions ever took power in the UK,
the Statute of Westminster,Canada Act,and Australia Act would
all be on the repeal-and-permanent-prohibition-of-reenactment
list...

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
m***@gmail.com
2012-12-20 01:31:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
Looks like section 3 contravenes existing UK legislation, so whatever they
have introduced may not even be valid in UK law, let alone the other realms.
As it reads the UK Parliament is conferring new powers on the British government >over the first six people aged 25 and over in the line of succession to the
thrones of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
No, it isn't. "The Crown" (singular) in the British bill refers to the only crown for which the British Parliament can legislate, the British crown. It's up to the parliaments of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, et al, to make similar provision for the monarchs of their respective realms to grant such permission to the next six people in line to their respective thrones.

Joseph McMillan
CJ Buyers
2012-12-20 01:49:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by CJ Buyers
Looks like section 3 contravenes existing UK legislation, so whatever they
have introduced may not even be valid in UK law, let alone the other realms.
As it reads the UK Parliament is conferring new powers on the British government >over the first six people aged 25 and over in the line of succession to the
thrones of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
No, it isn't. "The Crown" (singular) in the British bill refers to the only crown for which the British Parliament can legislate, the British crown. It's up to the parliaments of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, et al, to make similar provision for the monarchs of their respective realms to grant such permission to the next six people in line to their respective thrones.
Except that in Canadian and New Zealand law the Soverign of those countries is the King or Queen of Great Britian, as has already also been pointed out by Breton above. So if the UK Parliament attempts to legislates a change, by that very act it cannot avoid affecting who the sovereign of those realms is going to be.
Antonio
2012-12-20 02:34:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by CJ Buyers
Looks like section 3 contravenes existing UK legislation, so whatever they
have introduced may not even be valid in UK law, let alone the other realms.
As it reads the UK Parliament is conferring new powers on the British government >over the first six people aged 25 and over in the line of succession to the
thrones of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
No, it isn't. "The Crown" (singular) in the British bill refers to the only crown for which the British Parliament can legislate, the British crown. It's up to the parliaments of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, et al, to make similar provision for the monarchs of their respective realms to grant such permission to the next six people in line to their respective thrones.
Except that in Canadian and New Zealand law the Soverign of those countries is the King or Queen of Great Britian, as has already also been pointed out by Breton above. So if the UK Parliament attempts to legislates a change, by that very act it cannot avoid affecting who the sovereign of those realms is going to be.
That's only due to the "fault" of the Canadian and New Zealand legislators, who, having now full power and authority to change the Laws of the respective Countries, have instead opted to maintain the "external reference", that is, the reference to their Sovereign being whosoever is the Sovereign of the United Kingdom.

But I wonder: in the case of Canada, is the reference to the Canadian Sovereign being always the Sovereign of the United Kingdom sufficiently expressed in the Canadian constitutional documents? I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the only reference to the United Kingdom in a Canadian constitutional document was a reference in the Preamble of the Constitution Act 1867 (and NOT in the operative part of any Act), mentioning the desire of the founding Provinces "to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom".

After the Statute of Westminster 1931, the idea of a single Crown over the UK and the Dominions was initially retained - changes to the succession thereof requriquing the consent of the Dominions as well as of the UK - but by the time Elizabeth II succeeded her father that idea had given way to the idea of separate Crowns, not of the UK and British Dominions, but of "this Realm and Her other Reamls", as expressed in the unusual Accession Proclamation of Elizabeth II, the UK being from then on treated as one Realm among equal Realms. That notion was given legislative effect when the single and unified Royal Title (Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen Defender of the Faith) was replaced by separate Royal Styles and Titles, which change took place in the UK with the adoption of the Royal Styles and Titles Act, 1953.

The doctrine of the separate Crowns and separate monarchies united in personal union only by the sharing of the same person as Sovereign being clearly established, it was still possible for one of the Realms to make reference to the Laws of Succession of another Realm. The problem, however, is that the Canadian Constitutional Documents contain no such explicit reference to the UK, except in the non operative Preamble of an outdated statute that in the same preamble still speaks of Canada as a Dominion.

The British Sovereign is the Sovereign mentioned in the Constitution Act 1867 not exactly because of that Preamble, which as a mere preamble is non operative, but because the Laws of the UK enacted to govern Royal Succession, laws enacted when the provinces of Canada were still mere colonies (the Act of Settlement, the Bill of Rights, etc), applied to Canada under British Rule and continued to apply to it, as part of its Legal System, after it became a Dominion, after the Statute of Westminster, after Canada became a Realm with its own Royal Titles, and after the Canada Act, 1982, which marked the fullness of Canadian Sovereignty by the Patriation of the Constitution.

The Patriation of the Constitution being now effected, and given that by means of the Canada Act, 1982 the United Kingdom disvested itself of the power to legislate for Canada; and given, further, that after the Canada Act, 1982 only Canada's own authorities can legislate for Canada, it would seem to me that, if the UK Parliament were to enact this Succession to the Crown Bill, and thereby make changes to the Act of Settlement, to the Bill of Rights, etc, modifying their text and also their interpretation, and making them subject to a new rule of absolute primogeniture legislated only in the UK, such changes would not apply to Canada without the adoption of a Canadian statute to make such changes effective in Canada.

Canada would have the "old" rules, including the "old" versions of the Bill of Rights and of the Act of Settlement, without the provisions of the Succession to the Crown Bill having any efect in Canada, while the UK would have the new versions of those statutes, and the provisions of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 effective in its Law.

Now, a more complex issue is this: to change the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlment in Canada, and to make them subject to the new provisions similar or equal to those contained in the UK Succession to the Crown Bill, would it be necessary for Canada to enact a Constitutional Amendment (given that the Crown is affected), or (given that the aforesaid enactments that need change are not considered by section 52 subsection 1 of the Constitution Act 1982 as part of the Canadian Constitution), would a simple ordinary federal statute suffice?

Surely, if a Constitutional Amendment is needed, then we fall under the unanimous consent provision of section 41, a, of the Constitution Act 1982, given that the change relates to the office of Queen; namely, to the manner of the provision of that office, to the succession thereto.
CJ Buyers
2012-12-20 04:55:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antonio
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by CJ Buyers
Looks like section 3 contravenes existing UK legislation, so whatever they
have introduced may not even be valid in UK law, let alone the other realms.
As it reads the UK Parliament is conferring new powers on the British government >over the first six people aged 25 and over in the line of succession to the
thrones of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
No, it isn't. "The Crown" (singular) in the British bill refers to the only crown for which the British Parliament can legislate, the British crown. It's up to the parliaments of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, et al, to make similar provision for the monarchs of their respective realms to grant such permission to the next six people in line to their respective thrones.
Except that in Canadian and New Zealand law the Soverign of those countries is the King or Queen of Great Britian, as has already also been pointed out by Breton above. So if the UK Parliament attempts to legislates a change, by that very act it cannot avoid affecting who the sovereign of those realms is going to be.
That's only due to the "fault" of the Canadian and New Zealand legislators, who, having now full power and authority to change the Laws of the respective Countries, have instead opted to maintain the "external reference", that is, the reference to their Sovereign being whosoever is the Sovereign of the United Kingdom.
The question isn't really whether you or I think it is sufficiently expressed here or there. It is that those charged with interpreting the Law have done so in the way I have described.

They may be different Crowns, but matters affecting the succession are one.

When considering the constitution of the other realms, they are not to be found in any single document. Not even those documents which purport to be constitutions. The reason being that whatever Imperial legislation applied to Canada, Australia, etc as of the date of the Canada Act, Australia AC, etc continues to be the law of those lands until and unless at some time those laws are amended or revoked. Not just legislation, but also rights and remedies of the English Common Law. Habeas corpus is one example of many.

Then of course, there are things that have become law merely out of long standing custom and long practice. In the subject under review, the very meaning and application of primogeniture itself. Looking for a statute which defines or explains what it is, or that it means sons before daughters, is a fruitless task. So you may have just as much difficulty in finding statutes which explain the method of succession to the Canadian throne, as references that the Sovereign of Canada is the Sovereign of Great Britain. No, for such things we must depend upon the pronouncements of those learned men set over us to pronounce upon the meaning of the law.

As current law stands, the UK PM has the right to advise the Sovereign to refuse consent to the marriage of anyone in the line of succession under the age of 25, to the throne of Canada. Why? Because he has the power so to do by virtue of law and conventions already in place when the Canada Act was passed in 1982 and which remain unrevoked.

My point is that by introducing this new legislation in terms of Section 3, Clegg is potentially severing the method of succession. The severence in itself would be a change to the existing law of Canada, New Zealand, etc. If the existing law is that the Sovereigns of Canada and New Zealand are the same as that of GB, and you introduce a law by which the method of selection is different for GB, you are saying that they are potentially no longer the same. You are changing the law in respect of Canada and New Zealand, even if you do not mention either of them by name.
Antonio
2012-12-21 14:25:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by Antonio
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by CJ Buyers
Looks like section 3 contravenes existing UK legislation, so whatever they
have introduced may not even be valid in UK law, let alone the other realms.
As it reads the UK Parliament is conferring new powers on the British government >over the first six people aged 25 and over in the line of succession to the
thrones of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
No, it isn't. "The Crown" (singular) in the British bill refers to the only crown for which the British Parliament can legislate, the British crown. It's up to the parliaments of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, et al, to make similar provision for the monarchs of their respective realms to grant such permission to the next six people in line to their respective thrones.
Except that in Canadian and New Zealand law the Soverign of those countries is the King or Queen of Great Britian, as has already also been pointed out by Breton above. So if the UK Parliament attempts to legislates a change, by that very act it cannot avoid affecting who the sovereign of those realms is going to be.
That's only due to the "fault" of the Canadian and New Zealand legislators, who, having now full power and authority to change the Laws of the respective Countries, have instead opted to maintain the "external reference", that is, the reference to their Sovereign being whosoever is the Sovereign of the United Kingdom.
The question isn't really whether you or I think it is sufficiently expressed here or there. It is that those charged with interpreting the Law have done so in the way I have described.
They may be different Crowns, but matters affecting the succession are one.
When considering the constitution of the other realms, they are not to be found in any single document. Not even those documents which purport to be constitutions. The reason being that whatever Imperial legislation applied to Canada, Australia, etc as of the date of the Canada Act, Australia AC, etc continues to be the law of those lands until and unless at some time those laws are amended or revoked. Not just legislation, but also rights and remedies of the English Common Law. Habeas corpus is one example of many.
Then of course, there are things that have become law merely out of long standing custom and long practice. In the subject under review, the very meaning and application of primogeniture itself. Looking for a statute which defines or explains what it is, or that it means sons before daughters, is a fruitless task. So you may have just as much difficulty in finding statutes which explain the method of succession to the Canadian throne, as references that the Sovereign of Canada is the Sovereign of Great Britain. No, for such things we must depend upon the pronouncements of those learned men set over us to pronounce upon the meaning of the law.
As current law stands, the UK PM has the right to advise the Sovereign to refuse consent to the marriage of anyone in the line of succession under the age of 25, to the throne of Canada. Why? Because he has the power so to do by virtue of law and conventions already in place when the Canada Act was passed in 1982 and which remain unrevoked.
My point is that by introducing this new legislation in terms of Section 3, Clegg is potentially severing the method of succession. The severence in itself would be a change to the existing law of Canada, New Zealand, etc. If the existing law is that the Sovereigns of Canada and New Zealand are the same as that of GB, and you introduce a law by which the method of selection is different for GB, you are saying that they are potentially no longer the same. You are changing the law in respect of Canada and New Zealand, even if you do not mention either of them by name.
But the severance of the method of succession takes place not only with regard to section 3, but also with regard to section 1.

You are absolutely right that the Common Law of England became part of the Laws governing Canada under British Rule, and, because the unrevoked Law remains in effect, those Common Law norms and remedies remain part of the Law of Canada. The same happens with old statutes, that were part of English and British law, and applied to Canada, and, unrevoked, they continue to apply to Canada.

So you are right that the method of succession by male-preference primogeniture is nowhere expressed in statute, but it applies to Canada because it became Law in Canada under British Rule and continued thereafter as part of the Canadian legal order.

The problem is, Canada is now no longer under British rule. Just as changes in the case law of England no longer affect the Common law as applied in Canada; new statutes of the United Kingdom no longer have automatic application in Canada.

That's why, when Edward VIII abdicated, a Canadian federal statute was necessary. But the Canadian Constitution is now further codifyed and entrenched, due to the adoption of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Making a Canadian Constitutional Amendment under the unanimous consent procedure probably necessary to affect the mode of succession to the office of Queen.
Graham
2012-12-22 16:24:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antonio
That's why, when Edward VIII abdicated, a Canadian federal statute was necessary. But the Canadian Constitution is now further codifyed and entrenched, due to the adoption of the Constitution Act, 1982.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw8and1Geo6/1/3/contents
His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act 1936
Preamble - 'And whereas, following upon the communication to His Dominions of His Majesty’s said declaration and desire, the Dominion of Canada pursuant to the provisions of section four of the Statute of Westminster 1931 has requested and consented to the enactment of this Act ...'
AIUI, the request and consent was made by the Canadian Federal Government - no statute was passed.

OTOH, in the Irish Free State, there was legislation - the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act, 1936, ection 3(2)
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1936/en/act/pub/0058/sec0003.html#sec3
'Immediately upon the passing of this Act, the instrument of abdication executed by His Majesty King Edward the Eighth on the 10th day of December, 1936, (a copy whereof is set out in the Schedule to this Act) shall have effect according to the tenor thereof and His said Majesty shall, for the purposes of the foregoing sub-section of this section and all other (if any) purposes, cease to be king, and the king for those purposes shall henceforth be the person who, if His said Majesty had died on the 10th day of December, 1936, unmarried, would for the time being be his successor under the law of Saorstát Eireann.'
Antonio
2012-12-27 17:28:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham
Post by Antonio
That's why, when Edward VIII abdicated, a Canadian federal statute was necessary. But the Canadian Constitution is now further codifyed and entrenched, due to the adoption of the Constitution Act, 1982.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw8and1Geo6/1/3/contents
His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act 1936
Preamble - 'And whereas, following upon the communication to His Dominions of His Majesty’s said declaration and desire, the Dominion of Canada pursuant to the provisions of section four of the Statute of Westminster 1931 has requested and consented to the enactment of this Act ...'
AIUI, the request and consent was made by the Canadian Federal Government - no statute was passed.
Not exactly, no. The request and consent was initially made by Canada (I'm not sure if by the Federal Government as you state or by resolutions of the Houses of Parliament), but afterwards a statute was indeed enacted.

The statute in question was the Sucession to the Throne Act 1937 (1 Geo. VI, c.16). It ratifyed in the Law of Canada, retrospectively and in a declaratory way, the changes to the Succession that had resulted from the British His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act, 1936.

It is true that the British Act, due to the request and consent procedure prescribed by the Statute of Westminster, had effect in Canada by itself, and accordingly George VI had already been proclaimed King in Canada by the Governor General in Council as a result of the British Act, but still, the Canadian Government considered that, due to Canada's status as an independent Nation, a declaratory Act of the Canadian Parliament was necessary to record in the statutes of Canada the changes to the succession that had been accomplished by the British Act. The Succession to the Throne Act 1937 was accordingly passed to confirm in the law of Canada those changes.

The problem is that, after the Canada Act, 1982 and under Canada's Constitution Act, 1982, the request and consent procedure of the Statute of Westminster no longer suffices and indeed no longer applies, as the Canadian Constitution has been patriated and can be changed only by Canada: no Act of the UK Parliament passed after the Canada Act, 1982 has any effect in the law of Canada.

Thus, to amend the Act of Settlement, the Bill of Rights etc, as they now stand as parts of the Law of Canada, and to alter in Canada the customary, common law, male preference primogeniture rule that applies to the succession to the Crown, one surely needs Canadian legislation. And in all probability, that piece of legislation needs to be a Constitutional Amendment, because the mode of provision of the office of Queen is affected. And given that any constitutional changes relating to the office of The Queen require the unanimous consent procedure for adoption, that procedure would in this case be necessary.
Post by Graham
OTOH, in the Irish Free State, there was legislation - the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act, 1936, ection 3(2)
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1936/en/act/pub/0058/sec0003.html#sec3
'Immediately upon the passing of this Act, the instrument of abdication executed by His Majesty King Edward the Eighth on the 10th day of December, 1936, (a copy whereof is set out in the Schedule to this Act) shall have effect according to the tenor thereof and His said Majesty shall, for the purposes of the foregoing sub-section of this section and all other (if any) purposes, cease to be king, and the king for those purposes shall henceforth be the person who, if His said Majesty had died on the 10th day of December, 1936, unmarried, would for the time being be his successor under the law of Saorstát Eireann.'
Graham
2012-12-27 21:56:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antonio
Post by Graham
AIUI, the request and consent was made by the Canadian Federal Government - no statute was passed.
Not exactly, no. The request and consent was initially made by Canada (I'm not sure if by the Federal Government as you state or by resolutions of the Houses of Parliament), but afterwards a statute was indeed enacted.
The statute in question was the Sucession to the Throne Act 1937 (1 Geo. VI, c.16). It ratifyed in the Law of Canada, retrospectively and in a declaratory way, the changes to the Succession that had resulted from the British His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act, 1936.
It is true that the British Act, due to the request and consent procedure prescribed by the Statute of Westminster, had effect in Canada by itself, and accordingly George VI had already been proclaimed King in Canada by the Governor General in Council as a result of the British Act, but still, the Canadian Government considered that, due to Canada's status as an independent Nation, a declaratory Act of the Canadian Parliament was necessary to record in the statutes of Canada the changes to the succession that had been accomplished by the British Act. The Succession to the Throne Act 1937 was accordingly passed to confirm in the law of Canada those changes.
The problem is that, after the Canada Act, 1982 and under Canada's Constitution Act, 1982, the request and consent procedure of the Statute of Westminster no longer suffices and indeed no longer applies, as the Canadian Constitution has been patriated and can be changed only by Canada: no Act of the UK Parliament passed after the Canada Act, 1982 has any effect in the law of Canada.
Thus, to amend the Act of Settlement, the Bill of Rights etc, as they now stand as parts of the Law of Canada, and to alter in Canada the customary, common law, male preference primogeniture rule that applies to the succession to the Crown, one surely needs Canadian legislation. And in all probability, that piece of legislation needs to be a Constitutional Amendment, because the mode of provision of the office of Queen is affected. And given that any constitutional changes relating to the office of The Queen require the unanimous consent procedure for adoption, that procedure would in this case be necessary.
Thank you - very interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_Throne_Act_1937
cites
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1936/dec/11/queenmother.monarchy
from Friday 11 December 1936
'The Canadian Cabinet yesterday by Order-in-Council authorised Canada's inclusion in the Act; the Dominion Parliament will ratify it on January 14.'
So: -
1. The Irish Free State did not either request and consent, or assent to, the Statute of Westminster procedure, but passed its own legislation.
2. Canada requested and consented to the Statute of Westminster procedure, but also passed its own legislation
3. South Africa assented to the enactment of the Abdication Act, but also passed its own legislation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Majesty_King_Edward_the_Eighth's_Abdication_Act,_1937 discusses why SA did not request and consent. Slightly strange that they assented like Australia and New Zealand, rather than rushing through separate legislation as the Irish Free State did.
4. Australia and New Zealand assented to the enactment of the Abdication Act (even though neither had yet adopted the Statute of Westminster) and (as far as I know) did not pass their own legislation.
Presumably the Canadian Provinces were not involved in the passing of the 1937 Act. I realise that this was pre-1982 Constitution.
Antonio
2013-01-10 11:13:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham
Post by Antonio
Post by Graham
AIUI, the request and consent was made by the Canadian Federal Government - no statute was passed.
Not exactly, no. The request and consent was initially made by Canada (I'm not sure if by the Federal Government as you state or by resolutions of the Houses of Parliament), but afterwards a statute was indeed enacted.
The statute in question was the Sucession to the Throne Act 1937 (1 Geo. VI, c.16). It ratifyed in the Law of Canada, retrospectively and in a declaratory way, the changes to the Succession that had resulted from the British His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act, 1936.
It is true that the British Act, due to the request and consent procedure prescribed by the Statute of Westminster, had effect in Canada by itself, and accordingly George VI had already been proclaimed King in Canada by the Governor General in Council as a result of the British Act, but still, the Canadian Government considered that, due to Canada's status as an independent Nation, a declaratory Act of the Canadian Parliament was necessary to record in the statutes of Canada the changes to the succession that had been accomplished by the British Act. The Succession to the Throne Act 1937 was accordingly passed to confirm in the law of Canada those changes.
The problem is that, after the Canada Act, 1982 and under Canada's Constitution Act, 1982, the request and consent procedure of the Statute of Westminster no longer suffices and indeed no longer applies, as the Canadian Constitution has been patriated and can be changed only by Canada: no Act of the UK Parliament passed after the Canada Act, 1982 has any effect in the law of Canada.
Thus, to amend the Act of Settlement, the Bill of Rights etc, as they now stand as parts of the Law of Canada, and to alter in Canada the customary, common law, male preference primogeniture rule that applies to the succession to the Crown, one surely needs Canadian legislation. And in all probability, that piece of legislation needs to be a Constitutional Amendment, because the mode of provision of the office of Queen is affected. And given that any constitutional changes relating to the office of The Queen require the unanimous consent procedure for adoption, that procedure would in this case be necessary.
Thank you - very interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_Throne_Act_1937
cites
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1936/dec/11/queenmother.monarchy
from Friday 11 December 1936
'The Canadian Cabinet yesterday by Order-in-Council authorised Canada's inclusion in the Act; the Dominion Parliament will ratify it on January 14.'
So: -
1. The Irish Free State did not either request and consent, or assent to, the Statute of Westminster procedure, but passed its own legislation.
2. Canada requested and consented to the Statute of Westminster procedure, but also passed its own legislation
3. South Africa assented to the enactment of the Abdication Act, but also passed its own legislation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Majesty_King_Edward_the_Eighth's_Abdication_Act,_1937 discusses why SA did not request and consent. Slightly strange that they assented like Australia and New Zealand, rather than rushing through separate legislation as the Irish Free State did.
4. Australia and New Zealand assented to the enactment of the Abdication Act (even though neither had yet adopted the Statute of Westminster) and (as far as I know) did not pass their own legislation.
Presumably the Canadian Provinces were not involved in the passing of the 1937 Act. I realise that this was pre-1982 Constitution.
A relevant judgement by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (judgement in Tony O'Donohue vs. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario): http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2003/2003canlii41404/2003canlii41404.pdf

The above ruling states, inter alia, that the Act of Settlement is part of the Law of Canada since colonial times; that sharing a monarch with the United Kingdom is part of the fundamental constitutional structure of Canada; that it is prescribed by the preamble of the Constitution Act 1867 ("This portion of the preamble confirms not only that Canada is a constitutional monarchy, but also that Canada is united under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain"); that the role of the preamble to that Act in filling the gaps of the Constitutional documents is recognized by case law; that section n. 9 of the Constitution Act 1867 also states that the executive power "is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen"; that "The office of the Queen is such a fundamental part of our constitutional structure that amendments to the Constitution in respect of that office require the unanimous consent of the
federal and provincial governments (see s. 41(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982); that "The rules of succession are essential to the proper functioning of the monarchy" and it reaches the conclusion that "unilateral" changes to the rules of succession, by affecting the principle that the monarch is shared with the United Kingdom: "would, for all intents and purposes, bring about a fundamental change in the office of the Queen without securing the authorizations required pursuant to s. 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982."

What about the procedure for not unilateral change? Does it also bring about a fundamental change in the office of Queen, given that the rules of succession are fundamental to the monarchy?
CJ Buyers
2013-01-13 22:28:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antonio
Post by Graham
Post by Antonio
Post by Graham
AIUI, the request and consent was made by the Canadian Federal Government - no statute was passed.
Not exactly, no. The request and consent was initially made by Canada (I'm not sure if by the Federal Government as you state or by resolutions of the Houses of Parliament), but afterwards a statute was indeed enacted.
The statute in question was the Sucession to the Throne Act 1937 (1 Geo. VI, c.16). It ratifyed in the Law of Canada, retrospectively and in a declaratory way, the changes to the Succession that had resulted from the British His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act, 1936.
It is true that the British Act, due to the request and consent procedure prescribed by the Statute of Westminster, had effect in Canada by itself, and accordingly George VI had already been proclaimed King in Canada by the Governor General in Council as a result of the British Act, but still, the Canadian Government considered that, due to Canada's status as an independent Nation, a declaratory Act of the Canadian Parliament was necessary to record in the statutes of Canada the changes to the succession that had been accomplished by the British Act. The Succession to the Throne Act 1937 was accordingly passed to confirm in the law of Canada those changes.
The problem is that, after the Canada Act, 1982 and under Canada's Constitution Act, 1982, the request and consent procedure of the Statute of Westminster no longer suffices and indeed no longer applies, as the Canadian Constitution has been patriated and can be changed only by Canada: no Act of the UK Parliament passed after the Canada Act, 1982 has any effect in the law of Canada.
Thus, to amend the Act of Settlement, the Bill of Rights etc, as they now stand as parts of the Law of Canada, and to alter in Canada the customary, common law, male preference primogeniture rule that applies to the succession to the Crown, one surely needs Canadian legislation. And in all probability, that piece of legislation needs to be a Constitutional Amendment, because the mode of provision of the office of Queen is affected. And given that any constitutional changes relating to the office of The Queen require the unanimous consent procedure for adoption, that procedure would in this case be necessary.
Thank you - very interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_Throne_Act_1937
cites
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1936/dec/11/queenmother.monarchy
from Friday 11 December 1936
'The Canadian Cabinet yesterday by Order-in-Council authorised Canada's inclusion in the Act; the Dominion Parliament will ratify it on January 14.'
So: -
1. The Irish Free State did not either request and consent, or assent to, the Statute of Westminster procedure, but passed its own legislation.
2. Canada requested and consented to the Statute of Westminster procedure, but also passed its own legislation
3. South Africa assented to the enactment of the Abdication Act, but also passed its own legislation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Majesty_King_Edward_the_Eighth's_Abdication_Act,_1937 discusses why SA did not request and consent. Slightly strange that they assented like Australia and New Zealand, rather than rushing through separate legislation as the Irish Free State did.
4. Australia and New Zealand assented to the enactment of the Abdication Act (even though neither had yet adopted the Statute of Westminster) and (as far as I know) did not pass their own legislation.
Presumably the Canadian Provinces were not involved in the passing of the 1937 Act. I realise that this was pre-1982 Constitution.
A relevant judgement by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (judgement in Tony O'Donohue vs. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario): http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2003/2003canlii41404/2003canlii41404.pdf
The above ruling states, inter alia, that the Act of Settlement is part of the Law of Canada since colonial times; that sharing a monarch with the United Kingdom is part of the fundamental constitutional structure of Canada; that it is prescribed by the preamble of the Constitution Act 1867 ("This portion of the preamble confirms not only that Canada is a constitutional monarchy, but also that Canada is united under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain"); that the role of the preamble to that Act in filling the gaps of the Constitutional documents is recognized by case law; that section n. 9 of the Constitution Act 1867 also states that the executive power "is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen"; that "The office of the Queen is such a fundamental part of our constitutional structure that amendments to the Constitution in respect of that office require the unanimous consent of the
federal and provincial governments (see s. 41(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982); that "The rules of succession are essential to the proper functioning of the monarchy" and it reaches the conclusion that "unilateral" changes to the rules of succession, by affecting the principle that the monarch is shared with the United Kingdom: "would, for all intents and purposes, bring about a fundamental change in the office of the Queen without securing the authorizations required pursuant to s. 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982."
Thanks for posting the above. Very useful indeed.
Post by Antonio
What about the procedure for not unilateral change? Does it also bring about a fundamental change in the office of Queen, given that the rules of succession are fundamental to the monarchy?
I would imagine so. A change in how a person is "chosen" to fill an "office" would be a fundamental change, would it not?
Antonio
2013-01-15 16:43:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by Antonio
Post by Graham
Post by Antonio
Post by Graham
AIUI, the request and consent was made by the Canadian Federal Government - no statute was passed.
Not exactly, no. The request and consent was initially made by Canada (I'm not sure if by the Federal Government as you state or by resolutions of the Houses of Parliament), but afterwards a statute was indeed enacted.
The statute in question was the Sucession to the Throne Act 1937 (1 Geo. VI, c.16). It ratifyed in the Law of Canada, retrospectively and in a declaratory way, the changes to the Succession that had resulted from the British His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act, 1936.
It is true that the British Act, due to the request and consent procedure prescribed by the Statute of Westminster, had effect in Canada by itself, and accordingly George VI had already been proclaimed King in Canada by the Governor General in Council as a result of the British Act, but still, the Canadian Government considered that, due to Canada's status as an independent Nation, a declaratory Act of the Canadian Parliament was necessary to record in the statutes of Canada the changes to the succession that had been accomplished by the British Act. The Succession to the Throne Act 1937 was accordingly passed to confirm in the law of Canada those changes.
The problem is that, after the Canada Act, 1982 and under Canada's Constitution Act, 1982, the request and consent procedure of the Statute of Westminster no longer suffices and indeed no longer applies, as the Canadian Constitution has been patriated and can be changed only by Canada: no Act of the UK Parliament passed after the Canada Act, 1982 has any effect in the law of Canada.
Thus, to amend the Act of Settlement, the Bill of Rights etc, as they now stand as parts of the Law of Canada, and to alter in Canada the customary, common law, male preference primogeniture rule that applies to the succession to the Crown, one surely needs Canadian legislation. And in all probability, that piece of legislation needs to be a Constitutional Amendment, because the mode of provision of the office of Queen is affected. And given that any constitutional changes relating to the office of The Queen require the unanimous consent procedure for adoption, that procedure would in this case be necessary.
Thank you - very interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_Throne_Act_1937
cites
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1936/dec/11/queenmother.monarchy
from Friday 11 December 1936
'The Canadian Cabinet yesterday by Order-in-Council authorised Canada's inclusion in the Act; the Dominion Parliament will ratify it on January 14.'
So: -
1. The Irish Free State did not either request and consent, or assent to, the Statute of Westminster procedure, but passed its own legislation.
2. Canada requested and consented to the Statute of Westminster procedure, but also passed its own legislation
3. South Africa assented to the enactment of the Abdication Act, but also passed its own legislation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Majesty_King_Edward_the_Eighth's_Abdication_Act,_1937 discusses why SA did not request and consent. Slightly strange that they assented like Australia and New Zealand, rather than rushing through separate legislation as the Irish Free State did.
4. Australia and New Zealand assented to the enactment of the Abdication Act (even though neither had yet adopted the Statute of Westminster) and (as far as I know) did not pass their own legislation.
Presumably the Canadian Provinces were not involved in the passing of the 1937 Act. I realise that this was pre-1982 Constitution.
A relevant judgement by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (judgement in Tony O'Donohue vs. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario): http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2003/2003canlii41404/2003canlii41404.pdf
The above ruling states, inter alia, that the Act of Settlement is part of the Law of Canada since colonial times; that sharing a monarch with the United Kingdom is part of the fundamental constitutional structure of Canada; that it is prescribed by the preamble of the Constitution Act 1867 ("This portion of the preamble confirms not only that Canada is a constitutional monarchy, but also that Canada is united under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain"); that the role of the preamble to that Act in filling the gaps of the Constitutional documents is recognized by case law; that section n. 9 of the Constitution Act 1867 also states that the executive power "is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen"; that "The office of the Queen is such a fundamental part of our constitutional structure that amendments to the Constitution in respect of that office require the unanimous consent of the
federal and provincial governments (see s. 41(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982); that "The rules of succession are essential to the proper functioning of the monarchy" and it reaches the conclusion that "unilateral" changes to the rules of succession, by affecting the principle that the monarch is shared with the United Kingdom: "would, for all intents and purposes, bring about a fundamental change in the office of the Queen without securing the authorizations required pursuant to s. 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982."
Thanks for posting the above. Very useful indeed.
Post by Antonio
What about the procedure for not unilateral change? Does it also bring about a fundamental change in the office of Queen, given that the rules of succession are fundamental to the monarchy?
I would imagine so. A change in how a person is "chosen" to fill an "office" would be a fundamental change, would it not?
I agree. Any change in the rules governing how the office is filled is a fundamental change in the office and, in the case of the office of the Queen, would necessitate the consent of all provinces under s. 41 of the Constitution Act 1982.

The above mentioned ruling also expressly states that "...despite the fact that it was not listed in the Schedule to the Constitution Act, 1982, the Act of Settlement was intended to be a component of our constitutional enactments".

Thus, if it is a constitutional enactment, even an implied one, any change in that enactment requires constitutional amendment. And because such constitutional change affects the office of Queen, section 41 of the Constitution Act 1982 comes into play.
CJ Buyers
2012-12-20 10:59:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antonio
Post by CJ Buyers
Except that in Canadian and New Zealand law the Soverign of those countries is the King or Queen of Great Britian, as has already also been pointed out by Breton above. So if the UK Parliament attempts to legislates a change, by that very act it cannot avoid affecting who the sovereign of those realms is going to be.
That's only due to the "fault" of the Canadian and New Zealand legislators, who, having now full power and authority to change the Laws of the respective Countries, have instead opted to maintain the "external reference", that is, the reference to their Sovereign being whosoever is the Sovereign of the United Kingdom.
Of course, one needs to remember that in both these cases there is a serious side to the supposed "fault" and that the "smoke and mirrors" are there for a good reason. In both instances, the treaties with the first nation peoples are with the British Crown, go back long before the come-by-lately constitutions of both countries, and to many of whom the connection is solemn and sacred sacred.
CJ Buyers
2012-12-21 13:10:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by Antonio
Post by CJ Buyers
Except that in Canadian and New Zealand law the Soverign of those countries is the King or Queen of Great Britian, as has already also been pointed out by Breton above. So if the UK Parliament attempts to legislates a change, by that very act it cannot avoid affecting who the sovereign of those realms is going to be.
That's only due to the "fault" of the Canadian and New Zealand legislators, who, having now full power and authority to change the Laws of the respective Countries, have instead opted to maintain the "external reference", that is, the reference to their Sovereign being whosoever is the Sovereign of the United Kingdom.
Of course, one needs to remember that in both these cases there is a serious side to the supposed "fault" and that the "smoke and mirrors" are there for a good reason. In both instances, the treaties with the first nation peoples are with the British Crown, go back long before the come-by-lately constitutions of both countries, and to many of whom the connection is solemn and sacred sacred.
Not long ago I happened to be looking through rescent posts on the British Monarchy website. As if to underline what I posted here earlier, this remarkable letter addressed to the Queen from the Chiefs of Ontario -

http://www.chiefs-of-ontario.org/sites/default/files/news_files/COO%20Urgent%20Open%20Letter%20to%20Her%20Majesty%20the%20Queen%20-%20Dec%2020%202012.pdf
Donald4564
2012-12-21 21:48:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by Antonio
Post by CJ Buyers
Except that in Canadian and New Zealand law the Soverign of those countries is the King or Queen of Great Britian, as has already also been pointed out by Breton above. So if the UK Parliament attempts to legislates a change, by that very act it cannot avoid affecting who the sovereign of those realms is going to be.
That's only due to the "fault" of the Canadian and New Zealand legislators, who, having now full power and authority to change the Laws of the respective Countries, have instead opted to maintain the "external reference", that is, the reference to their Sovereign being whosoever is the Sovereign of the United Kingdom.
Of course, one needs to remember that in both these cases there is a serious side to the supposed "fault" and that the "smoke and mirrors" are there for a good reason. In both instances, the treaties with the first nation peoples are with the British Crown, go back long before the come-by-lately constitutions of both countries, and to many of whom the connection is solemn and sacred sacred.
Not long ago I happened to be looking through rescent posts on the British Monarchy website. As if to underline what I posted here earlier, this remarkable letter addressed to the Queen from the Chiefs of Ontario -
http://www.chiefs-of-ontario.org/sites/default/files/news_files/COO%20Urgent%20Open%20Letter%20to%20Her%20Majesty%20the%20Queen%20-%20Dec%2020%202012.pdf
I know that Mr. Harper is not very popular in Canada and is likely to lose office at the next election.

What intrigues me in this letter is whether the Treaty of 1763 is still a valid document in its own right or whether it has been subsumed in the Canada Act of 1982.

If the Treaty of 1763 retains it's validity then it could be construed that the "First Nations of Canada" and "Canada" are two sovereign entities albeit under the Crown.

It is all very interesting and no doubt will provide a field day for the legal eagles.

As well it adds argument to what I have been saying all along - that when you start messing around with things, you end up in a quagmire. We could end up with a situation where everything starts unraveling.

Regards
Donald Binks
CJ Buyers
2012-12-21 21:54:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by Antonio
Post by CJ Buyers
Except that in Canadian and New Zealand law the Soverign of those countries is the King or Queen of Great Britian, as has already also been pointed out by Breton above. So if the UK Parliament attempts to legislates a change, by that very act it cannot avoid affecting who the sovereign of those realms is going to be.
That's only due to the "fault" of the Canadian and New Zealand legislators, who, having now full power and authority to change the Laws of the respective Countries, have instead opted to maintain the "external reference", that is, the reference to their Sovereign being whosoever is the Sovereign of the United Kingdom.
Of course, one needs to remember that in both these cases there is a serious side to the supposed "fault" and that the "smoke and mirrors" are there for a good reason. In both instances, the treaties with the first nation peoples are with the British Crown, go back long before the come-by-lately constitutions of both countries, and to many of whom the connection is solemn and sacred sacred.
Not long ago I happened to be looking through rescent posts on the British Monarchy website. As if to underline what I posted here earlier, this remarkable letter addressed to the Queen from the Chiefs of Ontario -
http://www.chiefs-of-ontario.org/sites/default/files/news_files/COO%20Urgent%20Open%20Letter%20to%20Her%20Majesty%20the%20Queen%20-%20Dec%2020%202012.pdf
I know that Mr. Harper is not very popular in Canada and is likely to lose office at the next election.
What intrigues me in this letter is whether the Treaty of 1763 is still a valid document in its own right or whether it has been subsumed in the Canada Act of 1982.
If the Treaty of 1763 retains it's validity then it could be construed that the "First Nations of Canada" and "Canada" are two sovereign entities albeit under the Crown.
I think the answer is great we don't know. I suppose a treaty can only be transferred if both parties agree. I don't know what happens if one party does not. It seems that some of the Canadian first nations do not.
Post by Donald4564
It is all very interesting and no doubt will provide a field day for the legal eagles.
As well it adds argument to what I have been saying all along - that when you start messing around with things, you end up in a quagmire. We could end up with a situation where everything starts unraveling.
Well, things will unravel a whole lot more if people go for the a republican option.
CJ Buyers
2012-12-22 02:30:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by Donald4564
What intrigues me in this letter is whether the Treaty of 1763 is still a valid document in its own right or whether it has been subsumed in the Canada Act of 1982.
If the Treaty of 1763 retains it's validity then it could be construed that the "First Nations of Canada" and "Canada" are two sovereign entities albeit under the Crown.
I think the answer is great we don't know. I suppose a treaty can only be transferred if both parties agree. I don't know what happens if one party does not. It seems that some of the Canadian first nations do not.
Post by Donald4564
It is all very interesting and no doubt will provide a field day for the legal eagles.
I have taken another look, and this is what the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms says. It would appear that the treaties are untouched, as it were -

Section 25. The guarantee in this charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate and derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada, including:
a) any rights or freedoms that have been recogized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763 and,
b) any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement.
Section 35. (1)The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
(2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit and Metis peoples of Canada.

The treaties are with the British Crown, but the 'Crown in right of Canada' has the repsonsibility for implementing/carrying out the obligations arising out of them. So the rights of the British Crown seem to be delegated, not abandoned or transferred.
Donald4564
2012-12-22 05:13:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
I have taken another look, and this is what the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms says. It would appear that the treaties are untouched, as it were -
a) any rights or freedoms that have been recogized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763 and,
b) any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement.
Section 35. (1)The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
(2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit and Metis peoples of Canada.
The treaties are with the British Crown, but the 'Crown in right of Canada' has the repsonsibility for implementing/carrying out the obligations arising out of them. So the rights of the British Crown seem to be delegated, not abandoned or transferred.
That makes sense. If the rights of the Aboriginal peoples were not accounted for at the time of the 1982 Act, we would have been hearing a lot more from that time.

The letter that the Queen has received will therefore be directed to the Governor-General of Canada for attention by the Prime Minister.

Whilst I am feel that respect be given to Aboriginal peoples - and they of course are entitled to certain rights and entreaties by virtue of various agreements; I am not in favour of a situation whereby they try to engender a separate sovereignty in the one nation. That seems to be what is happening to a certain extent in Australia. Far better to aspire to one homogenous nation.

Regards
Donald Binks
CJ Buyers
2012-12-23 04:21:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
Post by CJ Buyers
I have taken another look, and this is what the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms says. It would appear that the treaties are untouched, as it were -
a) any rights or freedoms that have been recogized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763 and,
b) any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement.
Section 35. (1)The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
(2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit and Metis peoples of Canada.
The treaties are with the British Crown, but the 'Crown in right of Canada' has the repsonsibility for implementing/carrying out the obligations arising out of them. So the rights of the British Crown seem to be delegated, not abandoned or transferred.
That makes sense. If the rights of the Aboriginal peoples were not accounted for at the time of the 1982 Act, we would have been hearing a lot more from that time.
The letter that the Queen has received will therefore be directed to the Governor-General of Canada for attention by the Prime Minister.
Whilst I am feel that respect be given to Aboriginal peoples - and they of course are entitled to certain rights and entreaties by virtue of various agreements; I am not in favour of a situation whereby they try to engender a separate sovereignty in the one nation. That seems to be what is happening to a certain extent in Australia. Far better to aspire to one homogenous nation.
Far better for whom?

To be fair Donald, neither you nor I are First Nation peoples and have not the faintest idea what it is like for them or what they feel.

My views upon this subject were changed profoundly about a decade or so ago. The catalyst was listening to a great Maori champion of his people, Sir Tiwi somebody or other. At one point he said that "in any situation, however democratic, the minority will always be discriminated against". In one way or another. It made a deep impression on me and ever since, I have always tried to keep that uppermost in my mind when considering the subject, not only of their plight but the limits of the greatness of "democracy" itself.
Donald4564
2012-12-23 09:39:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
My views upon this subject were changed profoundly about a decade or so ago. The catalyst was listening to a great Maori champion of his people, Sir Tiwi somebody or other. At one point he said that "in any situation, however democratic, the minority will always be discriminated against". In one way or another. It made a deep impression on me and ever since, I have always tried to keep that uppermost in my mind when considering the subject, not only of their plight but the limits of the greatness of "democracy" itself.
Well Christopher, I think that all minorities have to be protected in some way or another. All I am on about is that we should all try and live in the country together - trying to keep it together rather than tearing it apart. The Aborigines in Australia or rather, those of a political persuasion see the arrival of the British as "the invasion". I daresay it was, but, we cannot now turn the clock back - and as I have said to my aboriginal friends, tongue in cheek - I'll go back to Europe if you pay all my expenses.

Same with the Empire. To me all that lived within it were British - not just the white fellahs. We were all part of one big family. Sadly all that is gone now.

Regards
Donald Binks
CJ Buyers
2012-12-23 21:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
Post by CJ Buyers
My views upon this subject were changed profoundly about a decade or so ago. The catalyst was listening to a great Maori champion of his people, Sir Tiwi somebody or other. At one point he said that "in any situation, however democratic, the minority will always be discriminated against". In one way or another. It made a deep impression on me and ever since, I have always tried to keep that uppermost in my mind when considering the subject, not only of their plight but the limits of the greatness of "democracy" itself.
Well Christopher, I think that all minorities have to be protected in some way or another. All I am on about is that we should all try and live in the country together - trying to keep it together rather than tearing it apart. The Aborigines in Australia or rather, those of a political persuasion see the arrival of the British as "the invasion". I daresay it was, but, we cannot now turn the clock back - and as I have said to my aboriginal friends, tongue in cheek - I'll go back to Europe if you pay all my expenses.
Same with the Empire. To me all that lived within it were British - not just the white fellahs. We were all part of one big family. Sadly all that is gone now.
Dear Donald, there is not a word of this with which I do not agree. But what if THEY do not?

The one lucky thing in all of this is that the difficulties in the realms have not come to blows. And, I think the fact that they are still monarchies and that there is a "continueum", so to speak, is part of the reason. Look at the other Commonwealth or Empire countries that have gone the republic route, and it is a vastly different and ghastly story.
Louis Epstein
2012-12-20 03:33:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by CJ Buyers
Looks like section 3 contravenes existing UK legislation, so whatever they
have introduced may not even be valid in UK law, let alone the other realms.
As it reads the UK Parliament is conferring new powers on the British government
over the first six people aged 25 and over in the line of succession to the
thrones of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
No, it isn't. "The Crown" (singular) in the British bill refers to
the only crown for which the British Parliament can legislate, the
British crown. It's up to the parliaments of Canada, Australia, New
Zealand, et al, to make similar provision for the monarchs of their
respective realms to grant such permission to the next six people in
line to their respective thrones.
Except that in Canadian and New Zealand law the Soverign of those
countries is the King or Queen of Great Britian, as has already also
been pointed out by Breton above. So if the UK Parliament attempts to
legislates a change, by that very act it cannot avoid affecting who the
sovereign of those realms is going to be.
There needs to be an explicit Imperial Parliament,
in line with the principle of "shared allegiance to
a common Crown" so sadly betrayed after being enunciated.
No one realm should be able to legislate for that Crown
on common matters.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Stan Brown
2012-12-16 17:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
The parliament buildings on the banks of the Thames in London have
been referred to as the "Imperial Parliament" since Adam was a boy
- can't think why you haven't heard?
Don't be disingenuous. Of course I'm aware that there was a time
when that (unofficial) designation was used. There was also a time
when the city was called Londinium. So what? It's not Londinium
today, and it's not "imperial Parliament" today.
Post by Donald4564
(There is still the Order of
the British Empire without there being an Empire?)
What that has to do with the matter at hand escapes me. If you think
the name should be changed, by all means write to the appropriate
office and suggest that.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Donald4564
2012-12-16 20:36:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Don't be disingenuous. Of course I'm aware that there was a time
when that (unofficial) designation was used. There was also a time
when the city was called Londinium. So what? It's not Londinium
today, and it's not "imperial Parliament" today.
I should be most grateful if you would not lecture me as to what I choose
to call something or other. The term is not "unofficial" as you have erroneously put. It is clearly placed in black and white on legal documents.

London is still called Londinium in Latin - and I suppose the Papal See still uses that term.

In essence I find your arguments spurious.
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Donald4564
(There is still the Order of
the British Empire without there being an Empire?)
What that has to do with the matter at hand escapes me. If you think
the name should be changed, by all means write to the appropriate
office and suggest that.
I am sorry that logic escapes you. You deem to challenge my use of the term "Imperial" on the pretext that an Empire does not exist for the term to be so used. I was merely pointing out the fact that there are many references to things Imperial which are still in existence.

Regards
Donald Binks
Stan Brown
2012-12-17 00:22:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
You deem to challenge my use of the term "Imperial" on the pretext that an Empire does not exist for the term to be so used.
I will thank _you_ not to misrepresent my position.

I challenged your use of "imperial Parliament" because there is no
such body, just as there is no Queen of England. If you don't
understand that, then we really have nothing to say to one another.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Donald4564
2012-12-17 01:03:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
I will thank _you_ not to misrepresent my position.
I challenged your use of "imperial Parliament" because there is no
such body, just as there is no Queen of England. If you don't
understand that, then we really have nothing to say to one another.
You have your view. I have mine. I don't wish to argue with you, however please
note I will use the English language and terminology as I see fit.

Regards
Donald Binks
Stan Brown
2012-12-17 23:53:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
You have your view. I have mine. I don't wish to argue with you, however please
note I will use the English language and terminology as I see fit.
"'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice
objected.

"'When _I_ use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful
tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor
less.'"
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Donald4564
2012-12-18 09:00:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
"'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice
objected.
"'When _I_ use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful
tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor
less.'"
You have to admire Humpty Dumpty!

Regards
Donald Binks
CJ Buyers
2012-12-17 05:53:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Donald4564
You deem to challenge my use of the term "Imperial" on the pretext that an Empire does not exist for the term to be so used.
I will thank _you_ not to misrepresent my position.
I challenged your use of "imperial Parliament" because there is no
such body, just as there is no Queen of England. If you don't
understand that, then we really have nothing to say to one another.
I really don't understand what the fuss is about. The term Imperial is quite commonly used in the Commonwealth as a term to distinguish between purely domestic legislation and domestic bodies in Canada, Australia, etc, from UK legislation and organs of state which have application domestically. To whit I offer a very recent example from one of the realms in which the term Imperial is used four times - the Legislation Bill introduced in the New Zealand Parliament in June 2010 - http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/0E2C3C9C-2DDD-4027-9C95-A5CD8834A36A/154105/1788Legislation7.pdf

One can no more stop them using the word in repect of UK organs of the state than one can stop them from including references to Imperial weights and measures in their legislation from time to time.

Of course, quite apart from any of this we have the wellknown "Statute in Restraint of Appeals" (24 Henry VIII. c. 12) which pre-date any colonial adventures and pronounce as follows:

"Where by divers sundry old authentic histories and chronicles, it is manifestly declared and expressed that this realm of England is an Empire, and so hath been accepted in the world, governed by one Supreme Head and King having the dignity and royal estate of the imperial Crown of the same, unto whom a body politic compact of all sorts and degrees of people divided in terms and by names of Spirituality and Temporalty ..."

Or, indeed his Third Act of Succession from 1543:

"An act concerning the establishment of the king's majesty's succession in the imperial crown of the realm.... "

So I suppose one would respectfully like to ask that you provide a legislative reference as to when the UK ceased being an empire.
m***@gmail.com
2012-12-20 01:26:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
The parliament buildings on the banks of the Thames in London have been
referred to as the "Imperial Parliament" since Adam was a boy - can't think >why >you haven't heard?
The legislative body housed in those buildings on the banks of the Thames relinquished its power to legislate for the other realms of the empire back when Elizabeth II was still in the nursery. It ceased to be the imperial parliament at that point. Can't think why you haven't heard.

Joseph McMillan
Louis Epstein
2012-12-20 03:36:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Donald4564
The parliament buildings on the banks of the Thames in London have been
referred to as the "Imperial Parliament" since Adam was a boy - can't think >why >you haven't heard?
The legislative body housed in those buildings on the banks of the
Thames relinquished its power to legislate for the other realms of the
empire back when Elizabeth II was still in the nursery.
An Act that should be repealed,or an Imperial Parliament proper created
(at the Queen's inalienable option).
Post by m***@gmail.com
It ceased to be the imperial parliament at that point.
Creating a need for one.
Post by m***@gmail.com
Can't think why you haven't heard.
Joseph McMillan
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Donald4564
2012-12-20 12:33:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Donald4564
The parliament buildings on the banks of the Thames in London have been
referred to as the "Imperial Parliament" since Adam was a boy - can't think >why >you haven't heard?
The legislative body housed in those buildings on the banks of the Thames relinquished its power to legislate for the other realms of the empire back when Elizabeth II was still in the nursery. It ceased to be the imperial parliament at that point. Can't think why you haven't heard.
Joseph McMillan
It seems that in Her Majesty's reign of only 60 years out of the over 1,000 years of the monarchy's existence, more has gone on to "fiddle" with the institutions of that monarchy than at any other time.

If the Imperial parliament was still exactly that, we would not be facing the absolute quagmire of trying to sort out the rules in changing the accession throughout a myriad of separate parliaments.

It makes sense (something rather lacking in today's world) for one body to be empowered to legislate on such matters as the Succession. I doubt that such really interferes with Independence.

If I still continue to refer to the Palace of Westminster as the Imperial parliament it may perhaps bring a degree of an awareness of the mess that has been created.

I often wonder who dreams up all these changes and whether they ever foresaw the repercussions of their work?

Regards
Donald Binks
CJ Buyers
2012-12-20 22:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Donald4564
The parliament buildings on the banks of the Thames in London have been
referred to as the "Imperial Parliament" since Adam was a boy - can't think >why >you haven't heard?
The legislative body housed in those buildings on the banks of the Thames relinquished its power to legislate for the other realms of the empire back when Elizabeth II was still in the nursery. It ceased to be the imperial parliament at that point. Can't think why you haven't heard.
Joseph McMillan
It seems that in Her Majesty's reign of only 60 years out of the over 1,000 years of the monarchy's existence, more has gone on to "fiddle" with the institutions of that monarchy than at any other time.
If the Imperial parliament was still exactly that, we would not be facing the absolute quagmire of trying to sort out the rules in changing the accession throughout a myriad of separate parliaments.
It makes sense (something rather lacking in today's world) for one body to be empowered to legislate on such matters as the Succession. I doubt that such really interferes with Independence.
If I still continue to refer to the Palace of Westminster as the Imperial parliament it may perhaps bring a degree of an awareness of the mess that has been created.
I often wonder who dreams up all these changes and whether they ever foresaw the repercussions of their work?
Well, their is a collective, rather disreputable term for such folk - politician.

I wonder if there would be so much meddling if they were still as powerful as they once were. There has been a steady erosion of power and influence over virtually everything else, the economy, currency control, border control, public companies and the utilities, the environment, foreign affairs, defence, and so on. Everything has been sold off or privatised, handed to independent authorities, or enmeshed in international or regional treaties and agreements. They have been left with this one area (constitution) where they have the power to change things, so that is what they do.
CJ Buyers
2012-12-15 23:10:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Donald4564
Is a similar Bill in the process of being enacted in any other
parliaments of the Realms - or is it to be passed in the Imperial
parliament with the rest of the Realms expected to catch up -
eventually?
I would have thought a simultaneous situation was the more likely?
There is no "imperial parliament". The UK is not legally in a
different position from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.
Alas their laws disagree with you. The existing legislation of those very countries define the UK parliament and UK laws when they apply to them as the "Imperial Parliament", "Imperial Statutes", etc.
Graham
2012-12-16 13:58:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Snip
It _used_ to be rule that any change in the succession had to be
agreed to by all of HM realms or it would not be effective in any.
But in discussions in this group, if I remember correctly, I learned
that that is no longer the case and e.g. Canada is free to change the
Canadian succession even if no other country follows suit. That's
not to say that anyone thinks it advisable, but it would be legally
possible.
I think that the provision about all the realms approving was (and is) in the preamble, which is not legally binding - see

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/22-23/4/introduction
'And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that... it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom'

The provision about Royal Style and Titles is now covered by the Royal Titles Act 1953.
Post by Stan Brown
Someone here suggested that the Bill itself ought to include language
that it takes effect only when passed in all HM realms. But if there
is any such language I missed it.
See paragraph 10 of the Explanatoy Notes - 'It was agreed that the United Kingdom would be the first to draft legislation, but that this ... would not be commenced until the appropriate domestic arrangements were in place in the other Commonwealth Realms'. Also paragraph 18 'this legislation... will not be commenced until the other Commonwealth Realms have put in place the changes which are necessary for them to implement the Perth Agreement.
Breton
2012-12-19 22:37:18 UTC
Permalink
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 10:16:11 AM UTC-5, Stan Brown wrote:

Although there is discussion in Ottawa about needing a bill, there is no rush since the new royal baby will be next in line after William regardless of gender. However, I seem to recall that in Canadian constitutional law the Sovereign is defined as the Sovereign of the UK; thus it seems to me that if no legislation were enacted in Canada it would not be a problem, but I guess that they don't want to have someone questioning the status of the Sovereign of Canada some time down the road.

Breton
m***@gmail.com
2012-12-20 01:22:44 UTC
Permalink
Someone here suggested that the Bill itself ought to include language that it
takes effect only when passed in all HM realms. But if there is any such
language I missed it.
Section 5(2) provides that the substantive provisions of the act will "come into force on such day and at such time as the Lord President of the Council may by order made by statutory instrument appoint." Presumably the Lord President will wait until the other realms are in line before issuing the statutory instrument.

Joseph McMillan
Antonio
2012-12-20 01:50:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Someone here suggested that the Bill itself ought to include language that it
takes effect only when passed in all HM realms. But if there is any such
language I missed it.
Section 5(2) provides that the substantive provisions of the act will "come into force on such day and at such time as the Lord President of the Council may by order made by statutory instrument appoint." Presumably the Lord President will wait until the other realms are in line before issuing the statutory instrument.
Yes, but is it not strange that such an important statutory instrument will be a mere ministerial Order signed by the Lord President of the Council.

Why not have the statutory instrument by an Order of Her Majesty in Council?

I'm under the impression that, until the recent past, the more relevant pieces of secondary legislation, touching upon constitutional matters or upon matters that would not fall within the scope of one single department, were issued as Orders in Council, and that nowadays Orders in Council are being abandoned in favour of Orders by the Lord President, etc.
Post by m***@gmail.com
Joseph McMillan
CJ Buyers
2012-12-20 02:03:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antonio
Post by m***@gmail.com
Someone here suggested that the Bill itself ought to include language that it
takes effect only when passed in all HM realms. But if there is any such
language I missed it.
Section 5(2) provides that the substantive provisions of the act will "come into force on such day and at such time as the Lord President of the Council may by order made by statutory instrument appoint." Presumably the Lord President will wait until the other realms are in line before issuing the statutory instrument.
Yes, but is it not strange that such an important statutory instrument will be a mere ministerial Order signed by the Lord President of the Council.
Why not have the statutory instrument by an Order of Her Majesty in Council?
I'm under the impression that, until the recent past, the more relevant pieces of secondary legislation, touching upon constitutional matters or upon matters that would not fall within the scope of one single department, were issued as Orders in Council, and that nowadays Orders in Council are being abandoned in favour of Orders by the Lord President, etc.
True enough.

The history of the office is quite interesting. From time to time when there were meetings of the Privy Council in one of the other realms, the local PM has served as acting Lord President of the Privy Council. None being British serving Ministers of course (e.g. in Australia, in New Zealand and Ceylon in 1953-1954). I gather that there was also a special PC presided over by the then Prince of Wales (Edward VII) in New Zealand. So presumably we could have the co-ordinator of the Commonwealth change of succession process, the PM of New Zealand, as acting LPC for the actual completion of the order?
Antonio
2012-12-20 02:41:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by Antonio
Post by m***@gmail.com
Someone here suggested that the Bill itself ought to include language that it
takes effect only when passed in all HM realms. But if there is any such
language I missed it.
Section 5(2) provides that the substantive provisions of the act will "come into force on such day and at such time as the Lord President of the Council may by order made by statutory instrument appoint." Presumably the Lord President will wait until the other realms are in line before issuing the statutory instrument.
Yes, but is it not strange that such an important statutory instrument will be a mere ministerial Order signed by the Lord President of the Council.
Why not have the statutory instrument by an Order of Her Majesty in Council?
I'm under the impression that, until the recent past, the more relevant pieces of secondary legislation, touching upon constitutional matters or upon matters that would not fall within the scope of one single department, were issued as Orders in Council, and that nowadays Orders in Council are being abandoned in favour of Orders by the Lord President, etc.
True enough.
The history of the office is quite interesting. From time to time when there were meetings of the Privy Council in one of the other realms, the local PM has served as acting Lord President of the Privy Council. None being British serving Ministers of course (e.g. in Australia, in New Zealand and Ceylon in 1953-1954). I gather that there was also a special PC presided over by the then Prince of Wales (Edward VII) in New Zealand. So presumably we could have the co-ordinator of the Commonwealth change of succession process, the PM of New Zealand, as acting LPC for the actual completion of the order?
My understanding is that there will be different commencement orders for the different Realms, but the several orders will be coordinated so that they will indicate the same moment in time for the commencement of all the different national statutes.

The explanatory notes to the Bill even mention that the said moment may be expressed as a different hour in each Realm so as to reflect timing of the moment in the different timezones, but the moment is intended to be the same.

However, commencement will be acheived by separate orders (or other instrument) made in the several Realms indicating this same moment as the commencement moment.
Tim Roll-Pickering
2012-12-16 15:04:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
In determining the succession to the Crown, the gender of a person
born after 28 October 2011 does not give that person, or that
person?s descendants, precedence over any other person (whenever
born)."
In other words, males born >= 2011-10-28 no longer have precedence
over females in the same degree who were born earlier.
I ought to know the significance of that date. Which male was born
_before_ 2011-10-28 whose place in the succession is thus being
preserved?
Edward VII and his descendents? And presumably any earlier Hannoverian king
or intermediate prince who too precedence over their elder sister(s).

It's also possible there are other laws and bequests than hinge on the
previous succession rules and it may be deemed easier to amend it purely for
the not-yet born. Certainly this has been given as a reason for not amending
existing peerages.

(Now for a real test - will Harry's peerage come with gender neutral
succession?)
--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c
Graham
2012-12-16 15:28:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
(Now for a real test - will Harry's peerage come with gender neutral
succession?)
Can it? See Gadd's Peerage Law, 1985, P 44 - 'The power of the Crown to decide how a dignity shall evolve (sic) is not absolute.' On P 45 the author lists a number of possible limitations, none of which include 'gender-blind succession'. Has any author or academic expressed a view on the subject? In June of this year Loopy suggested that 'The Letters Patent can specify whatever system of succession the Crown desires'
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/alt.talk.royalty/89yiqmH6smQ
But Loopy is loopy.
Stan Brown
2012-12-16 17:47:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
Post by Stan Brown
In determining the succession to the Crown, the gender of a person
born after 28 October 2011 does not give that person, or that
person?s descendants, precedence over any other person (whenever
born)."
In other words, males born >= 2011-10-28 no longer have precedence
over females in the same degree who were born earlier.
I ought to know the significance of that date. Which male was born
_before_ 2011-10-28 whose place in the succession is thus being
preserved?
Edward VII and his descendents? And presumably any earlier Hannoverian king
or intermediate prince who too precedence over their elder sister(s).
The date in the bill is about a hundred years after Edward VII's
death, so it's hard to see how it could protect him. And it's more
than a year in the past, so it's hardly being restricted to the
unborn. If they wanted to have it affect only the unborn, they would
say something like "after the date of coming into force of this Act".

This is what puzzles me -- what's the significance of the date that
they picked? I find it hard to believe that the Bill was drafted
with a specific date and then put on the shelf for thirteen and a
half months. There must be some specific significance to that
specific date.
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
(Now for a real test - will Harry's peerage come with gender neutral
succession?)
That's an interesting question.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Graham
2012-12-16 18:06:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
Post by Stan Brown
In determining the succession to the Crown, the gender of a person
born after 28 October 2011 does not give that person, or that
person?s descendants, precedence over any other person (whenever
born)."
In other words, males born >= 2011-10-28 no longer have precedence
over females in the same degree who were born earlier.
I ought to know the significance of that date. Which male was born
_before_ 2011-10-28 whose place in the succession is thus being
preserved?
Edward VII and his descendents? And presumably any earlier Hannoverian king
or intermediate prince who too precedence over their elder sister(s).
The date in the bill is about a hundred years after Edward VII's
death, so it's hard to see how it could protect him. And it's more
than a year in the past, so it's hardly being restricted to the
unborn. If they wanted to have it affect only the unborn, they would
say something like "after the date of coming into force of this Act".
This is what puzzles me -- what's the significance of the date that
they picked? I find it hard to believe that the Bill was drafted
with a specific date and then put on the shelf for thirteen and a
half months. There must be some specific significance to that
specific date.
See CJB's post upthread 'That is the date of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers Conference in Perth, Western Australia, when they agreed to change the rules of succession.'
Stan Brown
2012-12-17 00:15:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham
I ought to know the significance of that date. Which male was
born _before_ 2011-10-28 whose place in the succession is
thus being preserved?
See CJB's post upthread 'That is the date of the Commonwealth Prime
Ministers Conference in Perth, Western Australia, when they agreed
to change the rules of succession.'
Thanks. Now I understand.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Tim Roll-Pickering
2012-12-16 19:40:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
Post by Stan Brown
In determining the succession to the Crown, the gender of a person
born after 28 October 2011 does not give that person, or that
person?s descendants, precedence over any other person (whenever
born)."
In other words, males born >= 2011-10-28 no longer have precedence
over females in the same degree who were born earlier.
I ought to know the significance of that date. Which male was born
_before_ 2011-10-28 whose place in the succession is thus being
preserved?
Edward VII and his descendents? And presumably any earlier Hannoverian king
or intermediate prince who too precedence over their elder sister(s).
The date in the bill is about a hundred years after Edward VII's
death, so it's hard to see how it could protect him.
Not Edward VII personally but his heirs and successors. If not worded
properly the succession could be transfered to the gender neutral heir of
Sophia which would mean a big shift to a distant cousin.
Post by Stan Brown
And it's more
than a year in the past, so it's hardly being restricted to the
unborn. If they wanted to have it affect only the unborn, they would
say something like "after the date of coming into force of this Act".
I think it's the date of the agreement itself and they wanted it in place
immediately in case pregnancy overtook legislation.
--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c
Donald4564
2012-12-16 20:37:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
--
I think it's the date of the agreement itself and they wanted it in place
immediately in case pregnancy overtook legislation.
I think it's a case that it just about has.

Regards
Donald Binks
Louis Epstein
2012-12-18 08:57:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
I think it's the date of the agreement itself and they wanted it in place
immediately in case pregnancy overtook legislation.
I think it's a case that it just about has.
With luck,the birth of a boy,
or of only girls,will render the
legislation an irrelevance.
Post by Donald4564
Regards
Donald Binks
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Donald4564
2012-12-16 20:41:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
(Now for a real test - will Harry's peerage come with gender neutral
succession?)
That's an interesting question.
Indeed it is. If the Succession Law is passed, surely the next step would be to make it so that Peerages follow suit with gender blind inheritance.

I suppose that it can be done - but I wonder how the mechanics of it would work?
Which actual surname takes precedence?

Regards
Donald Binks
Tim Roll-Pickering
2012-12-16 23:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
(Now for a real test - will Harry's peerage come with gender neutral
succession?)
That's an interesting question.
Indeed it is. If the Succession Law is passed, surely the next step would
be to make it so that Peerages follow suit with gender blind inheritance.
I suppose that it can be done - but I wonder how the mechanics of it would work?
It would be *much* more complicated because I thin every individual peerage
whould have to be assessed anew and reassigned. And whilst entails are
generally out these days there may still be property that has been left to
the presumed heir to the title. Some heirs may have made longterm plans and
might bring court challenges to effectively retroactive changes that cut
them out and may leave them out of pocket.

Granting a new peerage with gender neutral remainder is a different affair.
Post by Donald4564
Which actual surname takes precedence?
The Windsors/Mountbatten Windsors tend to be exceptions to the rules.
Normally in multi-barelled surnames the male line name comes last and is
used when other bits get dropped.
--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c
Donald4564
2012-12-17 01:10:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
Post by Donald4564
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
(Now for a real test - will Harry's peerage come with gender neutral
succession?)
That's an interesting question.
Indeed it is. If the Succession Law is passed, surely the next step would
be to make it so that Peerages follow suit with gender blind inheritance.
I suppose that it can be done - but I wonder how the mechanics of it would
work?
It would be *much* more complicated because I thin every individual peerage
whould have to be assessed anew and reassigned. And whilst entails are
generally out these days there may still be property that has been left to
the presumed heir to the title. Some heirs may have made longterm plans and
might bring court challenges to effectively retroactive changes that cut
them out and may leave them out of pocket.
Granting a new peerage with gender neutral remainder is a different affair.
Post by Donald4564
Which actual surname takes precedence?
The Windsors/Mountbatten Windsors tend to be exceptions to the rules.
Normally in multi-barelled surnames the male line name comes last and is
used when other bits get dropped.
--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c
Well, if you are going to tamper with the basis of the succession to the Throne due to perceived "political correctness" and what is deemed "appropriate in a modern world"; then I think it would be naive not to think that the requirements of the "current thinkers" would not end up with a need for a change of rules in succession to titles by the aristocracy.

Maybe it could be simplified so that the actual title could be separated from the rest of the estate? This to me seems the only logical procedure to be followed in an illogical situation.

Food for thought no doubt.

Regards
Donald Binks
Graham
2012-12-18 22:05:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
Post by Donald4564
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
(Now for a real test - will Harry's peerage come with gender neutral
succession?)
That's an interesting question.
Indeed it is. If the Succession Law is passed, surely the next step would
be to make it so that Peerages follow suit with gender blind inheritance.
I suppose that it can be done - but I wonder how the mechanics of it would work?
It would be *much* more complicated because I thin every individual peerage
whould have to be assessed anew and reassigned. And whilst entails are
generally out these days there may still be property that has been left to
the presumed heir to the title. Some heirs may have made longterm plans and
might bring court challenges to effectively retroactive changes that cut
them out and may leave them out of pocket.
Granting a new peerage with gender neutral remainder is a different affair.
If they did decide to do it, I suspect that, when changing most peerages from male-only succession to allowing female succession, they would follow the precedent of the Succession to the Crown Bill and provide that 'the gender of a person born after [the date on which the Act came into force] does not give that person, or that person’s descendants, precedence over any other person (whenever born).' in succession to a peerage. That would avoid existing heir-apparent sons being unexpectedly displaced by their elder sisters, although (in the case of Downton Abbey) it would still mean heir-presumptive Matthew being displaced by his distant cousin (and wife) Mary, when she became in line to be Countess of Grantham in her own right.

IOW female succession would be allowed immediately, so as to displace uncles and cousins, or prevent the extinction of a peerage like the Whitelaw viscounty, but only boys born after the Act came into force would be displaced by elder sisters. The interim result would be that a peer could be succeeded by his elder sister (I assume that there have been cases of this in baronies by writ?)

It would not make sense to allow only women born after the Act to succeed, as that could mean a younger sister inheriting ahead of an elder sister.
Tim Roll-Pickering
2012-12-18 22:42:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham
It would be *much* more complicated because I think every individual
peerage
whould have to be assessed anew and reassigned. And whilst entails are
generally out these days there may still be property that has been left to
the presumed heir to the title. Some heirs may have made longterm plans and
might bring court challenges to effectively retroactive changes that cut
them out and may leave them out of pocket.
Granting a new peerage with gender neutral remainder is a different affair.
If they did decide to do it, I suspect that, when changing most peerages
from
male-only succession to allowing female succession, they would follow the
precedent of the Succession to the Crown Bill and provide that 'the gender
of a person born after [the date on which the Act came into force] does
not
give that person, or that person’s descendants, precedence over any other
person (whenever born).' in succession to a peerage. That would avoid
existing heir-apparent sons being unexpectedly displaced by their elder
sisters,
although (in the case of Downton Abbey) it would still mean
heir-presumptive
Matthew being displaced by his distant cousin (and wife) Mary, when she
became in line to be Countess of Grantham in her own right.
Although that's precisely the sort of situation that could lead to a court
challenge - maybe not a fourth cousin but a first or second cousin who has
basically become the son the previous title holder never had, albeit without
marrying into the immediate family, would potentially have grounds if
Parliament basically disinherits them against years of expectations and
planning. There's also the factor that the female line descendents of
earlier holders of the title may seek the titles as well and then there are
extinct titles (given your example, Julian Fellowes's wife would, but for
her gender, have inherited the Kitchener Earldom which instead became
extinct on the death of her uncle last year). It's different with the throne
because succession by and through females has been standard for centuries,
but with most peerage titles this would add a lot of extra people and
branches to the inheritance and furthermore you don't have to go back over a
century to find the last time the new rules would have made a difference.
Post by Graham
IOW female succession would be allowed immediately, so as to displace
uncles
and cousins, or prevent the extinction of a peerage like the Whitelaw
viscounty,
Which opens another can of worms as he only got a hereditary peerage
precisely because it would become extinct upon his death though without an
automatic seat in the Lords that means less now.
Post by Graham
but only boys born after the Act came into force would be displaced by
elder
sisters. The interim result would be that a peer could be succeeded by his
elder
sister (I assume that there have been cases of this in baronies by writ?)
I know there have been some elder brothers but I can't think of a sister.
More normally when trying to preserve the title for a childless man it's
been a daughter (or less often the son-in-law) or brothers.
Post by Graham
It would not make sense to allow only women born after the Act to succeed,
as
that could mean a younger sister inheriting ahead of an elder sister.
I think it's precisely that detail that makes the whole thing much harder to
work out. At the moment with Charles having produced two sons now in early
adulthood there seems little prospect of the throne going to any of the
Queen's younger children and even then it's hard to think of a branch with a
sister then a brother and a mother still of child bearing age who could
produce a younger sister - the Philipses have two daughters whilst Sophie
Wessex is probably just too old now - without venturing so far down the line
it becomes utterly unlikely. Bring in the whole peerage and you get all
manner of anomalies however you try to cut it.
--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c
Graham
2012-12-19 20:36:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
Although that's precisely the sort of situation that could lead to a court
challenge - maybe not a fourth cousin but a first or second cousin who has
basically become the son the previous title holder never had, albeit without
marrying into the immediate family, would potentially have grounds if
Parliament basically disinherits them against years of expectations and
planning. There's also the factor that the female line descendents of
earlier holders of the title may seek the titles as well and then there are
extinct titles (given your example, Julian Fellowes's wife would, but for
her gender, have inherited the Kitchener Earldom which instead became
extinct on the death of her uncle last year). It's different with the throne
because succession by and through females has been standard for centuries,
but with most peerage titles this would add a lot of extra people and
branches to the inheritance and furthermore you don't have to go back over a
century to find the last time the new rules would have made a difference.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmpolcon/1615/161504.htm
'since 2006, succession within the Spanish nobility has become gender-blind.'
How did the Spanish organise it?
CJ Buyers
2012-12-19 22:18:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
Although that's precisely the sort of situation that could lead to a court
challenge - maybe not a fourth cousin but a first or second cousin who has
basically become the son the previous title holder never had, albeit without
marrying into the immediate family, would potentially have grounds if
Parliament basically disinherits them against years of expectations and
planning.
I have heard suggestions put about elsewhere on this thread about these expectations and planning, but would appreciate some explanation about what this is supposed to mean.

I believe that there have been numerous court cases over the years which dismiss the "expectation" argument when, for example, they have considered cases involving the incurring of debts and obligations in the expectation of inheriting titles, entailed estates, social position and status, and so on. So the question here is, "potentially have grounds" for what precisely?
Louis Epstein
2012-12-20 04:00:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
Post by Graham
It would be *much* more complicated because I think every individual
peerage
whould have to be assessed anew and reassigned. And whilst entails are
generally out these days there may still be property that has been left to
the presumed heir to the title. Some heirs may have made longterm plans and
might bring court challenges to effectively retroactive changes that cut
them out and may leave them out of pocket.
Granting a new peerage with gender neutral remainder is a different affair.
If they did decide to do it, I suspect that, when changing most peerages
from male-only succession to allowing female succession, they would
follow the precedent of the Succession to the Crown Bill and provide
that 'the gender of a person born after [the date on which the Act
came into force] does not give that person, or that person?s
descendants, precedence over any other person (whenever born).' in
succession to a peerage. That would avoid existing heir-apparent
sons being unexpectedly displaced by their elder sisters, although
(in the case of Downton Abbey) it would still mean heir-presumptive
Matthew being displaced by his distant cousin (and wife) Mary, when she
became in line to be Countess of Grantham in her own right.
Although that's precisely the sort of situation that could lead to a court
challenge - maybe not a fourth cousin but a first or second cousin who has
basically become the son the previous title holder never had, albeit without
marrying into the immediate family, would potentially have grounds if
Parliament basically disinherits them against years of expectations and
planning. There's also the factor that the female line descendents of
earlier holders of the title may seek the titles as well and then there are
extinct titles (given your example, Julian Fellowes's wife would, but for
her gender, have inherited the Kitchener Earldom which instead became
extinct on the death of her uncle last year). It's different with the throne
because succession by and through females has been standard for centuries,
but with most peerage titles this would add a lot of extra people and
branches to the inheritance and furthermore you don't have to go back over
a century to find the last time the new rules would have made a difference.
Post by Graham
IOW female succession would be allowed immediately, so as to displace
uncles and cousins, or prevent the extinction of a peerage like the
Whitelaw viscounty,
Which opens another can of worms as he only got a hereditary peerage
precisely because it would become extinct upon his death though without an
automatic seat in the Lords that means less now.
I don't think it was as you state,given that the next year
a hereditary peerage was conferred on a man who DID have male
heirs.In any event,heirs-of-line of Viscount Whitelaw will
be peers...the elder son of his eldest daughter is heir apparent
to an Earldom and has sons.
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
Post by Graham
but only boys born after the Act came into force would be displaced
by elder sisters. The interim result would be that a peer could be
succeeded by his elder sister (I assume that there have been cases of
this in baronies by writ?)
I know there have been some elder brothers but I can't think of a sister.
More normally when trying to preserve the title for a childless man it's
been a daughter (or less often the son-in-law) or brothers.
The 13th Baron Dudley (1910-72) was succeeded by his sister (1907-2002).
(We are talking baronies by writ,not special remainders).
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
Post by Graham
It would not make sense to allow only women born after the Act to
succeed, as that could mean a younger sister inheriting ahead of an
elder sister.
I think it's precisely that detail that makes the whole thing much harder to
work out. At the moment with Charles having produced two sons now in early
adulthood there seems little prospect of the throne going to any of the
Queen's younger children and even then it's hard to think of a branch with
a sister then a brother and a mother still of child bearing age who could
produce a younger sister - the Philipses have two daughters whilst Sophie
Wessex is probably just too old now - without venturing so far down the line
it becomes utterly unlikely. Bring in the whole peerage and you get all
manner of anomalies however you try to cut it.
Changing the rules is never fair if having the new rules
would ever have made a difference.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Tim Roll-Pickering
2012-12-20 14:32:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
Post by Graham
IOW female succession would be allowed immediately, so as to displace
uncles and cousins, or prevent the extinction of a peerage like the
Whitelaw viscounty,
Which opens another can of worms as he only got a hereditary peerage
precisely because it would become extinct upon his death though without an
automatic seat in the Lords that means less now.
I don't think it was as you state,given that the next year
a hereditary peerage was conferred on a man who DID have male
heirs.In any event,heirs-of-line of Viscount Whitelaw will
be peers...the elder son of his eldest daughter is heir apparent
to an Earldom and has sons.
Macmillan's Earldom was something he could have had twenty years earlier but
IIRC he didn't want to put his son in the position of having to choose
between the title and continuing his Commons career. I think this delay was
part of the reason it was accepted since he would probably have had it
anyway. The Whitelaw and Tonypandy peerages were certainly seen at the time
as testing the water for bringing back hereditaries precisely by creating
ones that would die with the first holder. However they didn't lead to a
more general recreation of hereditary titles though Thatcher was able to
secure a baronetcy for her husband and then son.
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
I know there have been some elder brothers but I can't think of a sister.
More normally when trying to preserve the title for a childless man it's
been a daughter (or less often the son-in-law) or brothers.
The 13th Baron Dudley (1910-72) was succeeded by his sister (1907-2002).
(We are talking baronies by writ,not special remainders).
Ah, got confused for a bit.
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
Post by Graham
It would not make sense to allow only women born after the Act to
succeed, as that could mean a younger sister inheriting ahead of an
elder sister.
I think it's precisely that detail that makes the whole thing much harder to
work out. At the moment with Charles having produced two sons now in early
adulthood there seems little prospect of the throne going to any of the
Queen's younger children and even then it's hard to think of a branch with
a sister then a brother and a mother still of child bearing age who could
produce a younger sister - the Philipses have two daughters whilst Sophie
Wessex is probably just too old now - without venturing so far down the line
it becomes utterly unlikely. Bring in the whole peerage and you get all
manner of anomalies however you try to cut it.
Changing the rules is never fair if having the new rules
would ever have made a difference.
That's true but it helps if it doesn't make an immediate difference so it
doesn't turn the situation into a discussion of the merits of one potential
heir over another. If Anne had been born before Charles then whilst this
change would probably have happened by now (or not - was there much
discussion of the issue between Charles & Diana's wedding and William's
birth?) it would most likely have been in the very different circumstances
of having two alternative adult heirs to consider, with all ther merits and
demerits.
--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c
Graham
2012-12-20 20:09:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
If Anne had been born before Charles then whilst this
change would probably have happened by now (or not - was there much
discussion of the issue between Charles & Diana's wedding and William's
birth?) it would most likely have been in the very different circumstances
of having two alternative adult heirs to consider, with all ther merits and
demerits.
Wasn't there a Private Member's Bill introduced prior to William's birth which would have provided for gender-blind succession?
Graham
2012-12-20 21:16:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham
Wasn't there a Private Member's Bill introduced prior to William's birth which would have provided for gender-blind succession?
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/bills/succession-to-the-crown-bill
(Prince William was born on 21st June 1982)
Louis Epstein
2012-12-21 18:55:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
If Anne had been born before Charles then whilst this
change would probably have happened by now (or not - was there much
discussion of the issue between Charles & Diana's wedding and William's
birth?) it would most likely have been in the very different circumstances
of having two alternative adult heirs to consider, with all ther merits and
demerits.
Wasn't there a Private Member's Bill introduced prior to William's
birth which would have provided for gender-blind succession?
Yes,by a Michael English.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Louis Epstein
2012-12-20 03:41:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
Post by Donald4564
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
(Now for a real test - will Harry's peerage come with gender neutral
succession?)
That's an interesting question.
Indeed it is. If the Succession Law is passed, surely the next step would
be to make it so that Peerages follow suit with gender blind inheritance.
I suppose that it can be done - but I wonder how the mechanics of it would work?
It would be *much* more complicated because I thin every individual peerage
whould have to be assessed anew and reassigned. And whilst entails are
generally out these days there may still be property that has been left to
the presumed heir to the title. Some heirs may have made longterm plans and
might bring court challenges to effectively retroactive changes that cut
them out and may leave them out of pocket.
Granting a new peerage with gender neutral remainder is a different affair.
If they did decide to do it, I suspect that, when changing most
peerages from male-only succession to allowing female succession, they
would follow the precedent of the Succession to the Crown Bill and
provide that 'the gender of a person born after [the date on which the
Act came into force] does not give that person, or that person?s
descendants, precedence over any other person (whenever born).' in
succession to a peerage. That would avoid existing heir-apparent sons
being unexpectedly displaced by their elder sisters, although (in the
case of Downton Abbey) it would still mean heir-presumptive Matthew
being displaced by his distant cousin (and wife) Mary, when she became
in line to be Countess of Grantham in her own right.
IOW female succession would be allowed immediately, so as to displace
uncles and cousins, or prevent the extinction of a peerage like the
Whitelaw viscounty, but only boys born after the Act came into force
would be displaced by elder sisters. The interim result would be that a
peer could be succeeded by his elder sister (I assume that there have
been cases of this in baronies by writ?)
Indeed there have.
Post by Graham
It would not make sense to allow only women born after the Act to
succeed, as that could mean a younger sister inheriting ahead of an
elder sister.
The whole business of deciding that right and wrong are not the same
for all time does not make sense.Lord Fortescue may prefer succession
by his eldest daughter rather than his father's younger brother,
but the daughters of his grandfather's elder brother either deserved
to be bypassed,or didn't!

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Stan Brown
2012-12-17 00:19:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
If the Succession Law is passed, surely the next step
would be to make it so that Peerages follow suit with gender blind
inheritance.
The Government have a very powerful motive not to do that. At
present, hereditary peerages are dying out at a steady pace.
Introducing gender-blind inheritance would increase the number of
available heirs and make it much less likely that any given peerage
would have no available heirs.

But the general climate seems to be hostile to the hereditary
peerage. They've been thrown out of the House of Lords (mostly).
And no new hereditary peerages are being created outside the Royal
Family. I don't think any Government would go quite as far as
abolishing the peerage outright, but I also don't think any
Government is likely to introduce legislation that strengthens the
peerage.
Post by Donald4564
I suppose that it can be done - but I wonder how the mechanics of it would work?
Which actual surname takes precedence?
Surname? Why would the surname have anything to do with it?
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Donald4564
2012-12-17 00:59:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Donald4564
If the Succession Law is passed, surely the next step
would be to make it so that Peerages follow suit with gender blind
inheritance.
The Government have a very powerful motive not to do that. At
present, hereditary peerages are dying out at a steady pace.
Introducing gender-blind inheritance would increase the number of
available heirs and make it much less likely that any given peerage
would have no available heirs.
But the general climate seems to be hostile to the hereditary
peerage. They've been thrown out of the House of Lords (mostly).
And no new hereditary peerages are being created outside the Royal
Family. I don't think any Government would go quite as far as
abolishing the peerage outright, but I also don't think any
Government is likely to introduce legislation that strengthens the
peerage.
Where from does the thought come that hereditary peerages are dying out? I thought that breeding was carrying on in the normal manner.

The fact that a group of idiotic politicians,(a group of people who fortunately only control things for a short length of time) have taken it upon themselves to deny hereditary peers taking their proper place in the House of Peers in parliament should not be seen as the first step in the abolition of the aristocracy.

The moment you start dismantling something as complex as the very nature of the structure of society in Britain you open up a can of worms which in the end I think would see the whole of society in complete disarray. This is only my opinion and no doubt there are those who wish to keep up with the ever changing whims of what is briefly thought fashionable and would therefore take an opposing viewpoint.

No doubt there are those out there who think we should see "celebrities" and people who have a lot of money put in the top place of society. Thankfully I am not one.
Post by Stan Brown
Surname? Why would the surname have anything to do with it?
It is usual to take the father's surname. If the line continues in the matriarchal line - does the mother's surname become the new surname - or do we
end up with a hopeless number of hyphernations?

Regards
Donald Binks
Louis Epstein
2012-12-18 08:59:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Donald4564
If the Succession Law is passed, surely the next step
would be to make it so that Peerages follow suit with gender blind
inheritance.
The Government have a very powerful motive not to do that. At
present, hereditary peerages are dying out at a steady pace.
Introducing gender-blind inheritance would increase the number of
available heirs and make it much less likely that any given peerage
would have no available heirs.
But the general climate seems to be hostile to the hereditary
peerage. They've been thrown out of the House of Lords (mostly).
And no new hereditary peerages are being created outside the Royal
Family. I don't think any Government would go quite as far as
abolishing the peerage outright, but I also don't think any
Government is likely to introduce legislation that strengthens the
peerage.
Where from does the thought come that hereditary peerages are dying
out? I thought that breeding was carrying on in the normal manner.
Most hereditary peerages are created with remainder to heirs male,
and thus titles become extinct over time,though not very fast.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
CJ Buyers
2012-12-17 02:54:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
(Now for a real test - will Harry's peerage come with gender neutral
succession?)
That's an interesting question.
Indeed it is. If the Succession Law is passed, surely the next step would be to make it so that Peerages follow suit with gender blind inheritance.
Indeed so. It will not be long before after the change in the law of succession to the Crown, someone in the press will alight upon the Royal Peerages. Perhaps in regard to the dukedom of York. Hopefully, once that is done, the other peerages will follow in due course.
Louis Epstein
2012-12-18 08:55:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
Post by Stan Brown
In determining the succession to the Crown, the gender of a person
born after 28 October 2011 does not give that person, or that
person?s descendants, precedence over any other person (whenever
born)."
In other words, males born >= 2011-10-28 no longer have precedence
over females in the same degree who were born earlier.
I ought to know the significance of that date. Which male was born
_before_ 2011-10-28 whose place in the succession is thus being
preserved?
Edward VII and his descendents? And presumably any earlier Hannoverian king
or intermediate prince who too precedence over their elder sister(s).
The date in the bill is about a hundred years after Edward VII's
death, so it's hard to see how it could protect him.
By having an effective date,
it attempts not to call into question
his succession in preference to his elder sister.
But if this was right then,it can not credibly be
wrong now.
Post by Stan Brown
And it's more than a year in the past, so it's hardly being restricted
to the unborn. If they wanted to have it affect only the unborn, they would
say something like "after the date of coming into force of this Act".
This is what puzzles me -- what's the significance of the date that
they picked? I find it hard to believe that the Bill was drafted
with a specific date and then put on the shelf for thirteen and a
half months. There must be some specific significance to that
specific date.
It's the day they issued the press release that they "had changed"
the rules.They want to retrospectively give that legal effect.
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
(Now for a real test - will Harry's peerage come with gender neutral
succession?)
That's an interesting question.
All new peerages should,but no past ones should change.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
fallenstarseven
2012-12-17 22:57:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Post by s***@example.com
Post by d***@gmail.com
Hello.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/kate-middleton/9719408/Kate-Middleton-is-pregnant.html
"The baby will become the third in line to the throne, ahead of Prince Harry, regardless of whether it is a girl or boy, following a change to the ancient rule of royal primogeniture, which was scrapped last year following an agreement between heads of the Commonwealth nations."
A "Succession to the Crown Bill" has been published by the UK
government. See
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/successiontothecrown.html
for the bill and explanatory notes.
"
In determining the succession to the Crown, the gender of a person
born after 28 October 2011 does not give that person, or that
person?s descendants, precedence over any other person (whenever
born)."
In other words, males born >= 2011-10-28 no longer have precedence
over females in the same degree who were born earlier.
I ought to know the significance of that date. Which male was born
_before_ 2011-10-28 whose place in the succession is thus being
preserved?
"(1) A person who (when the person marries) is one of the 6 persons
next in the line of succession to the Crown must obtain the consent
of Her Majesty before marrying. ... (3) The effect of a person's
failure to comply with subsection (1) is that the person and the
person's descendants are disqualified from succeeding to the Crown."
The first part doesn't seem controversial to me. Instead of all
descendants of George II (except for princesses who marry
foreigners), only the next six in succession need the Prime
Minister's permission. But (3) This is a fairly significant change.
Formerly a marriage without permission was invalid, just like a
bigamous marriage. If the bill passes, the marriage will be valid but
morganatic. This will be the first occurrence of morganatic marriage
in British law.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
That 2011 date is the date of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting at which the change was discussed, so I think they are picking that date as being the date of the change of policy.
Stan Brown
2012-12-15 01:43:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@gmail.com
The baby will become the third in line to the throne, ahead of
Prince Harry, regardless of whether it is a girl or boy,
following a change to the ancient rule of royal primogeniture,
which was scrapped last year following an agreement between heads
of the Commonwealth nations."
So many errors in such a small space!

The rules were not "scrapped" by an agreement of PMs; it requires
legislation to change the succession rules.

Prince Harry follows William and William's issue under the _present_
rules, and the Bill would not change that. It doesn't matter whether
William's child is a boy or a girl, it will come before Harry. What
the Bill would change is the relative positions between William's
children, if his firstborn is a daughter.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Graham
2012-12-16 15:12:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@example.com
A "Succession to the Crown Bill" has been published by the UK
government. See
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/successiontothecrown.html
for the bill and explanatory notes.
Thanks for the link.
Clause 1 - So Prince Andrew and his descendants will remain ahead of his elder sister Pss Anne and hers in the succession. Thus he will remain a Counsellor of State.

Likewise Viscount Severn remains ahead of his elder sister Lady Louise Windsor.

But if William had a daughter and then a son, the daughter would be ahead of the son in the line of succession to the throne, but only the son would be in line to the Dukedom of Cambridge (likewise Edinburgh).

Clause 2 - will bring people like Lord St Andrews, Prince Michael of Kent and Ernest Augustus of Hanover back into the succession.

Clause 3 - as of now, this would cover Princes Charles, William, Harry and Andrew and Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie. Once Baby Cambridge arrives, Eugenie will not need consent.

Clause 3(3) - if Prince Harry were to marry without obtaining consent, his children would not be in the line of succession to the throne, but any sons would still be in line to the Dukedom of Edinburgh.

Clause 3(5) - I wonder how far down the line of succession it would be 'reasonable for the person concerned not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the [Royal Marriages] Act applied to it'

Sch 1 par 1 - violating Camilla will remain treason.

NB that the Bill does not deal with the Dukedoms of Cornwall and Rothesay.
hihgdm
2012-12-16 22:11:56 UTC
Permalink
No! It can't be true. Princess Michael is already over-the-top. With the
prospect of becoming queen, however unlikely, she will be impossible.
Haughty will take on new meaning. King and Queen Michael is not a
desirable proposition.
Post by Graham
Clause 2 - will bring people like Lord St Andrews, Prince Michael of Kent
and Ernest Augustus of Hanover back into the succession.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...