The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1081  
Old 07-22-2013, 10:46 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Zeeland, United States
Posts: 49
I am glad this question can be put to a stop for a generation.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1082  
Old 07-23-2013, 04:27 AM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,225
Yes, so am I.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1083  
Old 07-23-2013, 06:34 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 368
I, also :)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1084  
Old 07-06-2014, 09:38 PM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 7,380
Royal succession changes reach final hurdle-
Royal succession changes reach final hurdle | Royal Central
__________________
"If you are always trying to be normal you will never know how amazing you can be."

Dr. Maya Angelou
Reply With Quote
  #1085  
Old 07-07-2014, 07:20 AM
Marty91charmed's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Near Verona and Venice, Italy
Posts: 2,094
Sorry if my question is silly: so, this is the law of which everybody talked about during Kate's pregnancy? Once George is King and has a daughter as first child she can be the future Queen right?
__________________
"Life is just a journey" (Princess Diana).
"You have mosquitoes, I have the press!"(Prince Philip)
"I hope it comes soon because I'm going on holiday!" (The Queen).
Reply With Quote
  #1086  
Old 07-07-2014, 07:27 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 2,279
I thought that the law was already in effect in the UK?

Wasn't it the case that, if George had been a girl, she would now be next in line?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1087  
Old 07-07-2014, 07:29 AM
Marty91charmed's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Near Verona and Venice, Italy
Posts: 2,094
I don't know... tha's why I asked! I think that in order to be effective only western OZ has to pass it...
__________________
"Life is just a journey" (Princess Diana).
"You have mosquitoes, I have the press!"(Prince Philip)
"I hope it comes soon because I'm going on holiday!" (The Queen).
Reply With Quote
  #1088  
Old 07-07-2014, 07:29 AM
Blog Real's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 523
Also thought that the law had been changed.
__________________
Style of the Portuguese sovereign: By the Grace of God and by the Constitution of the Monarchy, King [or Queen] of Portugal and the Algarves of either side of the sea in Africa, Lord of Guinea and of Conquest, Navigation, and Commerce of Ethiopia, Arabia, Persia, and India, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #1089  
Old 07-07-2014, 07:33 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blog Real View Post
Also thought that the law had been changed.
It has been passed in the UK but can't be proclaimed to commence until all the realms have passed legislation along the same lines/approving it. So as things currently stand if George has a daughter first and then a son, the daughter will lose her place. Hopefully that situation will change very soon.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1090  
Old 07-07-2014, 07:54 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
I thought that the law was already in effect in the UK?
Until it passes in ALL realms it can't apply in any realm so it still has some way to go.

First it has to pass in WA and then federally in Australia.

Interestingly the way this has been dealt with in Australia says that the states are separate monarchies and thus a referendum for a republic at federal level would see us federally become a republic but each of the states could remain as monarchies. It is this issue that could still see a constitutional challenge through our High Court to determine whether or not the states are, in fact, separate monarchies but first of all this legislation had to be past at state level, and then federally and then a constitutional challenge could be launched. Whether it will happen is another thing but I wouldn't be surprised.

It also has to wait for the decision of the Canadian High Court and come thus pass all their constitutional questions - which are to do with the way the legislation was past there effectively allowing the British law to simply apply in Canada. It may very well be that they also have to pass it at provincial and federal level again.

In essence, as there is no rush - won't become an issue for about another 25 to 30 years when George is expecting his first child there is no real rush as the children can be raised knowing what is happening even though it is still to come - but it is important for the federations of Canada and Australia to get their constitutional issues sorted out - to get it right now.

It would be awful if the law was past and everyone believed that it was past and then there was a constitutional challenge as a daughter with a younger brother was about to assume the crown only to find that one of these two countries hadn't past the law constitutionally meaning that the law was null and void.

Another 6 - 12 months won't really affect anyone but getting it right is the best way to go.

And remember it isn't the issue of the law itself that is the constitutional issue but whether the Australian states are separate monarchies to the federal government.

I think the issue in Canada also has something to do with the religious question on the law but I am sure a Canadian could explain that better than I could.

Quote:
Wasn't it the case that, if George had been a girl, she would now be next in line?
If George had been a girl she would be next in line as William's only child. However a younger brother would have been able to replace her. That being said, had George been a girl this law would probably have passed a little faster through the other realms legislative and legal processes.

They said, when the Perth Declaration was made, that it would take about 3 years and it hasn't yet been 2 years so they are ahead of the game.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1091  
Old 07-07-2014, 11:24 AM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Until it passes in ALL realms it can't apply in any realm so it still has some way to go... They said, when the Perth Declaration was made, that it would take about 3 years and it hasn't yet been 2 years so they are ahead of the game.
Thank you, Iluvbertie - I was in the mood for some substance - and there you were with it!
__________________
It feels like a place where no truth goes unquestioned and where there is much more discovering to be done in the world" The Duke of Cambridge, 12/9/14

"They are pretty, they are shiny, and they are more fun to look at than the shame that lives inside us all". John Stewart, The Daily Show
Reply With Quote
  #1092  
Old 07-07-2014, 11:38 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I think the issue in Canada also has something to do with the religious question on the law but I am sure a Canadian could explain that better than I could.

If memory serves there were 3 issues with the way the law was passed in Canada.

1. It was simply accepting the British law instead of creating a Canadian one.
2. It only occurred at the federal level, even though the monarchy is a constitutional matter and thus the provinces have to be involved.
3. The law violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by saying that the monarch cannot be a Catholic.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1093  
Old 07-07-2014, 08:37 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,702
Thanks Ish.

I knew that the religious issue was one of the problems and that would be an interesting one for the Canadians as the monarch is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Who knows - Canada may force the UK to separate Church and State and end that nearly 500 year position of the monarch and the Church of England.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1094  
Old 07-07-2014, 09:12 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,377
Not a problem.

Looking on Wikipedia, there was also an expansion to the first point in that the law wasn't passed in English and French.

I think the people protesting it are aiming more to push a republican movement in Canada than a separation of church and state in the UK. Officially, the Monarchist League of Canada supports the legislation and how it came to be, while the Citizens for a Canadian Republic are denouncing it as unconstitutional.

The first appeal was from an Ontario man and was dismissed (he said at the time he was going to appeal the dismissal). The second was from two Quebec professors on behalf of an organization of sovereignists, federalists, monarchists, and republicans, which is an interesting collection of people if nothing else. I haven't heard of anything on either front since last summer though.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1095  
Old 07-08-2014, 12:02 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 104
Whether or not Australia’s states are monarchies in their own right is a complicated issue. Dr Anne Twomey explores the constitutional issues in her excellent book The Chameleon Crown: The Queen and Her Australian Governors. It was quite clear-cut before the Australia Acts of 1986. All the states were still under the authority of the Queen of Great Britain, not the Queen of Australia. When a state needed a new Governor, the Premier provided a name to the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office. If the FCO agreed, it would make the formal recommendation to the Queen. But all that changed in 1986.

The state premiers assumed that they would have direct access to the Queen, who would be obliged to accept their advice. There was even a push in Queensland for the Queen to officially become Queen of Queensland. But Canberra and London were not keen on the idea. Canberra did not like the implication of sovereignty, and wanted the Governor-General to appoint state Governors (as the Governor General of Canada appoints the provincial Lieutenant Governors). London was worried the Queen might get dragged into an argument between squabbling states. Eventually a compromise was reached, but how it happened is not quite clear. The relevant sections in Dr Twomey’s book were removed prior to publication, at the request of Buckingham Palace (I suspect the Queen might have intervened). The result is that state premiers advise the Queen directly on the appointment of a Governor. This advice the Queen is obliged to accept. But the Queen is not obliged to accept any other kind of advice from a state premier, unless it has been agreed to beforehand.

This compromise at least excludes the possibility of the Premier of Victoria advising the Queen to sack the Premier of New South Wales. But it is still left an important question unanswered. Which crown is the Queen wearing when she appoints a state Governor? It is clearly not the crown of Great Britain. As a separate state crown probably does not exist, the Queen is probably wearing the Crown of Australia. But this has never been confirmed, and remains open to interpretation.

As to the succession, the states did not pass legislation to change it. The states’ legislation only requests that the Commonwealth Government pass legislation to make the appropriate changes. This is in accordance with section 51(xxxviii) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia:
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: .....the exercise within the Commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the Parliaments of all the States directly concerned, of any power which can at the establishment of this Constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia
I think this supports the conclusion that the states are not fully separate monarchies, but come under the authority of the Queen of Australia. Prior to the referendum in 1999, the states agreed to change their constitutions if a republic was approved. But what if one or more states decided after the referendum not to change? Could a state government even continue to function? At some point the state would need a new Governor, but who would make the appointment? Not the Queen of Australia, she would no longer exist. How about the Queen of Great Britain? I think the Australia Acts might exclude that option, and the British government would not want the Queen dragged into an Australian constitutional quagmire. The government of a new Australian republic probably would explore all possible ways to force a monarchist state to jump on board, but things could get very complicated.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1096  
Old 07-08-2014, 12:09 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,377
I am increasingly becoming of the opinion that the relationship between states/provinces/countries and the overall nation/realm is an overly complicated one in all of HM's realms, or at least the larger ones. Australia, Canada, and the UK all certainly seem to have some interesting sovereignty issues within themselves....
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1097  
Old 07-08-2014, 02:03 AM
JR76's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 244
What about the Channel Islands? They are divided into the two Bailwicks of Jersey and Guernsey separately. As crown dependencies do they have to approve the legislation themselves or do they just follow what the Parliament in Westminster decides?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1098  
Old 07-08-2014, 02:31 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,702
They are Crown Dependencies and so don't have to pass the legislation themselves.

Not all of the realms actually had to do so as it depended on the wording of the various constitutions in this regard - only about 12 realms had to pass the legislation as the other three have constitutions that allows things to do with the monarch to be dealt with in the UK parliament.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1099  
Old 07-08-2014, 02:45 AM
JR76's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 244
Thank you for answering my question. They mentioned Jersey on the radio just as I was reading this thread so I started wondering.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1100  
Old 08-27-2014, 12:41 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 864
Royal succession law can't be challenged: Ontario court | CTV News
Quote:
TORONTO -- Ontario's top court says a Roman Catholic man can't challenge a royal succession law that he says discriminates against his religion.
Bryan Teskey tried to ask the courts to strike down a rule prohibiting Catholics from ascending to the throne, arguing it violates the charter.
But the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld a lower-court decision, ruling that the succession rules are not subject to charter scrutiny and that Teskey had no standing to bring the challenge.
As consistent with a previous court ruling in 2005
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Succession Issues ladybelline Imperial Family of Japan 921 11-03-2014 02:22 AM
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession Elise,LadyofLancaster British Royals 926 04-15-2014 11:41 PM
Rules of Succession CrownPrinceLorenzo Royalty Past, Present, and Future 95 10-25-2012 01:55 PM




Popular Tags
belgium brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:44 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]