Succession to the Crown Act 2013, Part 1: 2011 - Sep 2022

[Duke-of-Earl]

Then Canada would be the constitutionally divisive stick in the mud.

Maybe so but IMO this is the reality

I can think of 3 provinces right off the bat that wouldn't agree to any amendments to the Constitution unless their laundry list of grievances are addressed.

Don't even get me started on the Quebec separatists.

 

[NGalitzine]

Canadian politicians' first priority is to the people of Canada. Domestic politics in Canada is such that if changing the Act of Settlement requires amending the Canadian Constitution, then it will get zero priority from any Prime Minister regardless of political party.

PM Harper only reluctantly gave his support after the other realms agreed to it but his first response was if its not broke then don't tamper with it.

There are too many groups in Canada that would love nothing more then to open up constitutional wrangling in order to further their own agendas and IMO no federal politician is going to touch this.

Quite right. Constitutional discussions in Canada always open up a whole kettle of unwanted fish. The recent election of a minority seperatist government has just made the whole process much more complicated than it was even a month ago. Quebec has no interest in the monarchy to begin with so in order to get them on side they would have to be bought off with more money and more powers. The other 9 provinces would want the same or else they would not agree to the changes, and the federal government is never to keen to give up powers to the provinces. It could be several years before changes are able to be passed in Canada, so hopefully the first born will be a male heir.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Challenges to amend the Act of Settlement in Canada

O'Donohue v. Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This ruling basically states because the Act is a cornerstone of our constitution and not subject to our Charter of Rights (Bill of Rights), amending the Act for whatever reason (equal primogeniture for example or the Catholic exclusion) would require moving Heaven and Earth. Canada's federal structure divides government responsibilities between the federal government and the ten provinces. Provincial legislatures are unicameral and operate in parliamentary fashion similar to the House of Commons. The federal government is bicameral with the commons and senate. All ten provinces would have to agree along with the House of Commons and Senate and a number of other groups such as the Aboriginals. Lets pray for the first born child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to be a boy because Canada may be the fly in the ointment over any changes to the AoS

 

[HRHThePrince]

Why would you pray that its a boy? No one should argue in this day & age that a boy is more important than a girl? This change needs to be made.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Why would you pray that its a boy? No one should argue in this day & age that a boy is more important than a girl? This change needs to be made.

In your opinion it needs to change. The world doesn't end if the changes don't go through. Monarchy by its very nature isn't an equal or egalitarian affair. I don't have one PC bone in my body. The monarchy isn't broke so there is nothing to fix or change IMO

And if all 16 realms don't agree, then the changes don't happen anyway.

Canada and Australia have Catholic majority populations. Maybe Canadians say the monarch should be catholic, what then? If we're going to muck around with the Act of Settlement for equal primogeniture, where does it stop? See once countries open up their constitutions to make changes to something that works very well, then the law of unintended consequences kicks in.

 

[HRHThePrince]

I can't see anything officially happening until 2013... but what reason could they argue not to change the succession to full primogeniture?

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

My personal opinion is it should have always been equal primogeniture but its not and I can't help but worry that once we start trying to make the monarchy politically correct, we're going to screw up. Maybe by the Grace of God we can make it work. I am not foresighted though and the future makes me nervous.

 

[American Dane]

You confuse me. You write in one post that you don't have "one PC bone" in your body, and then another post that you thought the monarchy should have always been equal primogeniture. That's quite a PC statement.

And if all 16 realms don't agree, then the changes don't happen anyway.

Canada and Australia have Catholic majority populations. Maybe Canadians say the monarch should be catholic, what then? If we're going to muck around with the Act of Settlement for equal primogeniture, where does it stop? See once countries open up their constitutions to make changes to something that works very well, then the law of unintended consequences kicks in.

Where, may I ask, have you gotten this information?

 

[Mirabel]

My personal opinion is it should have always been equal primogeniture but its not and I can't help but worry that once we start trying to make the monarchy politically correct, we're going to screw up. Maybe by the Grace of God we can make it work. I am not foresighted though and the future makes me nervous.

I agree!
Monarchy is linked with tradition.
Once you start making these changes, it seems like the next step will be no more monarchy! (It's already under consideration in countries where the change has been made). That might be coincidental- or it might not.

And if the change is made for the monarchy, then why not for the nobility as well? Why should the title only go to the eldest son and not the eldest daughter? Yet if it does, why the eldest at all? Why not equally divide everything among all the children? Of course that would mean the end of the large estates and make more of the historic houses fall into ruin, but it would be equitable.

Remember what the Dowager Duchess of Devonshire once said: that male primogeniture might seem unfair, but in France many of the great houses stand empty because all of the children have had a go at the furniture and pictures.

I think the people pushing for this change haven't fully considered the possibilities.

 

[HRHThePrince]

@ American Dane... I was thinking the same thing. He says one thing, then says another. He's arguing this full primogeniture movement like its gonna be a big hassle. I just can't see why it would be. This is 2012.. women have more than any other time been equal counterparts in all of society & what it has to offer. But again, he's praying for a boy.

 

[Artemisia]

I think the hassle will be not about anyone actually objecting to Equal Primogeniture (it is, after all, 21st century), but connected to the actual legislative process.

Now, as far as the United Kingdom and most other countries of the Commonwealth Realms are concerned, there should be no major issues. Canada though is a special case: in order to adopt equal primogeniture, all Canadian states have approve it, and some (such as Quebec) may use it to question the very relevance of Monarchy for modern-day Canada. In short, it may open a can of worms.

The problem with Equal Primogeniture proposal is that all countries of the Realm must unanimously approve it for it to become a law.

 

[HRHThePrince]

You have to crawl before you walk... whose to say in the near future that legislation won't be passed to secure full inheritance rights of a title by a daughter? Whether this takes an act of parliament I'm not so sure... I was under the impression that transmittal of titles of nobility is a decision made by the Sovereign as Fount of Honor.

 

[Artemisia]

I'm not saying that. However, it may well be that the Canadians (or Australians, or people of Tuvalu...) decide that they might as well have an elected Head of State who would actually be born and live in their country.

As a woman, I'm all for Equal Primogeniture. In fact, it's long overdue. It's just I also understand the concern some monarchists have about the proposed changed - concern not about the changes themselves (it is safe to say they enjoy great support in all countries concerned) but about the consequences.

I don't disagree with you though: small steps are better than no steps. Take Japan, for instance; because of their succession crisis, they are thinking of allowing female branches for Imperial Princesses. Although those princesses will still (for now) have no succession rights, those are still steps in the right direction.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

You confuse me. You write in one post that you don't have "one PC bone" in your body, and then another post that you thought the monarchy should have always been equal primogeniture. That's quite a PC statement.



Where, may I ask, have you gotten this information?

I'm not PC but for the sake of simplicity it would have been easier if equal primogeniture was already the law of the land but its not. Canada is majority Catholic 46 percent out of 79 percent Christian population. Single largest Christian religion. Australia's single largest Christian denonmination is Catholic at 26 percent out of a total Chrisitian pop of 66 percent.
My previous comment was not accurate as stated
One of the advantages of Denmark being a tiny kingdom with no commonwealth realms is these problems don't impact the Danes. Queen Elizabeth is queen of 16 countries

Why is equal primogeniture more important than the Catholic exclusion? Or why not elect the king or queen from the existing 24 Dukes of the United Kingdom, that would be really fair right? ANY change requires 16 countries to sign off on it and don't bet the mortgage that is going to happen any-time soon.

 

[American Dane]

I'm not PC but for the sake of simplicity it would have been easier if equal primogeniture was already the law of the land but its not. Canada is majority Catholic 46 percent out of 79 percent Christian population. Single largest Christian religion. Australia's single largest Christian denonmination is Catholic at 26 percent out of a total Chrisitian pop of 66 percent.
My previous comment was not accurate as stated
One of the advantages of Denmark being a tiny kingdom with no commonwealth realms is these problems don't impact the Danes. Queen Elizabeth is queen of 16 countries

You still haven't answered my question where you received the info on religion from. I didn't ask for clarification, I asked for a reputable source.

Don't know why you brought Denmark up but Denmark actually is comprised of three territories that make up a Danish commonwealth... and until devolution took place recently, the succession of the monarchy was of MAJOR importance in not just "tiny" Denmark

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

You still haven't answered my question where you received the info on religion from. I didn't ask for clarification, I asked for a reputable source.

Don't know why you brought Denmark up but Denmark actually is comprised of three territories that make up a Danish commonwealth... and until devolution took place recently, the succession of the monarchy was of MAJOR importance in not just "tiny" Denmark

I used the CIA fact book. Don't know if its reputable enough but the numbers are roughly the same on wikipedia. Roman Catholicism is the largest Christian religion in the world. Why it is surprising to you that Canada and Australia's single largest Christian religion is also RC ?

I know all about your territories. I fly over the metropolis of Greenland on my way to visit the UK

 

[American Dane]

I used the CIA fact book. Don't know if its reputable enough but the numbers are roughly the same on wikipedia. Roman Catholicism is the largest Christian religion in the world. Why it is surprising to you that Canada and Australia's single largest Christian religion is also RC?

First of all, don't get testy. I'm merely asking for sources which is done quite often on TRF. Sources are supposed to be provided for info on royals and are supposed to be provided for statistics like this.

Second, I never in any of my posts disagreed with you that Christianity (and specifically Catholicism) was the predominant religion in both Canada and Australia. What you fail to mention in your posts is that "no religion" or a religion other than Christianity (i.e. Islam) is growing in both Canada and Australia.

From an Australian governmental source:
"Between 2001 and 2011, the number of people reporting a non-Christian faith increased considerably, from around 0.9 million to 1.5 million, accounting for 7.2% of the total population in 2011 (up from 4.9% in 2001). The most common non-Christian religions in 2011 were Buddhism (accounting for 2.5% of the population), Islam (2.2%) and Hinduism (1.3%)... The number of people reporting 'No Religion' also increased strongly, from 15% of the population in 2001 to 22% in 2011. This is most evident amongst younger people, with 28% of people aged 15-34 reporting they had no religious affiliation."
Australian Bureau of Statistics - Reflecting a Nation: Stories from the 2011 Census, 2012–2013

I have to say that I found it interesting that Canada does not have more recent statistics on religion than from 2001. However I did find this:
"Statistics Canada projects that by 2017, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists will comprise 10 per cent of Canada's population, up from 6 per cent on the 2001 census. (Muslims now comprise the second largest religious group among immigrants, after Catholics: 15 per cent of the total.)"
Canada marching from religion to secularization - The Globe and Mail

My point is that from the information available, I draw a different conclusion than you.
Just like in the UK, Christianity will soon no longer be the most predominant religion in the nation. Recent immigrants and younger people are most likely not affiliated with any religion or they affiliate with Islam. A law regarding religion at all will be seen as irrelevant to them.

Also, FYI, the sources I provided with links included were a very easy find. Don't know why you couldn't attach a link in your posts.

I know all about your territories. I fly over the metropolis of Greenland on my way to visit the UK

You say you know all about my territories (I'm American and Australian BTW -- not Danish -- thanks for jumping to conclusions) but you didn't seem to be aware there was a Danish commonwealth...

 

[Lumutqueen]

The monarchy isn't broke so there is nothing to fix or change IMO

Except it is broken, and has been broken since it's conception in the UK. I don't see how something can be deemed as fair when it comes down to what sex you are rather than the order you were born in.
Whilst I agree that Canadian politics are Canadian priority, they are part of the commonwealth and their Governors and politicians know that.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Except it is broken, and has been broken since it's conception in the UK. I don't see how something can be deemed as fair when it comes down to what sex you are rather than the order you were born in.
Whilst I agree that Canadian politics are Canadian priority, they are part of the commonwealth and their Governors and politicians know that.

I agree it isn't fair but where do we draw the line? Monarchy isn't supposed to be fair. It is one family given the role of Head of State by the accident of birth. Its ancient and traditional and IMO if we try and 'modernise' it too much it will just crumble away.

Also, FYI, the sources I provided with links included were a very easy find. Don't know why you couldn't attach a link in your posts..

The Act of Settlement deals with the Roman Catholic exclusion. Nothing to do with any of your interesting links on the growth and decline of various world religions.

 

[American Dane]

The Act of Settlement deals with the Roman Catholic exclusion. Nothing to do with any of your interesting links on the growth and decline of various world religions.

Oy... the point of the "links on the growth and decline of various world religions" is that a law regarding religion (THE ACT OF SETTLEMENT) will be seen as irrelevant to citizens of the commonwealth realms in the coming years and will be easily abolished or changed. I love how the main point of your posts changes from post to post just so you can find a way to disagree with me.

 

[Felica]

Succession to the Crown Act 2013

Of course if the couple were to only have daughters( like the Queen and Princess Margaret or like Beatrice and Eugenie) then the problem could be put off for another generation ... By which time some of the issues raised here may have abated

 

[Iluvbertie]

Except it is broken, and has been broken since it's conception in the UK. I don't see how something can be deemed as fair when it comes down to what sex you are rather than the order you were born in.
Whilst I agree that Canadian politics are Canadian priority, they are part of the commonwealth and their Governors and politicians know that.

Could you please explain your last point?

Being part of the Commonwealth has nothing to do with the issue of equal primogeniture as most of the countries in the Commonwealth are already republics or have their own monarchs.

The British monarch currently is the Head of the Commonwealth but that position isn't hereditary and it is very likely that when The Queen passes some other person, besides the British monarch, will become Head of the Commonwealth.

All of the countries of the Commonwealth are completely independent of each other - can even declare war on each other (as has happened quite regularly on the sub-continent between India and Pakistan). Theoretically The Queen could actually find herself as Head of State of two separate nations at war with each other.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Yes they can do what they like, and that's my point if they don't want to change their laws or find a way around their tangled mess of issues, just become a republic and leave the commonwealth.
This issue isn't going to go away, and Canada isn't going to halt its progress now or in the future. There is a reason this had to be signed off by the Commonwealth realms, and I bet Canada knows the alternatives to not signing.

Side note: I know what the commonwealth is, what it does etc but thanks for the minor education lesson.

I agree it isn't fair but where do we draw the line? Monarchy isn't supposed to be fair. It is one family given the role of Head of State by the accident of birth. Its ancient and traditional and IMO if we try and 'modernise' it too much it will just crumble away.

After equal primogeniture, what's left to modernise? The monarchy must move with the times to fit in, it's not going to last forever anyone who believes that needs to take one look at history. It will crumble away sooner or later.

 

[wbenson]

"Just becoming a republic" would, of course, require the same process.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Being a republic doesn't mean they have to leave the Commonwealth.

In fact that majority of nations in the Commonwealth aren't republics. There are also some nations that were never British colonies.

It was in fact India's desire to be a republic after independence that gave rise to the Commonwealth rather than the Empire. Currently there are 54 nations in the Commonwealth and only 16 have The Queen as Head of State.

wbenson is so right - regardless of what Canada decides to do it will take the same process - so they can hold up the equal primogeniture proposal simply because it is a change to their consistution and that is very very hard to achieve (and it would be just as hard for Canada to become a republic and not be involved in this issue). It isn't as simple as - if you don't like this idea become a republic - still needs the same process.

 

[wbenson]

It actually hasn't been settled that changing the succession will require the most arduous constitutional amendment process in Canada. It's certainly a possibility, but I'd expect other avenues to at least be examined.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

After equal primogeniture, what's left to modernise? The monarchy must move with the times to fit in, it's not going to last forever anyone who believes that needs to take one look at history. It will crumble away sooner or later.

Well why not force members of the Royal Family to marry visible minorities. This would reflect 'modern Britain'
Or why not choose from all the children, draw straws and the winner becomes monarch. That would be more equitable.

IMO. once you start 'dumbing' down the Royal Family and make it reflect 'modern Britain' the entire institution becomes watered down and and it will alienate many monarchists, including myself.

 

[casualfan]

Well why not force members of the Royal Family to marry visible minorities. This would reflect 'modern Britain'
Or why not choose from all the children, draw straws and the winner becomes monarch. That would be more equitable.

IMO. once you start 'dumbing' down the Royal Family and make it reflect 'modern Britain' the entire institution becomes watered down and and it will alienate many monarchists, including myself.

Sorry but your argument makes no sense. If you didn't allow a prince to marry a minority, even f that's who he happens to fall in love with, that would be the same as denying the throne to a woman even tho she happened to be born first.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

I don't see how people can be opposed equal primogeniture, look at Queen Margrethe II of Denmark, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands or just look at the wonderful Queen Elizabeth II - they've done a just as good, maybe even better job reigning their countries. Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden all have equal primogeniture and honestly, what's the big difference? I doubt it's gonna be a bigger difference in the UK.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

As some sisters were born before their brothers (just as an example; Lady Louise was born before her brother James) will the elder sisters be able to come before their brothers in the line of succession after the act has officially been declared?