The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1061  
Old 03-26-2015, 10:45 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,196
I find it unlikely that the Quebec court will invalidate the act in Canada, but, if it does happen, at least for a while, the line of succession to the Canadian throne will differ from the line of succession to the throne of the other Commonwealth realms.

As explained before, Tâne Lewis has moved down to # 29, switching places with Senna Lewis, and Rufus Gilman has moved down to#32, switching places with Lyla Gilman. In addition, the Earl of St. Andrews and Prince Michael of Kent have been restored to the line of succession, respectively at numbers 34 and 44. BTW, I assume that King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands will also be back in the line of succession (at whatever remote place he is entitled to be) as his marriage to the Roman Catholic Queen Maxima will no longer disqualify him.

It is worth noting also that, once the second Cambridge baby is born, Princess Beatrice of York will no longer be among the six first persons in line to throne and, according to the new Succession Act, will no longer have to request the monarch's permission to get married.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1062  
Old 03-26-2015, 04:13 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,663
My understanding it that until the law is actually gazetted in the UK it won't be in effect anywhere to avoid separate lines of succession.


If there is still any court matters to be cleared up they will be before this takes effect - although it seems that NZ has already decided to jump in and now have a different line of succession to the rest of us.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1063  
Old 03-26-2015, 04:23 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,776
You have to get to the Gloucester grandkids before there is a difference between with and without the law so the person 20 something in line is different in different countries for a period of time isn't really a big deal.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #1064  
Old 03-26-2015, 05:01 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
My understanding it that until the law is actually gazetted in the UK it won't be in effect anywhere to avoid separate lines of succession.
It did take effect "across every Realm."
Reply With Quote
  #1065  
Old 03-26-2015, 06:23 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,663
The biggest change immediately is that Eugenie can now marry without the Queen's consent and after the new baby is born so will Beatrice be able to do so.


They will have the freedom to simply get married without any fanfare or announcement if that is their wish.
Reply With Quote
  #1066  
Old 03-26-2015, 06:37 PM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
My understanding it that until the law is actually gazetted in the UK it won't be in effect anywhere to avoid separate lines of succession.


If there is still any court matters to be cleared up they will be before this takes effect - although it seems that NZ has already decided to jump in and now have a different line of succession to the rest of us.
No, that's not so. As from 11.00 a.m. 26/3/15 (yesterday) these new succession laws came into effect, internationally and simultaneously. Everything's now been finalised, and in Australia's case, it didn't need any approval from the UK.

I refer you to Professor of Constitutional Law, Anne Twomey's excellent article to which Rudolph has provided a link (post 1056)
Reply With Quote
  #1067  
Old 03-26-2015, 06:40 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
The proclamation of the commencement of this legislation marks quite a significant historical moment. Not only can Eugenie marry without her grandmother's consent, she can marry a Catholic and not lose her place in the succession.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #1068  
Old 03-26-2015, 07:07 PM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 664
Yes, Roslyn, yesterday was an historic moment for all, whether republican or Monarchist. I'm surprised that only those of us in Australia who read specialist news and commentaries seem to be aware of it - and Rudolph in Canada, of course.

I think, too, that most people all thought that it was all done and dusted a few years ago, which wasn't the case. Australia took its time, but we did it the right, proper and constitutionally legal way (like Canada, we're a Federation and every state had to ask the Commonwealth to act on its behalf), but it's now all done.

And about time, too.
Reply With Quote
  #1069  
Old 03-26-2015, 07:30 PM
Duke of Leaside's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 35
Finally something from here in Canada:

Statement by Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Canada providing assent to amendments to rules governing the line of succession | Prime Minister of Canada

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I find it unlikely that the Quebec court will invalidate the act in Canada, but, if it does happen, at least for a while, the line of succession to the Canadian throne will differ from the line of succession to the throne of the other Commonwealth realms.

As explained before, Tâne Lewis has moved down to # 29, switching places with Senna Lewis, and Rufus Gilman has moved down to#32, switching places with Lyla Gilman. In addition, the Earl of St. Andrews and Prince Michael of Kent have been restored to the line of succession, respectively at numbers 34 and 44. BTW, I assume that King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands will also be back in the line of succession (at whatever remote place he is entitled to be) as his marriage to the Roman Catholic Queen Maxima will no longer disqualify him.

It is worth noting also that, once the second Cambridge baby is born, Princess Beatrice of York will no longer be among the six first persons in line to throne and, according to the new Succession Act, will no longer have to request the monarch's permission to get married.
It's interesting about King Willem-Alexander being restored to the line of succession. There are literally hundreds (perhaps thousands) of people like him who have been restored after being removed only by reason of marrying an RC. Another interesting one is Prince Ernst August of Hanover who has been restored to the line of succession after being removed when he married Princess Caroline of Monaco on January 23, 1999. The Queen gave her consent to their marriage as per the Royal Marriages Act 1772 on January 11, 1999.
__________________
The Duke
Reply With Quote
  #1070  
Old 03-28-2015, 06:51 AM
Duke of Leaside's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 35
Another bit of minutiae re: changes regarding receiving the Sovereign's consent to marry:

Under the Royal Marriages Act 1772, failure to get consent meant that the marriage was invalid and therefore the children of that marriage were illegitimate and thus those children were not in the line of succession to the crown. However the Royal who married in contravention of the act did NOT lose his or her place in the line of succession. If he/she married again they would not first need divorce because legally the first marriage never existed in the first place. This is the case of the future George IV and others.

Now, while failure to comply with the consent to the marriage provisions of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 (for the first six people in the line of succession) no longer renders the marriage invalid, it does remove the person in contravention and the children from the marriage in question from the line of succession.

So previously the marriage was invalid and the children could not succeed to the throne but the person in question could marry in the future (as the future George IV did) and succeed to the throne as he did.

Now the person in contravention of the Succession to the Crown Act would be barred from succession forever as would the children of the contravening marriage.

So let's say Charles and Camilla had not yet married and today they got married without getting consent from the Queen. Charles would then be removed from the line of succession along with any children from their (legally valid) marriage. If Charles and Camilla then divorced and Charles got married a third time (to Camilla or anyone else and this time with the Queen's consent) then the children of that marriage would be in the line of succession but their father Charles would still be out by reason of his second marriage which was in contravention. Of course William and Harry (and George and their other descendants) would be unaffected by this.

Now it seems that the person marrying in contravention of the Queen's wishes will be punished (permanently) themselves for that transgression whereas before the intent seems to have been to just act like it never happened.

I'm curious if this aspect of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 was envisioned and intended by its writers.
__________________
The Duke
Reply With Quote
  #1071  
Old 03-28-2015, 07:34 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,776
The Queen has never denied any of her family's marriage requests. Plus there is the option of going around the monarch's veto and take the request to parliament if the Royal is at least 25.

The reason why they limited it to 6, is there are many people in the line of succession that their marriage would need approval but the person has no shot at ever being monarch. The person who married the person 154 th in line to the British throne is isn't important if they are a bad character. It cuts down on the rubber stamping of marriages so number 154 doesn't have to ask the Queen to wed


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #1072  
Old 03-28-2015, 09:37 AM
Duke of Leaside's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
... Plus there is the option of going around the monarch's veto and take the request to parliament if the Royal is at least 25. ...

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Of course this option no longer exists. The Royal Marriages Act 1772 was repealed in its entirety as part of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 and the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 makes no provision for notice to be given after a monarch's veto such as existed in section 2 of the Royal Marriages Act 1772.

So, interestingly, although the number of people requiring consent is vastly reduced, there is no way around a monarch's veto any more. The Queen's word would be final!
(Unless and until of course parliament passes another law to deal with a specific case(s) or in a general sense.)
__________________
The Duke
Reply With Quote
  #1073  
Old 03-28-2015, 10:06 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,501
Don't Prince Ernst and Princess Caroline have to seek Her Majesty's permission to divorce?
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #1074  
Old 03-28-2015, 05:44 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Leaside View Post
Now it seems that the person marrying in contravention of the Queen's wishes will be punished (permanently) themselves for that transgression whereas before the intent seems to have been to just act like it never happened.
Which is the lesser evil? The system that allowed an irresponsible George IV to go through a marriage ceremony with Mrs Fitzherbert and then completely ignore that marriage when it was inconvenient for him, or one where the heir is held accountable for his actions?
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #1075  
Old 03-28-2015, 06:11 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
Don't Prince Ernst and Princess Caroline have to seek Her Majesty's permission to divorce?
I doubt it - they didn't actually need it to marry as Ernest was a descendant of a British princess who had married into a foreign royal house (he was descended from the Empress Frederick).

If they wish to divorce they can simply do so, as have many other people in the line of succession without asking The Queen's permission.


This new legislation makes completely moot the 'Farran Exemption' which argued that none of the current British Royal Family actually needed consent anyway as they were descended from Princess, later Queen, Alexandra who herself was descended from a British Princess who married into a foreign royal house.


This new law is very clear - first six in line and that is all.


That leads to a possible scenario - which I would hope would never come to pass but ... what if after the new baby is born Beatrice announces that she is getting married in September - she will be 7th in line once the baby is born but in late August The Queen dies and thus Beatrice goes back up to 6th. What would be the reaction if Charles then refused his permission for her to marry?
Reply With Quote
  #1076  
Old 03-28-2015, 08:27 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,776
Succession to the Crown Act 2013

Why would Charles even refuse her to marry the man that she has been dating for several years? Dave isn't a convicted murder serving time in prison


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #1077  
Old 03-28-2015, 08:51 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Leaside View Post
Of course this option no longer exists. The Royal Marriages Act 1772 was repealed in its entirety as part of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 and the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 makes no provision for notice to be given after a monarch's veto such as existed in section 2 of the Royal Marriages Act 1772.

So, interestingly, although the number of people requiring consent is vastly reduced, there is no way around a monarch's veto any more. The Queen's word would be final!
(Unless and until of course parliament passes another law to deal with a specific case(s) or in a general sense.)
As far as I understand, the monarch's consent must be declared "in council", which, under the conventions of parliamentary government, implies it is actually the government, rather than the monarch in a personal capacity, that must consent to the marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #1078  
Old 03-28-2015, 09:14 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 5,282
Orders in Council are Orders that have been approved at a meeting of the Privy Council personally by The Queen.

Orders of Council do not require personal approval by The Queen, but which can be made by The Lords of the Privy Council (Ministers)
Reply With Quote
  #1079  
Old 03-28-2015, 09:18 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
Why would Charles even refuse her to marry the man that she has been dating for several years? Dave isn't a convicted murder serving time in prison


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

It was a simply 'what if' scenario?

We don't know what Charles thinks of Dave. He mightn't approve of him for some reason while The Queen does.

The point is more that the person in 7th could easily move back to sixth and thus their requirements under the law would change.
Reply With Quote
  #1080  
Old 03-28-2015, 09:58 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 5,282
Consent of Sovereign required to certain Royal Marriages

A person who (when the person marries) is one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown must obtain the consent of Her Majesty before marrying.

Where any such consent has been obtained, it must be—

(a) signified under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom,
(b) declared in Council, and
(c) recorded in the books of the Privy Council.


-----------------------------------------------------------

The language of the statute is clear. The consent of the Queen is required and she must give the approval in council
__________________

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, Crown Princess Mary and Family 303 02-18-2017 09:17 PM
The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change GrandDuchess Royal House of Sweden 455 07-19-2015 08:05 AM
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession Elise,LadyofLancaster British Royals 942 03-09-2015 10:32 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 04:15 PM
The Third Succession Act (Henry VIII, 1543) Daz_Voz British Royal History 4 07-25-2012 03:17 PM




Popular Tags
albania ascot 2016 best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit birthday child coup d'etat crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion denmark duchess of cambridge duke of cambridge far-right fashion poll infanta elena fashion jewels king abdullah ii king carl gustaf and queen silvia king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand norway november 2016 october 2016 picture of the week picture of the week december prince charles prince joachim prince liam prince oscar princess charlene hats princess marie princess marie daytime outfit princess mary princess mary casual style princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess sofia queen anne-marie queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen margrethe queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania fashion queen silvia sally bedell smith september 2016 state visit succession sweden swedish royal family summer portraits the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats tiara tiaras valentino


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 07:35 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises