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

[Mariel]

Speaking of early homes in London, I was in one on Harley St. which was a medical office. It was kept by law looking more or less as it was in the eighteenth century. It was four stories, none of the stories wide, and one can imagine the poor maids clambering up and down those four stories. It had a scales on which the patient sat, which was preserved from the eighteenth century. It's one thing I don't like about Downton/Highclere, that the maids had to clamber up and down so much, and live in the attic in the real Highclere, as shown in the video last night in the USA

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Royal Succession Laws to Be Rushed out

New laws to ensure the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's baby accedes to the throne even if it's a girl will be rushed out within two weeks.

The royal couple are currently expecting their first child together and the British government are keen to get the succession laws - which currently see a male child take preference over any female siblings regardless of age - changed before he or she arrives.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

Royal Succession Laws to Be Rushed out

I understand that there are some high tech tests out there now that can tell you gender, along with some abnormalities fairly early - like 9-10 weeks, where we all used to have to wait until about 18 weeks, and sometimes longer.

Could they know something we don't?

 

[Lumutqueen]

I understand that there are some high tech tests out there now that can tell you gender, along with some abnormalities fairly early - like 9-10 weeks, where we all used to have to wait until about 18 weeks, and sometimes longer.

Could they know something we don't?

They could, but it's unlikely that the new laws are going to be rushed through 14 parliaments in two days.

 

[Excalibur]

They could, but it's unlikely that the new laws are going to be rushed through 14 parliaments in two days.

I don't think that is the intention here. My take on the "rush" article is that it will be rushed through the British parliament in the two-weeks timeframe. If I understand correctly, the other parliaments cannot even consider the legislation unless/until it is passed by the British parliament. So this is the "jump-start" to get things moving.

 

[ZaJa]

Funny how people say they would love to live in a certain century and how the things were done so much better back then. I always wonder if they would still feel that way after a few years in that time. We women are used to so much freedom and rights we often take it for granted. Having a job, getting married to whom ever we wanted, going wherever we want, owning property and money, the right to vote (or not), etc, etc. Women didn't have those things in the 1700...

Being African American I can def say I would not want to live in the 1700s lol !

 

[GracieGiraffe]

I don't think that is the intention here. My take on the "rush" article is that it will be rushed through the British parliament in the two-weeks timeframe. If I understand correctly, the other parliaments cannot even consider the legislation unless/until it is passed by the British parliament. So this is the "jump-start" to get things moving.

I agree. They need to get a jump on it as all governments move slowly. I think they last thing they want is the legislation passing after the birth.

 

[dbarn67]

Being African American I can def say I would not want to live in the 1700s lol !

Count me with that same view.

 

[NGalitzine]

^^^^
After the birth won't be that big a deal....as long as it is before the birth of a second child if it is a girl first and a boy second but even then no biggie. Its not as if an infant and a toddler would have a real idea that their lives are planned out for them.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I agree. They need to get a jump on it as all governments move slowly. I think they last thing they want is the legislation passing after the birth.

Actually I think that would be the best thing, wait until Catherine gives birth and then change the succesion laws. If it's a boy then no one has to bother for another 60 years, if it's a girl then pass the law. Simple. Countries in the commonwealth have bigger issues to deal with.

I don't think that is the intention here. My take on the "rush" article is that it will be rushed through the British parliament in the two-weeks timeframe. If I understand correctly, the other parliaments cannot even consider the legislation unless/until it is passed by the British parliament. So this is the "jump-start" to get things moving.

They can consider legislation prior to something being passed in the UK courts. However in December it had been agreed that the UK would draft legislation first, but would not introduce it to the government until all 14 realms had agreed to the terms of the new legislation (roman catholic bit, limit line of succesion that asks for marriage permission etc). Also, even after they receieved agreement, the UK government would not go ahead until the other realms had their domestics situations in place for the change.

For instance in Australia, for new legislation to be created they have to amend the constitution and that requires a referendum. In mid decemeber some disagreement arose about how the country, and the separate states should go about this. Nothing has been resolved and a bill (on what i'm not sure) is supposed to arrive in parliament in 2013.

Canada is also a whole different ball game, all the provinces and the federal government must agree to the changes.

New Zealand is fine and dandy apparently, just needs to implement a few changes which will occur in 2013.

As for the UK, to "rush" this act through, they need parliamentary time and as of the start of December when the bill was drafted, there hasn't been any time allocated.

Everyone needs to agree at the same time, the legislation needs to be brought to law at the same time so that any baby boy or girl will have the correct succession rights in all 14 realms. We can't have a situation where a girl in first in line in one country, but her younger brother is first in line in another can we?

 

[Excalibur]

Everyone needs to agree at the same time, the legislation needs to be brought to law at the same time so that any baby boy or girl will have the correct succession rights in all 14 realms. We can't have a situation where a girl in first in line in one country, but her younger brother is first in line in another can we?

I was aware that both Canada and Australia presented unique circumstances in the approval process, but I had not realized that the intent was for all of the realms to approve at the same time. Thank you for straightening me out.

 

[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.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

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.

It's not so much the succession order which most don't really care about, it's the question of setting a precedent for the feds trumping the states - we would have the same problem here in the United States. Interesting...

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Nick Clegg dismisses Prince Charles' fears on royal laws - Telegraph

The Deputy Prime Minister told MPs that ministers’ plans to change the succession rules will not jeopardise the independence of the Church of England.
Ministers are changing succession laws to ensure that a first-born daughter of the Duke of Cambridge will be Queen, even if she has younger brother. A legal bar on heirs to the throne marrying Roman Catholics will also be removed.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.