Succession Laws

[Grrarrggh]

I'm asking purely for your educated opinion here. Do you think that if Prince
Charles and Diana had borne a girl first, before William, that the succession
laws would have been changed, putting her ahead of her brothers in the line?

Tam

[Andy.III]

Post by Grrarrggh
I'm asking purely for your educated opinion here. Do you think that if Prince
Charles and Diana had borne a girl first, before William, that the succession
laws would have been changed, putting her ahead of her brothers in the line?
Tam

I doubt it.

I really don't expect the present situation to change until we have an heiress
apparent and the law is changed to become effective with her offspring.


Andy.III
--
VOTE 2004
Defeat Reichthuglican Christofascism !!

[Sacha]

Post by Andy.III

Post by Grrarrggh
I'm asking purely for your educated opinion here. Do you think that if Prince
Charles and Diana had borne a girl first, before William, that the succession
laws would have been changed, putting her ahead of her brothers in the line?
Tam

I doubt it.
I really don't expect the present situation to change until we have an heiress
apparent and the law is changed to become effective with her offspring.

The talk has been that the laws of succession will change with thegeneration
of Prince William so that if he has a daughter first, the country will have
a queen, rather than hanging on to see if a future king can be produced!

[Candide]

Post by Grrarrggh
I'm asking purely for your educated opinion here. Do you think that if Prince
Charles and Diana had borne a girl first, before William, that the succession
laws would have been changed, putting her ahead of her brothers in the line?
Tam

Highly unlikely as there would always have been a chance for a son, well
until all heck broke loose and the marriage was ended. You do not tinker
with such matters lightly. Even if Charles and Diana had no children and
Charles never remarried, there are still the two Princesses of York,
then Princess Louise.

Think maybe during William's reign or his heir's there might be a
*chance* things will change. Fair is fair after all and in this age of
men becoming fathers in their 70's, it might not be perceived as *right*
for a princess to be presumptive for 40 years or so, then have the rug
pulled out when a younger brother comes on the scene.

Candide

[Stan Brown]

Post by Grrarrggh
I'm asking purely for your educated opinion here. Do you think that if Prince
Charles and Diana had borne a girl first, before William, that the succession
laws would have been changed, putting her ahead of her brothers in the line?

No, I think not. The temper of the times in 1980 was not what it is
today.

Remember that changing the succession is enormously difficult
because all the Commonwealth countries have to agree, and those
where the Queen is head of state have to pass their own legislation.

This was done in 1936 under the great pressure of the Edward VIII
crisis, but there were far fewer independent countries then under
his crown and the UK was much more the "mother country" than it was
50 years later.

One problem with tinkering with the succession is that the whole
issue of excluding Catholics and spouses of Catholics would be put
into play. That's probably even more contentious that the business
of preferring males to females.

I rather suspect this is one of those historical anomalies that will
never change just because it's too much trouble.

Compare Sweden: if the Swedes had had to coordinate with a couple of
dozen countries, would they have changed their succession law in the
1980s?

[Rico]

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Grrarrggh
I'm asking purely for your educated opinion here. Do you think that if Prince
Charles and Diana had borne a girl first, before William, that the succession
laws would have been changed, putting her ahead of her brothers in the line?

No, I think not. The temper of the times in 1980 was not what it is
today.
Remember that changing the succession is enormously difficult
because all the Commonwealth countries have to agree, and those
where the Queen is head of state have to pass their own legislation.

Two things to say; Firstly not all of the commonwealth countries are
monarchies, and even then not all of those crowns are held in personal union
with the British crown. Secondly, the Australian government has no say in
the succession laws. In the Royal Titles and Styles act of 1973 the
Australian federal government decided to leave that part of the laws in the
hands of Britian.

Post by Stan Brown
This was done in 1936 under the great pressure of the Edward VIII
crisis, but there were far fewer independent countries then under
his crown and the UK was much more the "mother country" than it was
50 years later.
One problem with tinkering with the succession is that the whole
issue of excluding Catholics and spouses of Catholics would be put
into play. That's probably even more contentious that the business
of preferring males to females.
I rather suspect this is one of those historical anomalies that will
never change just because it's too much trouble.
Compare Sweden: if the Swedes had had to coordinate with a couple of
dozen countries, would they have changed their succession law in the
1980s?
--
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
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm

[Stan Brown]

Post by Rico

Post by Stan Brown
Remember that changing the succession is enormously difficult
because all the Commonwealth countries have to agree, and those
where the Queen is head of state have to pass their own legislation.

Two things to say; Firstly not all of the commonwealth countries are
monarchies,

True. But the Queen is the Head of the commonwealth, and the
Commonwealth countries would all have to agree to change the manner
of selecting the Head of the Commonwealth. Even if _in_practice_ the
UK monarch serves as Head of the Commonwealth, I don't believe
independent nations would state it that way in their laws.

Post by Rico
and even then not all of those crowns are held in personal union
with the British crown.

I do not understand what you mean. You might like to consult the
BritFAQ.[1] The Queen of the UK is not Queen of Canada; there are
two separate crowns that happen to be held by the same person and
that descend according to the same laws. On the other hand, there
are a few overseas possessions of the UK, or of the Queen of the UK:
they do not have separate crowns and they have no say in the
succession. (But see <http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html#p2-
21>.)

Post by Rico
Secondly, the Australian government has no say in
the succession laws. In the Royal Titles and Styles act of 1973 the
Australian federal government decided to leave that part of the laws in the
hands of Britian.

Assuming that's true, other legislation could change it. But either
way, the 1931 Statute of Westminster is UK law and says that any
change in the succession must be agreed by all the dominions.
Therefore even if the Australians don't reserve to themselves the
right to veto any change, a change is not valid in the UK until
Australia has approved it.

[1] At least, that's how I understand things; see
<http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html#p2-20>.

[Don Aitken]

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 11:36:29 -0500, Stan Brown

Post by Stan Brown
Assuming that's true, other legislation could change it. But either
way, the 1931 Statute of Westminster is UK law and says that any
change in the succession must be agreed by all the dominions.
Therefore even if the Australians don't reserve to themselves the
right to veto any change, a change is not valid in the UK until
Australia has approved it.

Nope. The *preamble* to the statute (which is a recital of *facts*,
not an enactment of law) says that it would be "in accord with the
established constitutional position of all the members of the
Commonwealth" for that to be done. Clearly, the "established
constitutional position" has changed, since all of the relevant
members have altered their constitutions in such a way as to make the
future use of the mechanism provided by the Statute impossible. In any
case, preambles are not law, and there is nothing to stop the UK
parliament ignoring this one. There are difficulties, but they are
political, not legal.

[Stan Brown]

Post by Don Aitken
Nope. The *preamble* to the statute (which is a recital of *facts*,
not an enactment of law) says that it would be "in accord with the
established constitutional position of all the members of the
Commonwealth" for that to be done. Clearly, the "established
constitutional position" has changed, since all of the relevant
members have altered their constitutions in such a way as to make the
future use of the mechanism provided by the Statute impossible. In any
case, preambles are not law, and there is nothing to stop the UK
parliament ignoring this one. There are difficulties, but they are
political, not legal.

So you're saying that e.g. Canada or Australia or the UK could alter
the succession of its crown unilaterally, and that would be legal in
that realm? Wow!

[Don Aitken]

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 17:51:38 -0500, Stan Brown

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Don Aitken
Nope. The *preamble* to the statute (which is a recital of *facts*,
not an enactment of law) says that it would be "in accord with the
established constitutional position of all the members of the
Commonwealth" for that to be done. Clearly, the "established
constitutional position" has changed, since all of the relevant
members have altered their constitutions in such a way as to make the
future use of the mechanism provided by the Statute impossible. In any
case, preambles are not law, and there is nothing to stop the UK
parliament ignoring this one. There are difficulties, but they are
political, not legal.

So you're saying that e.g. Canada or Australia or the UK could alter
the succession of its crown unilaterally, and that would be legal in
that realm? Wow!

Yes. *Provided* that it can be done in accordance with the laws and
constitution of that realm. In Australia it would be simple (if
getting a constitutional amendment passed in Australia was ever
simple). In Canada it is not entirely clear what would be required
(and the recent decision of the Ontario courts didn't make it any
clearer). *Probably* it requires agreement of Parliament and all of
the provincial legislatures. In the UK, as always, an Act of
Parliament would do it. Not that any of this is likely to happen, of
course.

[Rico]

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Rico

Post by Stan Brown
Remember that changing the succession is enormously difficult
because all the Commonwealth countries have to agree, and those
where the Queen is head of state have to pass their own legislation.

Two things to say; Firstly not all of the commonwealth countries are
monarchies,

True. But the Queen is the Head of the commonwealth, and the
Commonwealth countries would all have to agree to change the manner
of selecting the Head of the Commonwealth. Even if _in_practice_ the
UK monarch serves as Head of the Commonwealth, I don't believe
independent nations would state it that way in their laws.

Any change in the selection of the Head to the Commonwealth has no part to
changing of succession laws. Say for instance CHOGM decided that the
Presidents of South Africa should hold the position of the Head of the
Commonwealth (for the next 48 years), the Pitacarn Islanders would not be
entitled to vote in South African elections would they

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Rico
and even then not all of those crowns are held in personal union
with the British crown.

I do not understand what you mean. You might like to consult the
BritFAQ.[1] The Queen of the UK is not Queen of Canada; there are
two separate crowns that happen to be held by the same person and
that descend according to the same laws. On the other hand, there
they do not have separate crowns and they have no say in the
succession. (But see <http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html#p2-
21>.)

Brunei is a Monarchy and its monarch is not the same monarch as the monarch
of Australia, Canada or the UK is he?

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Rico
Secondly, the Australian government has no say in
the succession laws. In the Royal Titles and Styles act of 1973 the
Australian federal government decided to leave that part of the laws in the
hands of Britian.

Assuming that's true, other legislation could change it. But either
way, the 1931 Statute of Westminster is UK law and says that any
change in the succession must be agreed by all the dominions.
Therefore even if the Australians don't reserve to themselves the
right to veto any change, a change is not valid in the UK until
Australia has approved it.
[1] At least, that's how I understand things; see
<http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html#p2-20>.

Again you are incorrect. If the right to change the succession has been
removed from Australian law, then the change in law from the British
parliment is automatically enforced in Australia. I'm not saying that
Canadians or New Zealanders have not got the power in their parliments to
change the laws I'm just saying that Australians DO NOT.

Post by Stan Brown
--
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
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm

[Don Aitken]

Post by Rico
If the right to change the succession has been
removed from Australian law, then the change in law from the British
parliment is automatically enforced in Australia. I'm not saying that
Canadians or New Zealanders have not got the power in their parliments to
change the laws I'm just saying that Australians DO NOT.

If an Australian constitutional amendment can abolish the monarchy and
create a republic, as everyone seems agreed it can, why can one not
retain the monarchy but introduce a separate Australian law of
succession? Clearly it could not be done by ordinary legislation, but
it could still be done *by Australia*.

[Louis Epstein]

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Rico

Post by Stan Brown
Remember that changing the succession is enormously difficult
because all the Commonwealth countries have to agree, and those
where the Queen is head of state have to pass their own legislation.

Two things to say; Firstly not all of the commonwealth countries are
monarchies,

True. But the Queen is the Head of the commonwealth, and the
Commonwealth countries would all have to agree to change the manner
of selecting the Head of the Commonwealth. Even if _in_practice_ the
UK monarch serves as Head of the Commonwealth, I don't believe
independent nations would state it that way in their laws.

Post by Rico
and even then not all of those crowns are held in personal union
with the British crown.

I do not understand what you mean. You might like to consult the
BritFAQ.[1] The Queen of the UK is not Queen of Canada; there are
two separate crowns that happen to be held by the same person and
that descend according to the same laws.

Which is exactly what "in personal union" means.
See England and Scotland in 1603-1707,for example.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[David Webb]

Post by Louis Epstein

Post by Stan Brown
BritFAQ.[1] The Queen of the UK is not Queen of Canada; there are
two separate crowns that happen to be held by the same person and
that descend according to the same laws.

Which is exactly what "in personal union" means.
See England and Scotland in 1603-1707,for example.

Originally it was held that the realm was one. When was it that it was
decided that that the Canadian crown was separate|? Some time in the 1950s?

[George Knighton]

Post by Rico
not all of those crowns are held in personal union
with the British crown.

That is a matter for some debate. Certainly each state is sovereign unto
itself, and each state can alter its own succession law as it sees fit.

However, at the moment, all Crowns are held in personal union, coincidentally,
and the clear intent of the legislation in all cases is that they should remain
so personally united.

Post by Rico
In the Royal Titles and Styles act of 1973 the
Australian federal government decided to leave that part of the laws in the
hands of Britian.

Nevertheless, established precedent and British law would require that the
British ministry consult the Australian government.

[George Knighton]

Post by George Knighton
established precedent and British law would require that the
British ministry consult the Australian government.

On checking, it appears that British law requires the "consent" of Australia.

We would have to decide in medias res if consent were appropriately inferred
from extant Australian legislation. :)

[Don Aitken]

Post by George Knighton

Post by Rico
not all of those crowns are held in personal union
with the British crown.

That is a matter for some debate. Certainly each state is sovereign unto
itself, and each state can alter its own succession law as it sees fit.
However, at the moment, all Crowns are held in personal union, coincidentally,
and the clear intent of the legislation in all cases is that they should remain
so personally united.

Post by Rico
In the Royal Titles and Styles act of 1973 the
Australian federal government decided to leave that part of the laws in the
hands of Britian.

I am not sure how you draw that conclusion from an Act which makes to
reference to the matter at all.

Post by George Knighton
Nevertheless, established precedent and British law would require that the
British ministry consult the Australian government.

[and]

Post by George Knighton
On checking, it appears that British law requires the "consent" of Australia.
We would have to decide in medias res if consent were appropriately inferred
from extant Australian legislation. :)

But the British Parliament cannot now legislate for Australia in *any*
matter, with or without consent. That is laid down in clear terms by
the Australia Act 1985, s1. "No Act of the Parliament of the United
Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be
deemed to extend, to the Commonwealth, to a State or to a Territory as
part of the law of the Commonwealth, of the State or of the
Territory." Furthermore, s.4 of the Statute of Westminster, which is
the basis for the "request and consent" procedure, has been repealed,
as regards Australia by s.12 of the same Act (as it has also in
relation to Canada by the Constitution Act 1982, and, I think, also in
respect of New Zealand).

[George Knighton]

Post by Don Aitken
But the British Parliament cannot now legislate for Australia in *any*
matter, with or without consent.

I understand. When we get that far, I guess we'll figure it out. :)

[Rico]

Post by George Knighton

Post by Rico
not all of those crowns are held in personal union
with the British crown.

That is a matter for some debate. Certainly each state is sovereign unto
itself, and each state can alter its own succession law as it sees fit.

Its a fact, The Sultanate of Brunei and the Federation of Malaysia are both
commonwealth countries, who have their own monarchs (both of whom are male),
and completely different succession laws to that of the House of Windsor.

Post by George Knighton
However, at the moment, all Crowns are held in personal union,

coincidentally,

Post by George Knighton
and the clear intent of the legislation in all cases is that they should remain
so personally united.

Post by Rico
In the Royal Titles and Styles act of 1973 the
Australian federal government decided to leave that part of the laws in the
hands of Britian.

Nevertheless, established precedent and British law would require that the
British ministry consult the Australian government.

They would advise of the change in law. There would be no need to consult.
During the abdication crisis where the crown of Britain and the crown of
Australia were the same, there was a need to consult the Australian
parliment, but since the right to change succession laws is no longer part
of our constitution then we wont be consulted. I'm assuming that you're an
American so I'll forgive you of your ignorance in this matter. Hows
President Kerry going?(I illegally voted for him)

[George Knighton]

Post by Grrarrggh
laws would have been changed, putting her ahead of her brothers in the line?

I think there is a (growing) consensus that the eldest should succeed
regardless of gender at some point in the future.

The constitutional complication is that any change in British law that affects
the succession would need the permission ahead of time of the parliaments of
all the other realms across the face of the planet.

It's not an easy thing to accomplish and would take a concentration of the
ministry's energy at a time that such energies are required by more pressing
matter.

The same is true of the sovereign's personal relationship with the Church of
England. The consensus exists in theory, and it is a part of the Way Ahead,
but enacting it is constitutionally complicated.

[Jim McQuiggin]

Post by George Knighton
I think there is a (growing) consensus that the eldest should
succeed regardless of gender at some point in the future.
The constitutional complication is that any change in British law
that affects the succession would need the permission ahead of
time of the parliaments of all the other realms across the face of
the planet.

This is certainly a valid point. Quick question: are there any realms
that are likely to object to this move? My own guess is no, but any
tinkering with the monarchy could quickly lead to its abolition in
some countries. In Canada's case, changes of this sort need not only
the consent of Ottawa, but of all of the provinces as well.

Post by George Knighton
It's not an easy thing to accomplish and would take a
concentration of the ministry's energy at a time that such
energies are required by more pressing matter.
The same is true of the sovereign's personal relationship with the
Church of England. The consensus exists in theory, and it is a
part of the Way Ahead, but enacting it is constitutionally
complicated.

This would be a matter only for the UK. The Queen's relationship with
the Church of England has no constitutional effect elsewhere. She is
accorded the style "Defender of the Faith" only in UK, Canada, and
New Zealand, but in Canada and NZ there is no direct connection to a
single denomination or even to the Christian faith, other than
historically, AFAIK.

Jim

[George Knighton]

Post by Jim McQuiggin
are there any realms
that are likely to object to this move?

Not likely to object, no. There are realms whose governments are likely to
grab the opportunity for the world stage spotlight, complicating what should be
a simple issue.

Moreover, the coordination would be slow and tedious at a time that we simply
have more and better things to worry about.

Post by Jim McQuiggin
The Queen's relationship with
the Church of England has no constitutional effect elsewhere.

When I referred to a constitutional complication, I did not mean that it was
the SAME constitutional complication. :)

Coordinating the process in a way that the Queen would not perceive it as an
abrogation of her sworn responsibility is the "constitutional" problem.

The other problem is that when one raises the issue, he tends to hear from the
fringe who believe that the Queen should remain Supreme Head, and he tends to
also hear from the other end, including erstwhile republicans whose very words
would land them in prison were it not for the largess of the current sovereign.

[Guy Stair Sainty]

In article <***@mb-m04.aol.com>, George Knighton
says...

Post by George Knighton

Post by Grrarrggh
laws would have been changed, putting her ahead of her brothers in the line?

I think there is a (growing) consensus that the eldest should succeed
regardless of gender at some point in the future.
The constitutional complication is that any change in British law that affects
the succession would need the permission ahead of time of the parliaments of
all the other realms across the face of the planet.
It's not an easy thing to accomplish and would take a concentration of the
ministry's energy at a time that such energies are required by more pressing
matter.
The same is true of the sovereign's personal relationship with the Church of
England. The consensus exists in theory, and it is a part of the Way Ahead,
but enacting it is constitutionally complicated.

But why should something which everyone admits will cause great constitutional
difficulties, which will give anti-monarchist political groups an opportunity
to amend or graft on articles which undermine the monarchy, be considered of
any importance if the change at the end is merely a cosmetic change designed to
placate politically correct activists? If the monarchy functions well enough
with the current system, and if the process of effecting change is complex and
risky, why start it?

[Stan Brown]

Post by Guy Stair Sainty
If the monarchy functions well enough
with the current system, and if the process of effecting change is complex and
risky, why start it?

Precisely! That seems to me the genius of what's left of the British
constitution, to make small adaptive changes as needed rather than
grand changes to major aspects of government simply because in
theory they might be "better". It's my objection to the current PM's
changes: most of them are fixes to things aren't broken.

[George Knighton]

From: Stan Brown
It's my objection to the current PM's
changes: most of them are fixes to things aren't broken.

Most of the judiciary appear to agree with you. :)

[George Knighton]

From: Guy Stair Sainty
if the process of effecting change is complex and
risky, why start it?

If the monarchy will forever be of help to the constitution, which some of us
believe it should be, then the sovereign's role must be designed so that it's
clear that the sovereign is the tribune of the people.

There are some links to a past that some of us would prefer to be without,
since they are a constant reminder of things some of us would prefer to set
aside.

Changing the monarch's relationship with the Church of England is something
that should happen...but it's certainly not the most important thing in the
world at the moment, and the same is true of the succession issues.

[MarleneKoenig]

Post by Grrarrggh
Do you think that if Prince
Charles and Diana had borne a girl first, before William, that the succession
laws would have been changed, putting her ahead of her brothers in the line?

Probably not.

author of A Grand Alliance - the descendants of Grand Duke Michael of Russia
and Countess Sophie von Merenberg. For more information, write to
***@aol.com

[George Knighton]

Post by MarleneKoenig
Probably not.

The proposed scenario is probably flawed.

Even if one were willing to accept all the difficulties involved in changing
the succession, the change would almost certainly not affect a new child who
was already in place in the succession.

I don't post here very much anymore. It's interesting to notice that old the
old hands are still here, people from years ago. :)