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
 
  #941  
Old 06-10-2013, 08:46 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,272
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
  #942  
Old 06-10-2013, 08:54 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 4,458
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
  #943  
Old 06-10-2013, 09:10 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,368
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
  #944  
Old 06-10-2013, 10:44 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,952
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
  #945  
Old 06-11-2013, 12:57 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,304
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.
Reply With Quote
  #946  
Old 06-11-2013, 02:31 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,483
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
__________________
"THE REAL POWER OF A MAN IS IN THE SIZE OF THE SMILE OF THE WOMAN SITTING NEXT TO HIM."

GENTLEMAN'S ESSENTIALS
Reply With Quote
  #947  
Old 06-11-2013, 11:42 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 4,458
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
  #948  
Old 06-12-2013, 05:26 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,304
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.
Reply With Quote
  #949  
Old 06-15-2013, 03:48 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,197
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
  #950  
Old 06-15-2013, 04:03 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,952
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
  #951  
Old 06-15-2013, 04:33 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,197
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
  #952  
Old 06-15-2013, 04:53 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,272
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
  #953  
Old 06-15-2013, 05:05 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,197
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
  #954  
Old 06-15-2013, 05:20 AM
ldmemail's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bath, United Kingdom
Posts: 275
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
  #955  
Old 06-15-2013, 05:32 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,197
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
  #956  
Old 07-17-2013, 10:23 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Zeeland, United States
Posts: 49
If this change is made, if the monarch is a queen, will her husband then become king consort? Seems like if they are trying to make things 'equal', then it should be.

Also will the Duke of York's oldest daughter then also become Duke of York one day? Once again, it seems like if they are trying to make things 'equal' then it should be.
Reply With Quote
  #957  
Old 07-17-2013, 10:48 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,272
The answer to both your questions is no. The bill is only about succession to the crown, not the title of a monarchs spouse nor succession to hereditary peerages.
Reply With Quote
  #958  
Old 07-19-2013, 05:41 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 392
Are there any plans to change the gender rules for the Dukedom of Cornwall for females, for the titles of husbands of blood princesses (would they become Princes?) and even for the rules surrounding male line grandchildren? The current situation is unfair to female line grandchildren of the monarch.
__________________
Virtually Royalty
Reply With Quote
  #959  
Old 07-19-2013, 06:45 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,272
No such plans have been mentioned. I doubt there will be any plans to increase the number of princes and pricnesses by allowing a monarchs daughters to pass such titles to her children.
Reply With Quote
  #960  
Old 07-19-2013, 08:14 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
Are there any plans to change the gender rules for the Dukedom of Cornwall for females, for the titles of husbands of blood princesses (would they become Princes?) and even for the rules surrounding male line grandchildren? The current situation is unfair to female line grandchildren of the monarch.
Regarding the Duchy of Cornwall (and the PoW title), I suspect they'll be addressed in time when there actually is a female heir (or even a female heir of an heir). Right now the holder of both titles is male, as is his heir, so there's no need to change anything yet.

As for the husbands of blood princesses and their children, there's also no need to change things yet. On the one hand, there is a definite push to see the BRF downsized, and on the other hand the grandchildren of the Queen who don't have princely titles don't seem to be bothered by their lack of titles. The Queen is reported as having offered to give Anne's husbands (or at least the first one), and Anne's son titles, all of which were turned down. As both the Yorks seem to be leading more private lives, I doubt either of them cares if their future husbands or children have princely titles either.

The only point at which this would actually become an issue is if William's eldest is a girl, but it's likely that LPs will be issued to cover her spouse and children when she gets around to having either, as was done with Elizabeth herself.
__________________

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
The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change GrandDuchess Royal House of Sweden 455 07-19-2015 09:05 AM
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession Elise,LadyofLancaster British Royals 942 03-09-2015 11:32 PM
Prince Frederik and Princess Mary's Official Visit to Australia: November 19-26, 2011 Princess Robijn Crown Prince Frederik, Crown Princess Mary and Family 295 08-28-2014 09:34 PM
Prince Frederik and Princess Mary's Official Visit to Brazil: September 16-21, 2012 ricarda Crown Prince Frederik, Crown Princess Mary and Family 81 10-05-2012 05:15 PM
The Third Succession Act (Henry VIII, 1543) Daz_Voz British Royal History 4 07-25-2012 04:17 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit best outfit september brunei royal family catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch state visit e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl gustaf king felipe king felipe vi king harald king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathilde daytime fashion queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania australia november 2016 royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:00 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises