Proposal for Equal Primogeniture Succession

[Duke-of-Earl]

Church of England concerned over royal succession reforms - Telegraph

Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey shares the worries of Prince Charles, who is thought to believe that changing the rules which give male heir priority could throw up difficulties.
He, along with other leading members of the clergy, believe the Prime Minister's plan to remove a ban on an heir to the throne marrying a Roman Catholic could upset a "delicate constitutional balance".

[cepe]

When this was first raised, I wrote a post about the issues regarding an heir to the throne marrying a Catholic. This does strike at the heart of the Establishment of the Church of England and its links to the Monarchy. This aspect shouldn't be rushed through - it is complex. Primogeniture for the monarchy - ok but real concerns about precedent being set; permission to marry limited to 6th in line - also ok for immediate go ahead. But more debate and answers are needed on the religious issue.

Charles is right to speak out - leaving a potential mess for others to sort out in 60 years time is not his style. Nick Clegg hasn't got all the answers hence his response. What he is saying is the Head of the Church of England asks permission of the Head of the Catholic Church for their child/grandchild not to brought up a Catholic which is against canon law.

OR of course, the Church could be dis-established.

I'm not being anti-catholic, I just want to know how it will work.

[Duke-of-Earl]

I agree with you 100 percent cepe

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

There is still debate in Australia as to whether or not a referendum is needed or whether it can be done by legislation - as happened with the Australia Act which severed all other ties with Britain other than the Queen.

Of course if it comes to a referendum (which I don't think it will) the referendum won't be on this issue at all but on becoming a republic.

The bigger question is whether the states have to also pass the legislation separately and independently of the Federal government and that isn't a given. With a Federal election year ahead the last thing the states and federal governments need is a stoush over states' rights that could end up in the High Court.

In Australia it could be very very simple or very complicated as each of the states have individual constutions that pre-date the federal constitution and it could be that some states have to have state referenda and others don't as well.

I don't believe we would need to change the Constitution. The relevant wording in there provides that "The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom", so settling the succession to the sovereignty of the UK is a separate matter, so no need for a referendum. However it has been argued that it's not that simple, and the United Kingdom rules of succession are incorporated into the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, and that Act can now only be changed by Australia, requiring a Referendum. I cannot imagine the High Court interpreting it that way, though the issue might find its way there. If it requires a Referendum, the change might never happen, even if it does get tacked onto a Referendum about a Republic. I doubt anyone in Australia wants a Referendum on that issue right now.

The issue of the position of the States is a very live, and complex, issue. If anyone is interested, it is addressed in some detail here: The Constitution of New South Wales - Anne Twomey - Google Books I haven't read all that yet, but I might. It's great fun if your mind is that way inclined. I'd love there to be a stoush in the High Court about all this stuff.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by cepe

Charles is right to speak out - leaving a potential mess for others to sort out in 60 years time is not his style. Nick Clegg hasn't got all the answers hence his response. What he is saying is the Head of the Church of England asks permission of the Head of the Catholic Church for their child/grandchild not to brought up a Catholic which is against canon law.

I agree he is right to speak out, because him doing so might get the problems solved now. But I do think that the change needs to be made, because the current situation is blatantly and appallingly discriminatory. Maybe the truly fair answer is disestablishment.

[NGalitzine]

I hope baby Cambridge is a boy, then politicians will have about 60 years to sort through the potential mess they are creating. It is also likely that in that time fewer nations in the Commonwealth will have the British monarch as head of state and thus will not be required to ratify the changes.

[Duke-of-Earl]

Well as a monarchist to my finger tips, the day the the Church of England becomes disestablished, is the day I cease being a monarchist.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by NGalitzine

I hope baby Cambridge is a boy, then politicians will have about 60 years to sort through the potential mess they are creating. It is also likely that in that time fewer nations in the Commonwealth will have the British monarch as head of state and thus will not be required to ratify the changes.

Noooo! Bring it on now, so I get to enjoy it! But, apart from my self-interest, I think this gender and religious discrimination needs to be addressed now, not put on the back-burner.

[Duke-of-Earl]

Cranmer: Is David Cameron about to force the Queen to break her Coronation Oath?

One might hope that she, like George III, would tell her government:
“Where is the power on earth to absolve me from the observance of every sentence of that Oath, particularly the one requiring me to maintain the Protestant Reformed Religion? Was not my family seated on the Throne for that express purpose, and shall I be the first to suffer it to be undermined, perhaps overturned? No, No, I had rather beg my bread from door to door throughout Europe, than consent to any such measure. I can give up my crown and retire from power. I can quit my palace and live in a cottage. I can lay my head on a block and lose my life, but I cannot break my Oath. If I violate that Oath, I am no longer legal Sovereign in this country”.

The shame, of course, is that a Conservative Prime Minister would ever put her in such a position

[NGalitzine]

Could you explain that DOE? Why must any monarch be linked to the church. If the church is disestablished it would be a move by the national government, and likely supported by the majority of Brits (it is only established in England and not Scotland or Northern Ireland or Wales) and the C of E has rapidly diminishing membership as it is, so why put the blame on a constitutional monarch.
Personally I think it would be a good thing in the 21st century to remove the government of the nation from any involvement with any religion.

[cepe]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

Noooo! Bring it on now, so I get to enjoy it! But, apart from my self-interest, I think this gender and religious discrimination needs to be addressed now, not put on the back-burner.

There has been no debate in the UK or in any of the Commonwealth Realms about the marriage to Catholics being allowed for the heir to the Throne. If something as radical as the disestablishment of the Chruch is on the cards then there needs to be a debate.

It is not "addressing" the issue to push through legislation as we are currently doing.

It is also patently obvious that Nick Clegg has no idea of the current constitutional issues being faced by some of the Commonwealth Realms.

You might have your fun now but the chances are that neither you or I will be around when it all goes horribly wrong!

[AdmirerUS]

Originally Posted by cepe

When this was first raised, I wrote a post about the issues regarding an heir to the throne marrying a Catholic. This does strike at the heart of the Establishment of the Church of England and its links to the Monarchy.
Charles is right to speak out - leaving a potential mess for others to sort out in 60 years time is not his style. Nick Clegg hasn't got all the answers hence his response. What he is saying is the Head of the Church of England asks permission of the Head of the Catholic Church for their child/grandchild not to brought up a Catholic which is against canon law.

I'm not being anti-catholic, I just want to know how it will work.

I was raised Catholic and I too have huge questions about how this will/not work. Anyone who thinks the Vatican will "negotiate" about his has no idea about the base values of the Vatican.

On the other hand, I give any parent who educates their children about all the belief systems of the world a deep bow. It is one tool to give your children to help them avoid blind prejudice. But that's a far cry from marrying into a faith that demands all offspring be raised in that faith.

[cepe]

I was raised a Catholic too!

[NGalitzine]

I thought the Catholic Church only required that the Catholic partner in a mixed marriage promise to do their best to raise their children as Catholics and even then only if marrying in an RC service. Haven't they done away with making the non Catholic partner sign a pledge to raise the children as Catholics even when marrying in an RC service? If the potential heir was marrying in an Anglican service why would any of these issues even come up?

[GracieGiraffe]

Why this is fabulous news.... fabulous!

If it's a boy, he could marry a Jackie O!

[Roslyn]

The religious issue certainly complicates things. I doubt there would be anywhere near as much controversy if it was just about the sexual discrimination. It's a shame it doesn't seem that one can be done without the other.

[Duke-of-Earl]

Could you explain that DOE? Why must any monarch be linked to the church. If the church is disestablished it would be a move by the national government, and likely supported by the majority of Brits (it is only established in England and not Scotland or Northern Ireland or Wales) and the C of E has rapidly diminishing membership as it is, so why put the blame on a constitutional monarch.
Personally I think it would be a good thing in the 21st century to remove the government of the nation from any involvement with any religion

NGalitzine. my answer is the sovereign is on the throne to protect the faith. AS His late Majesty KIng George III said, this is the reason his family was placed on the throne in the first place.

[NGalitzine]

Well DOE I don't think we have to live by an 18th century decision in the 21st century. I don't believe the Windsors need the C of E to justify their place on the throne.....that is based on public support which in fact is greater than support for the C of E or any other faith group. The UK and western Europe are largely secular and multi cultural places and having governments involved in the appointment of Bishops or church debates about who can or cannot become a Bishop because of their gender or who can or cannot marry is ridiculous.

[cepe]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

The religious issue certainly complicates things. I doubt there would be anywhere near as much controversy if it was just about the sexual discrimination. It's a shame it doesn't seem that one can be done without the other.

They can be separated, but only if the the proposed Act is amended. There is always a chance that the Lords might send back an amendment

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by cepe

They can be separated, but only if the the proposed Act is amended. There is always a chance that the Lords might send back an amendment

But are they likely to? I think that to many people the religious issue is the more important one. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.