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

[Jacknch]

Each country should surely have some precedent or procedure for changing some kind of law or another whether it be criminal law, civil law, the law of property or indeed constitutinal law. I agree that mechanism will likely not be same for everyone. However, to start off, I would have the UK government draw up some basic draft legislation, which broadly matches most country's requirements. Each country can then amend the wording to suit their own requirements, enact it in the way that makes it law in that country and done deal!
Obviously I'm completely not clued up about this sort fo thingm but I see it that the Act of Settlement is a legal document (presumable it is) and requires a small and rather insignificant amendment to delete or re-word the clause or provision that states the monarch must be male or requires a male heir (or whatever). I'd just send everyone certified copies of the Act of Settlement with the wording deleted for everyone to initial, stamp or do whatever and have it returned duly amended, have the Queen sign the counterpart, return copies of the completed amendment and forget all about it for a hundreds years while the next couple of generations have boys only!

 

[wbenson]

I believe that one complicating factor is that in some countries, the status of the Act of Settlement isn't really known with any certainty. The last time the monarchy was altered was 1936 (when the British Parliament passed His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act with the consent of the other realms), but that was before significant changes occurred in the constitutional structure of many of the Commonwealth realms. In 1936, Canada among other countries could simply approve of a change in the law and have it be enacted by the British Parliament. That's now impossible. The question is, what kind of law is the Act of Settlement in these countries now? Is it regular old statute law, which would be relatively easy to change, or constitutional law, which in some countries could make any amendments quite difficult (politically if not logistically)? That's not the kind of question that can be answered with a quick stamp.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The fact that a committee has been working on this for nearly a year now and still hasn't worked out the bugs tells you that it is more complicated than a simple change of wording of a British law.

If it is deemed a constitutional matter then to change it in Australia will require a full referendum not just legislation for instance. It might even require that all the state and terrirtory governments have to pass it separately as well as the Federal government. This is the sort of issue that has to be worked out.

The wording will also need to be the same in each realm.

It will happen but it is taking time to make it meet the requirements of each of the different realms and satisfy their laws and constitutions.

 

[fearghas]

And if the process drags on long enough and the Scottish referndum results in independence for Scotland, then they too will need to be part of the decision (unless they opt for republicanism instead).

 

[AdmirerUS]

Impacts and ramifications of the proposed legislative changes

From the DM today - they are saying not only has primogeniture been abandoned - but so has the ban on marriage to a Roman Catholic based on meetings in the Commonwealth. Many of you in this thread know far more about this than those of us in the US.

Was there any news about this when the PM met with the Commonwealth leaders last? I thought there would need to be Constitutional Amendments in parts of the Commonwealth?

I understand this is the DM - but is there any truth in this report? They usually get much of it right and then spin the rest to suit sales.
Kate Middleton pregnant: Law on line to the throne to be backdated | Mail Online

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Nothing has been legislated in any of the realms.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Sorry but that article mentions nothing about abandoning the changes set in motion last October. Do you mean something else?

At the October meeting it was decided that the British monarchy would have equal primogeniture and royals would be allowed to marry Catholics. So far these changes haven't been signed into law or discussed properly by any country in the commonwealth. Also if Catherine has a boy, it will all go away again.

 

[Iluvbertie]

There has been a committee working in NZ since October last year to get the legislation prepared so that it will pass all 16 realms with the same wording. They did say at the time that it could take about 4 years to get it all worked out.

Of course if the baby is a boy then the pressure is off for another quarter of a century.

 

[cepe]

I've got questions

From the press reports today (and the BBC) the question of primogeniture is "settled". According to the Deputy PRime minister (Nick Clegg), the 1st born child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will be 3rd in line to the throne regardless of gender. And (I'm paraphrasing) that will happen whether the legislation is in place at the time of birth or not.

Now I'm ok with all of that. But I think the question of being allowed to marry a Catholic is a whole different kettle of ball-games.

I'm not very knowledgeable about this but surely whilst we have an Established Church in the UK where the Monarch is Head of the Anglican Church, the children of a Monarch would need to be brought up in the Anglican faith.

Disestablishment of the Church will take YEARS to argue and get through parliament. Surely these 2 pieces of legislation need to be separated and discussed separately?

I don't currently have a view because I don't feel that I understand all the implications.

Also, if the monarchy brings in primogeniture - what happens with the nobility? Anyone seen anything about that?

 

[AdmirerUS]

[I agree - the news is reporting it as a done deal - but I am not sure that it will go so smoothly. The only bit I saw as a easy to do was reducing the degree to which the monarch gets to approve/not-allow royal marriages. I doubt anyone was double checking that lately!

 

[NGalitzine]

The proposals still require the monarch to be CofE, they will however be allowed to marry an RC without losing their right of succession.
The PM, Deputy PM, Opposition Leader and Santa Claus can all say that the 1st born is heir no matter what but their words mean nothing if the legislation is not passed by the 16 realms.

 

[padams2359]

I figured it would go quickly once the pregnancy was announced. It's not like they were going to wait much past 30 to start.

 

[cepe]

The proposals still require the monarch to be CofE, they will however be allowed to marry an RC without losing their right of succession.
The PM, Deputy PM, Opposition Leader and Santa Claus can all say that the 1st born is heir no matter what but their words mean nothing if the legislation is not passed by the 16 realms.

But the Catholic spouse of a monarch/future monarch/potential monarch (thinking of "spares" on this) would have to agree that their children would be brought up in the Anglican faith. In the same way that Princess Michael of Kent has done?

Seems to me that these days we have a politicans who do not understand 1. the law; 2. religion; 3. workings of the monarchy and 4. don't have plain common sense.

But love a sound-bite.

This could go horribly wrong

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Tell me about it, but W&C's children will all be raised in the CoE , so our next three sovereigns will be Anglican and as long as the Church is established , the couple's children will marry within the faith.

Coronation Oath, 2nd June 1953

This is the Oath they take :

Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

Queen. All this I promise to do.

There can be no debate over the sovereign belonging to the CoE

 

[NGalitzine]

^^^^^
Yes, but all that goes out the window once the CofE is disestablished which I have no doubt some future government will propose in order to remove the state from church problems (women bishops, same sex marriage). There really is no need in this century to involve the church with the state or the state with the church, especially with the dwindling membership of the church.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Nick Clegg is correct that the child will be third in line to the throne regardless of gender - at the moment and under the current legislation but...if it is twins - girl first and then boy then the boy will be third and the girl fourth as the legislation currently stands and then that would change when the legislation is past.

 

[padams2359]

Didn't I read a while back that "The Monarch may be married to a Catholic, but the children must be raised Angelican? It would be a one generation consort and possible a spare who ends up a Catholic Duke at best.

 

[cepe]

REligion is a dangerous topic but a "strong" catholic would not (generally) agree to have their children brought up in a different faith and the RC church would not want it either.

There would still be an underlying pressure to avoid this situation. But today's simplistic response by politicans barely stratches the surface of the issues to be dealt with

Perhaps just one step at a time - its all the politicans could cope with!

 

[Iluvbertie]

The thing that the politicians will be praying for is a boy first or two girls and then stop - solves the problem for another generation.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Just watched a news clip on CBC and PM Stephen Harper says he will introduced legislation in parliament to change succession laws if required and it is expected to pass easily experts say.
No word on what if any participation the provinces will have in the legislation.

 

[Furienna]

For me, the problem isn't that the monarch and his/her spouse have to be Anglicans (although even that might sound old-fashioned these days), but that Catholics are the only ones, who are discriminated by that law. Of course, I know that it has historical reasons, but it just seems weird that three hundred years later, a British prince or princess can marry a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu etc and still keep their place in the succession, but lose it if they marry a Catholic. I personally find that a bigger problem than the male primogeniture.

 

[cepe]

You make a good point. Hence my various posts on the fact that sorting out primogeniture might be a "done deal" (but Nick Clegg doesn't appear to realise that 16 other realms need to approve it as well) but the other issues are not so easily solved.

 

[Irishtom]

Future Monarchs.

I am new here and would like to congratulate the Royal Family on the news they announced yesterday but which has been suspected with a few weeks now.

Forgive my ignorance in asking this question.

I know that Charles is next in line to the throne, and after that William, then Harry but this will change when the new baby is born.

But what happens if Charles was to die before the queen. How would that change things. Would William be next in line to the thrown, or would it be Andrew as the Queens oldest surviving son at the time of her death or abdication.

 

[Osipi]

Should Charles die before the Queen, William would be next in line for the throne after the Queen as Charles' heir. Once the Cambridge baby is born, he/she would then be next in line. Until the baby is born, it would be Harry.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Succession goes
Charles
William
Henry
Andrew

If Charles dies, William becomes King just like if Charles survived The Queen.

 

[Irishtom]

Should Charles die before the Queen, William would be next in line for the throne after the Queen as Charles' heir. Once the Cambridge baby is born, he/she would then be next in line. Until the baby is born, it would be Harry.

Thanks for your answer. I dont know why I was left to believe that If Charles was to die that Andrew would become next in line to the queen as he would be her oldest son at the time of her death. I was also lead to believe that William would only become King after Charles filled the roll.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

The sovereign is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, so he or she must be Anglican. That they cannot marry a Catholic is not discrimination, romanists require the children be raised Catholic, and to my first point, this isn't possible.

 

[Kataryn]

The sovereign is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, so he or she must be Anglican. That they cannot marry a Catholic is not discrimination, romanists require the children be raised Catholic, and to my first point, this isn't possible.

The Catholic church is not longer so strict when it comes to that and hasn't been for centuries when it comes to Royal marriages. In the 1800s eg Josephine of Leuchtenberg, a Catholic princess from Bavaria, married Crown Prince Oscar of Sweden. While she stayed a Catholic, her children were raised protestants.

The reason is another: when the Act of Settlement was passed, the pope supported the Stuarts who had tried to keep their absolute power against their peers and asked all Catholic monarchs of Europe to do the same - namely France and Spain supported the Stuarts, the last male-line Stuart pretender to the throne even was a Catholic cardinal.

So it was against the interest of parliament to allow a claimant of the throne to be married and thus influenced by a Catholic spouse. It had less to do with religion but with the question who was the real power in the UK. Of course, today, this is no longer a question but old traditions die hard.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

As long as the Church of England is established by law, and for the foreseeable future it will be, the sovereign will be an Anglican.
Charles, William, and William's children are and will be raised Anglican, so this will not even be an issue for another generation or two.

 

[Furienna]

The sovereign is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, so he or she must be Anglican. That they cannot marry a Catholic is not discrimination, romanists require the children be raised Catholic, and to my first point, this isn't possible.

Since no other other faith or religion is mentioned this way in the law, it is a form of discrimination. Like I said in my previous post, isn't it weird that a British prince or princess can marry a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu etc, but still keep their place in the succession, when they lose it upon a marriage to a Catholic? Like I also said before, I know that there are historical reasons why this restriction exists, but that was three hundred years ago, and I don't understand why it still exists in 2012.