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
 
  #261  
Old 06-10-2013, 02:54 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,123
I'm not really sure if the act having received Royal Assent really means anything. Basically, to quote Wikipedia, "All laws of Canada, both provincial and federal, must conform to the Constitution and any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect." This means that even though it's received Royal Assent this law can be considered invalid if it violates the Constitution of Canada - and it arguably does.

The current government is claiming that "The changes to the laws of succession do not require a constitutional amendment. The laws governing succession are UK law and are not part of Canada's constitution," however a 2003 Ontario Superior Court ruling states that the rules of succession are "by necessity incorporated into the Constitution of Canada." Thus the government's claiming that this isn't a constitutional amendment, but precedent states that it is, and if it is changing the constitution then the proper steps haven't been taken. Furthermore aspects of the law itself are in violation of the the constitution. I'm in favour of the changes (I'm even willing to ignore the fact that the discrimination against Catholics is in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms), but I think that in making the change the government should adhere to Canadian law. In not doing so there's a precedent being set.

A better article is here: Changes to royal succession face legal fight in Quebec - The Globe and Mail
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 06-10-2013, 03:39 PM
BritishRoyalist's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 724
I say let Quebec become there own country ( The majority Are French I think?) or give them back to the French. I know it the heaviest Republicanism province in Canada but Quebec (not everybody but most) disrespect to the Queen on Victoria Day sickened me.
__________________

__________________
Long Live the Queen!! The Real Queen of Hearts!
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 06-10-2013, 04:12 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 426
Quote:
I say let Quebec become there own country ( The majority Are French I think?) or give them back to the French. I know it the heaviest Republicanism province in Canada but Quebec (not everybody but most) disrespect to the Queen on Victoria Day sickened me.
Here,here ... excellent idea !
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 06-10-2013, 04:27 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritishRoyalist View Post
I say let Quebec become there own country ( The majority Are French I think?) or give them back to the French. I know it the heaviest Republicanism province in Canada but Quebec (not everybody but most) disrespect to the Queen on Victoria Day sickened me.
Okay...

1. The issue of Quebec separatism is different from the issue of republicanism in Quebec. The majority of people living in Quebec (according to Angus Reid polls) do not wish to separate from Canada, but do wish for more autonomy for Quebec.
2. People living in Quebec are Québécois or French-Canadian and do not desire to be given back to the French. Some wish for an independent nation, others for a more autonomous nation within Canada - the situation is similar to the situation in Wales or Scotland. That they largely speak a dialect of French does not make them a continued part of France.
3. What happened in Montreal on Victoria Day was a republican, pro-separation rally. This does not necessarily represent the views of the Québécois overall, just the views of one group. Furthermore it has nothing to do with the Succession to the Throne Act.
4. You can support the overall change to the succession without supporting the means to the change that the government has taken. I am a Canadian and I am a monarchist. However, I also believe that it is important that Canada maintain its autonomy and it's distinctly Canadian relationship with the crown, and I believe that in failing to adhere to the constitution the government has violated Canada's autonomy. I support the Succession to the Throne Act in theory, but I do not like how my government is disregarding the constitution and ignoring Canadian federalism in the way that it is choosing to pass this act.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 06-10-2013, 04:28 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 3,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Let's pray for a boy, lol.
Prayers will not already help; sex of the baby is already fixed.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 06-10-2013, 04:28 PM
Archduchess Zelia's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 1,977
I honestly can't blame William and Catherine if they hope for a boy. Seems like that would be much easier than a firstborn girl. It shouldn't be though, but it seems like it's some headache-inducing issues.
__________________
"In spite of the many initiatives our society offers to help and support, recovery can be such a monumental task that some give up.
They withdraw into themselves. Not least during Christmas and New Year is it hard to feel left out. Tonight my thoughts are with them."

— Queen Margrethe II of Denmark directly addressing people suffering from depression and loneliness in her 2011 New Years address.

Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 06-10-2013, 04:52 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archduchess Zelia View Post
I honestly can't blame William and Catherine if they hope for a boy. Seems like that would be much easier than a firstborn girl. It shouldn't be though, but it seems like it's some headache-inducing issues.
I think the headache inducing issues, at least succession-wise, come about because of the rush to change the laws. It's as if they expect the child to be a girl who is immediately displaced by a younger brother who is then immediately pushed into the throne.

There is no need to rush this act, despite the behaviour of some of the governments suggesting that it is necessary. It isn't necessary for 3 reasons:
1. In order for the Cambridge Baby to become monarch regardless of gender the Queen, Prince Charles, and Prince William all need to die. While the Queen might not be as young as she once was, barring disaster it's unlikely that the three of them are all going to die anytime soon.
2. If the Cambridge Baby is a girl then in order for her to be displaced a male Cambridge Baby would have to be born. Given as Cambridge 1 hasn't been born yet we're looking at at least another year before Cambridge 2 is born. Worrying about the succession issues here is putting the cart before the horse.
3. The law is designed to be retroactive and applies to any birth after 2011. Thus even is Cambridge 1 is a girl and Cambridge 2 is a boy and the law isn't passed until 2018, Cambridge 1 is still going to inherit (unless HM, Charles, and William all die before the law is passed, but after Cambridge 2 is born).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 06-10-2013, 04:58 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,380
Frankly, the people communicating this to us are either politicians or so-called royal journalists, none of whom seem to either understand the process, acknowledge the role of the realms, or understand the implications.

We predicted this would happen way back in December.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 06-10-2013, 06:15 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 1,045
I think the reason it was rushed thru was Nick Clegg was pushing it and using baby c as a excuse. If they waited to see what baby c is and he is a boy, do they even bother with it.

I do find it funny that people are talking about fairness regarding the monarchy. That is what makes it a monarchy. It isn't a fair process. If you want to be king/queen conquer a country.

Do people sue Vatican City wanting to make non Catholics pope because it isn't fair that everyone can't be pope?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 06-10-2013, 06:22 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
I think the reason it was rushed thru was Nick Clegg was pushing it and using baby c as a excuse. If they waited to see what baby c is and he is a boy, do they even bother with it.

I do find it funny that people are talking about fairness regarding the monarchy. That is what makes it a monarchy. It isn't a fair process. If you want to be king/queen conquer a country.

Do people sue Vatican City wanting to make non Catholics pope because it isn't fair that everyone can't be pope?
There is a no-longer-member who warned us of this. I say, let Canada's bits do as they please. The world will not stop on it's axis and maybe, that is a good thing. Imagine the future Queen stopping everywhere but... where she is not wanted. Oooh, wait - that is, in effect what happens today!

Even better - feminists. please go vacation in Queensland, most of Canada and avoid Quebec. Money talks.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #271  
Old 06-10-2013, 06:41 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
I don't see what the fuss is about. Each country has to go through its own necessary constitutional process. If a countrys government acted improperly or is challenged well there are courts to sort it all out. There is no great need to rush the process along, and certainly not a need to override constitutional requirements or boycotts of realms.
Hopefully Baby Cambridge will be a prince and then everyone can slow down, take a deep breath and act according to their respective laws and constitutions.
By the time William and Baby Cambridge come to the throne I think it is likely that most of the other realms will have become republics anyway.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 06-10-2013, 06:53 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
3. The law is designed to be retroactive and applies to any birth after 2011. Thus even is Cambridge 1 is a girl and Cambridge 2 is a boy and the law isn't passed until 2018, Cambridge 1 is still going to inherit (unless HM, Charles, and William all die before the law is passed, but after Cambridge 2 is born).
Good point.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old 06-10-2013, 07:04 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
I think the reason it was rushed thru was Nick Clegg was pushing it and using baby c as a excuse. If they waited to see what baby c is and he is a boy, do they even bother with it.

I do find it funny that people are talking about fairness regarding the monarchy. That is what makes it a monarchy. It isn't a fair process. If you want to be king/queen conquer a country.

Do people sue Vatican City wanting to make non Catholics pope because it isn't fair that everyone can't be pope?
As to the rushing it, that is basically the argument all around, just substitute on PM's name for another. The problem is that in some of the realms this rush is causing for constitutional review. It's one thing to pass a law, it's another thing to violate a realm's constitution in doing so.

As to the fairness, I'm assuming you mean in reference to the Catholic issue. This isn't about the fairness, it's about religious discrimination. The head of a church has to be a member of that church, that makes sense. And in the English sense it makes sense for the monarch to be CoE because the monarch is also the head of the church. However, only in England is there a relationship between monarch and church. In Canada we have a constitutional right to freedom of religion that isn't extended by law to our monarch. That's the problem being argued here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS View Post

There is a no-longer-member who warned us of this. I say, let Canada's bits do as they please. The world will not stop on it's axis and maybe, that is a good thing. Imagine the future Queen stopping everywhere but... where she is not wanted. Oooh, wait - that is, in effect what happens today!

Even better - feminists. please go vacation in Queensland, most of Canada and avoid Quebec. Money talks.
What does Australia or Quebec's issues with the change have to do with feminism?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
I don't see what the fuss is about. Each country has to go through its own necessary constitutional process. If a countrys government acted improperly or is challenged well there are courts to sort it all out. There is no great need to rush the process along, and certainly not a need to override constitutional requirements or boycotts of realms.
Hopefully Baby Cambridge will be a prince and then everyone can slow down, take a deep breath and act according to their respective laws and constitutions.
By the time William and Baby Cambridge come to the throne I think it is likely that most of the other realms will have become republics anyway.
I really agree with the first part of what you've said here. I won't debate the likelihood of other realms becoming republics. I think opinions on the matter fluctuate over time, with some realms having a stronger relationship with the monarchy than others.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 06-10-2013, 07:15 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
What does Australia or Quebec's issues with the change have to do with feminism?
I suspect the the poster's comment arises from the fact the changes are to make male and remove the discrimination in favour of males.

However I welcome the direction to holiday in Queensland. I live a 45 minute drive from the border and I need very little encouragement to nip up there for a bit of a holiday. Port Douglas is particularly nice at this time of year but even Brisbane will do.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 06-10-2013, 07:39 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,483
What does Australia or Quebec's issues with the change have to do with feminism?

1. If you were if a first born girl this would be obvious.

2. I understand that major issues with the change are with voicing Commonwealth choice in the matter and the "Catholic Issue."

That said, I find, often that when people vote with the power of their their purchasing as a persuasive element, it has an effect. A mitigating effect. Women should express the power in their purchasing dollars on this issue, IMHO. No more Quebec originated mail order Prescriptions for me!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old 06-10-2013, 07:46 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
So by your reasoning a boycott of the US should have been organized for those states that failed to pass the ERA as a constitutional amendment.

Quebecs issue is that the provinces were not consulted on what they, and many others, view as a constitutional change requiring the approval of all 10 provinces. It is the process used by the federal government not the changes themselves that is objected to.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 06-10-2013, 07:54 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
So by your reasoning a boycott of the US should have been organized for those states that failed to pass the ERA as a constitutional amendment.

Quebecs issue is that the provinces were not consulted on what they, and many others, view as a constitutional change requiring the approval of all 10 provinces. It is the process used by the federal government not the changes themselves that is objected to.
Yes, I have never spent a penny here since then. Or at least not voted for any of those turkeys who did not support the ERA. And yes - I would avoid Quebec for just this reason. You can't cow me, I am a feminist and proud of it. And, again, I am off topic. Mods - SLAP ME! Shutting up now. Jumpy claps, everyone!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #278  
Old 06-10-2013, 08:10 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 1,045
With regards to the Catholic issue, the new law would allow a person in line to marry a catholic and retain his/her right to the crown. The monarch has to be CoE so this only becomes a big deal when the direct heir is involved and the person marrying is unwilling to allow their children to be raised Anglican.

The monarch being head of the Church of England is from Henry VIII. Canada choose to make its head of state the British monarch with full knowledge of the ties of church and state in England. Is the British sovereign a citizen of the UK or the UK, Canada and the rest of the realms? Because if the royals are just UK citizens ( autumn and the girls not counting) the freedom of religion in Canada doesn't apply to them.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #279  
Old 06-10-2013, 09:44 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS View Post
What does Australia or Quebec's issues with the change have to do with feminism?

1. If you were if a first born girl this would be obvious.

2. I understand that major issues with the change are with voicing Commonwealth choice in the matter and the "Catholic Issue."

That said, I find, often that when people vote with the power of their their purchasing as a persuasive element, it has an effect. A mitigating effect. Women should express the power in their purchasing dollars on this issue, IMHO. No more Quebec originated mail order Prescriptions for me!
I am a first born girl. The blatant sexism in the protest to the law isn't apparent.

I have no problem with the reform to the succession to allow for absolute primogeniture. Neither, from what I've read, do the people who are trying to block it. Despite that being the main reason behind the law it is not a reason for the blocking of the law.

The problem here is primarily that in enacting this law the Canadian government violated the Canadian constitution. No one is saying that the succession shouldn't be changed to allow for absolute primogeniture, just that in changing the law the government should be adhering to constitutional law. A law made that violated the constitution is not valid - this law violates the constitution, thus it is not valid.

In Canada in order to change the constitution the federal government has to cooperate with the provinces. This has not happened. According to Canadian common law the issue of succession to the Canadian throne is a constitutional matter. To change something that is a constitutional matter the provinces have to be involved. This has not happened. While the law may involve equal gender rights the protest against the way the law was passed has nothing to do with the gender rights that it's promoting.

Furthermore, the law itself also violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In this anyone in Canada has the right to the freedom of religion. However, in restricting the succession to the throne to not allow Catholics to succeed this law is violating that freedom.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
With regards to the Catholic issue, the new law would allow a person in line to marry a catholic and retain his/her right to the crown. The monarch has to be CoE so this only becomes a big deal when the direct heir is involved and the person marrying is unwilling to allow their children to be raised Anglican.

The monarch being head of the Church of England is from Henry VIII. Canada choose to make its head of state the British monarch with full knowledge of the ties of church and state in England. Is the British sovereign a citizen of the UK or the UK, Canada and the rest of the realms? Because if the royals are just UK citizens ( autumn and the girls not counting) the freedom of religion in Canada doesn't apply to them.
Canada didn't chose to make it's head of state the British sovereign, Canada was a colony that at confederation chose to continue it's relationship with the crown (at the time not doing so wasn't entirely an option, however we have chosen to continue that relationship since then).

The British monarch is not the head of state of Canada. The Canadian monarch is the head of state of Canada, they just happen to be the same individual. The Canadian monarch is a Canadian citizen, and it has been argued (by none other than Prince Philip) that the spouse of the Canadian monarch is also a Canadian citizen.

The monarch of England has to be CoE. The monarch of Canada does not.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #280  
Old 06-10-2013, 11:57 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
Quebecs issue is that the provinces were not consulted on what they, and many others, view as a constitutional change requiring the approval of all 10 provinces. It is the process used by the federal government not the changes themselves that is objected to.
The lawsuit isn't even by Quebec. The government of Quebec hasn't made any legal challenges, and I don't think the current government has expressed an opinion on the issue at all. The suit was filed by a few third parties with no connection to the provincial government. I'm not sure it's even a given that they have the standing to sue the government over such an issue.
__________________

__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
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
Frederik and Mary's Official/Business Visit to Australia; November 19-26, 2011 Princess Robijn Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary and Family 295 08-28-2014 08:34 PM
The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change GrandDuchess Royal House of Sweden 276 06-30-2014 12:52 AM
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession Elise,LadyofLancaster British Royals 926 04-15-2014 11:41 PM
Prince Frederik and Princess Mary Official Visit to Brazil; September 16-21, 2012 ricarda Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary and Family 81 10-05-2012 04:15 PM
The Third Succession Act (Henry VIII, 1543) Daz_Voz British Royals 4 07-25-2012 03:17 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth bourbon-parma charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta sofia jewellery jordan kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympics ottoman picture of the month pieter van vollenhoven pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:57 PM.

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]