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
 
  #281  
Old 06-11-2013, 01:31 PM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 7,336
Video:
Royal succession laws challenged in bid to renew constitutional debate-
Quebec profs take aim at royal succession law changes, claim Ottawa acted unconstitutionally | CTV News
__________________

__________________
"If you are always trying to be normal you will never know how amazing you can be."

Dr. Maya Angelou
Reply With Quote
  #282  
Old 06-11-2013, 10:42 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
I am a first born girl. The blatant sexism in the protest to the law isn't apparent.
Ish - I quite agree with you. So Canada and the territories/provinces could decide to pass a law allowing first born women to ascend to the throne. Boom - the gender issue disappears and the territories/provinces preserve their right of autonomy (my choice of word - no intent to offend).

Instead I see the quibbling about side issues - which has the effect of keeping a firstborn female child off the throne.

We do this all the time in the US - get stuck in a side discussion when we could move at least one/main issue forward. It ticks me off. If the provinces really agree that a firstborn female can rule - then let them take that action! That's all I am saying.

And if they don't want to take that action - then it is not just an issue of Canada's right to self govern and how to do that. IMHO.

Actually, it's kinda nice to see Canada get feisty about this!
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #283  
Old 06-12-2013, 04:26 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS View Post
Ish - I quite agree with you. So Canada and the territories/provinces could decide to pass a law allowing first born women to ascend to the throne. Boom - the gender issue disappears and the territories/provinces preserve their right of autonomy (my choice of word - no intent to offend).
That would explicitly incorporate the laws governing succession into the Canadian constitution. That would be a change (possibly*) that the government may not wish to make, as it would bind every future government to make any other changes in the same manner.

*Some people are of the opinion that the Act of Settlement, etc. already are a part of the Canadian constitution, but there has never been a binding case to establish that, and there is also educated opinion to the contrary. Sometimes the law is messy. You can read the Monarchist League of Canada's rationale for the change not requiring a constitutional amendment here.
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #284  
Old 06-15-2013, 02:48 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS View Post
...I see the quibbling about side issues...
A country's constitutional arrangements isn't a 'side issue' but extremely important.

This law will come into effect - no question - but each country has to also do it according to their own constitutions and getting it right to begin with is the only way to go.

Imagine this scenario - the national parliament passes the legislation and the provinces/states don't question it but then in 30 years time, the child is about to inherit and someone challenges the constitutionality of the law that allows the girl to inherit over the younger brother but the High Court rules that the law wasn't passed properly - meaning said girl is not the rightful heir.

Let's take a deep breath and get it right now rather than have a problem down the track.
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #285  
Old 06-15-2013, 03:03 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,374
Well put, Bertie.

Here I think the side issue is the gender issue that the law is attempting to deal with. Actually no, I put that wrong. I think the law is extremely important. I support the gender equality it's introducing to the monarchy and the step it's taking towards ending the continued discrimination of Catholics within the monarchy. I do think that's very important.

In the issue of people attempting to block the law, however, I think the law itself is the side issue, and the way the government has handled it's passing that is a very serious issue. At best the government has violated the rights of the provinces (which is the way the lawsuit seems to be treating it), but in reality the government is more likely violating the autonomy of the country. That's not at all a side issue.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #286  
Old 06-15-2013, 03:33 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,685
Here in Australia the legislation hasn't even been introduced and as our parliament is soon to rise for winter and then we have an election it could be some time - the states and federal governments all agree on the legislation (as do the majority of the people) but we have to make sure that it is passed constitutionally and Canada is the same.

Time is actually on our side as the highest RC affected is the Earl of St Andrews who would be 33rd if he hadn't married a RC. His two elder children are would still be barred as they are RC in their own right and presumably his younger daughter will follow them.

That means that the RC issue is really minor in its effect. If the child to be born soon is a boy it also buys more time or if a girl and then a second girl again more time.

The more pressing issue is actually the issue of consent as Eugenie will be affected almost as soon as this legislation comes into effect - she drops to 7th in a month or so and therefore wouldn't be getting permission to marry from her grandmother.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #287  
Old 06-15-2013, 03:53 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
I must admit I think the bill handled the consent to marry wrong. I think everyone who is an HRH should still be required to get consent in addition to those in the top 6 positions, especially male HRHs since their spouses will get the HRH automatically upon marriage.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 06-15-2013, 04:05 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,685
The problem with that is that there are so many now between HRHs that don't have it you end up with the situation where someone in the 30s or 40s has to ask e.g. Princess Alexandra if she wanted to remarry - but most of those ahead of her wouldn't need it.

I think it should have been ALL children and grandchildren of a monarch regardless of HRH.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #289  
Old 06-15-2013, 04:20 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bath, United Kingdom
Posts: 247
All those in line for the throne require the Monarch's permission to marry irrespective of which number they stand in line! Eg Ernst August, Prince if Hanover sought Her Majesty's permission to marry Princess Caroline.
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #290  
Old 06-15-2013, 04:32 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,685
That is the current situation but once the Succession to the Crown Act is passed in all the other realms only the first six in the line of succession will need it.

Actually Ernst didn't need it as a descendent of Empress Frederick of Germany he was exempt as she was a British born princess who married into a foreign royal house thus exempting ALL her descendants but Ernst and his family have continued to ask as male-line descendants of George II. It is situations like this (or rather the opposite - people who don't realise that they are descendants of George II and therefore need permission to legally marry that this legislation will help as they will be legitimately married).
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #291  
Old 07-19-2013, 09:25 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Queensland has been arguing that each of the states [of Australia]...is a separate Crown in its own right.
Further to the question of separate [Australian] state Crowns, I'll quote part of a handout the local State MP has letterboxed to constituents:

"In 2011 Commonwealth countries agreed to enact laws to remove discrimination against female heirs to the throne...In the [NSW State] Parliament I raised concerns that the Succession to the Crown (Request) Bill could reduce the argument that NSW has its own Crown separate to the Commonwealth because it only refers to the 'Crown of Australia'. Monarchists and republicans concerned about State rights share this view.

Since the Australia Acts of 1986, the Queen can only act on the advice of the [State] Premier on State matters. It remains unresolved whether this means she is Queen of NSW separate to being Queen of Australia. NSW should have adopted a similar bill to Queensland, which specifically protected the possibility of a separate Crown."

Note that the issue is irrelevant to a monarchy/republic debate, it is about that perennial of Australian politics, "States Rights". While the Federal Constitution of 1901 gives the Commonwealth Government relatively limited and strictly defined powers, the tendency of Federal administrations of both sides of politics has been to seek expansion of those powers, such attempts generally meeting strong resistance by the States.
.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #292  
Old 07-21-2013, 01:18 PM
Lenora's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Riga, Latvia
Posts: 2,090
Britain could have two rival monarchs if Commonwealth fails to agree primogeniture law change - Telegraph

Britain could have two rival monarchs if Commonwealth fails to agree primogeniture law change


A failure by Commonwealth states to change the primogeniture rule could lead to a first-born daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge becoming monarch in the UK – but a later son being king in other countries. Many Commonwealth countries have failed to agree to the new law, which would allow a first-born daughter of Kate and William becoming the monarch even if they later have a son.

Without this agreement, a situation could arise where a first-born daughter becomes queen in Britain and some Commonwealth realms but, in countries where the law has not been given assent, a younger brother becomes king – creating rival monarchs. To avoid the prospect of Britain having different sovereigns in different countries, the Succession to the Crown Act has to be accepted in each of the 15 Commonwealth realms where the Queen is head of state. But just three of the 15 have so far given assent.

The delay to the new rules, championed by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, has caused such concern that Lord Tankerness, a member of the House of Lords and a barrister, was sent in May on a tour of some of the realms to urge them to bring in the change and offer advice on how they might do so.

The act will come into force only once the law is altered, but it will be backdated to include any children born after October 2011, the date when Commonwealth leaders first agreed to end the primogeniture rule. The countries that need to approve the change are: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Papua New Guinea, St Kitts and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Barbados, Tuvalu, Grenada, Solomon Islands, St Lucia and the Bahamas.

The three that have approved the change are St Kitts and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines and Canada, although Ottawa's decision simply to give assent to the British law, rather than creating its own bill, has sparked an appeal.
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #293  
Old 07-22-2013, 03:47 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
Royal baby bill challenge joined by Quebec attorney general - Canada - CBC News

This is what happens when governments rush things along without necessarily following the right process. The government of Quebec is joining a lawsuit challenging the federal governments right to make changes in the succession, which they view as a constitutional change, without consulting the provinces. In this I agree with the government of Quebec. Note that no one is challenging the law itself or the need for the change, this is all about correct constitutional process.
Now that we have a new baby prince and there is no need to rush things anymore, hopefully all of the Commonwealth realms will take the time to follow there own correct constitutional processes so there could not be future challenges. Always better to take the time to do things right the first time.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #294  
Old 07-22-2013, 03:48 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,189
I was just about to post that I imagine this will all be forgotten for another time.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 07-22-2013, 03:52 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenora View Post
Britain could have two rival monarchs if Commonwealth fails to agree primogeniture law change .
This of course is total rubbish - as the agreements at CHOGM was that the change would only take effect once ALL the realms had passed the necessary legislation so there was no split.

Of course it is irrelevant now - and can wait another 30 or so years before anyone has to worry about the situation - when The Prince of Cambridge is about to become a father.
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #296  
Old 07-22-2013, 04:02 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
I was just about to post that I imagine this will all be forgotten for another time.
I think it has gone too far already to stop. The bill is already being voted on and agreed to. It's not at the talking stage or proposal stage, they have already taken costly steps to start the process. It seems foolish to stop it now, even with a Prince.

Sad to say, but even with modern medicine, there is a chance little Prince C won't see the throne, and a younger sibling would.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #297  
Old 07-22-2013, 04:08 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,374
It's not going to be stopped, but it's not going to be rushed anymore. Some states which haven't passed it yet may out it on the backburner and (hopefully) the government of Canada will be forced to redo how they did it.
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #298  
Old 07-22-2013, 04:13 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,189
Until there's a spare, of course it's in doubt. But this bill isn't a priority and never really has been. If it had been it would have been sorted out years ago.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #299  
Old 07-22-2013, 04:18 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,072
It is still good to know that if William and Catherine have a girl next time she will still remain high up in the line of succession rather than disappear down the line like Princess Anne!
Also, by the time events come to pass where the new succession rules will come into play, said new rule will have been established for decades!
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #300  
Old 07-22-2013, 04:20 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,685
She would only go down further if they had a second son after a first girl.
__________________

__________________
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
Prince Frederik and Princess Mary's Official 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's 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




Popular Tags
belgium brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik 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 constantine ii 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 constantijn prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima 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 01:25 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]