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

[Pranter]

Could William and Kate keep their DOC and the POW be held for (later use) one of their children?


LaRae

 

[Roslyn]

Whether he would then be forced to abdicate when the child is born or would continue to reign with that child as his heir would be determined by parliament.

An interesting situation. I think public opinion, and pressure from the Middletons, would see Parliament deciding Harry should abdicate and be regent during the child's minority.

 

[NGalitzine]

Could William and Kate keep their DOC and the POW be held for (later use) one of their children?


LaRae

There is no legal requirement for Charles III to create his eldest son Prince of Wales, however he could not bypass his son and make his grandson Prince of Wales while William lives as that title can only be held by the heir apparent. If William is not created Prince of Wales he could still create course his own eldest child Prince/Princess of Wales when he comes to the throne. There has never been a Princess of Wales in her own right but it is not impossible to imagine it with the lastest changes in succession laws.

 

[Pranter]

Ok confused myself...did you mean the POW can only be held by the son of the monarch?


LaRae

 

[Ish]

The point is that until the child is born there still has to be a monarch and that monarch is Harry. The child isn't in the line of succession until born - that is the British way.

The situation in Britain is 'the King/Queen is dead - long live the King/Queen' not the King/Queen is dead - let's wait and see whether we will have a new King/Queen' - it is instantaneous and so Harry would become King.

Whether he would then be forced to abdicate when the child is born or would continue to reign with that child as his heir would be determined by parliament.

An interesting situation. I think public opinion, and pressure from the Middletons, would see Parliament deciding Harry should abdicate and be regent during the child's minority.

I would think that in accordance with primogeniture, Harry would have to give up the throne in such a situation.

It would be a tricky situation all around, and public opinion would be huge. However, I doubt that the Middletons are so powerful that their opinion would be of great importance here.

Could William and Kate keep their DOC and the POW be held for (later use) one of their children?

LaRae

William and Catherine will remain Duke and Duchess of Cambridge until either the day William dies or the day he becomes king. The Cambridge title will be used with the Cornwall title while Charles is king, but if William does while still the Duke then his eldest son will inherit the Duke of Cambridge title.

The title Prince of Wales is not one that is inherited. It is created separately for each heir apparent, and does not have to be created at all. When William is heir apparent he will most likely be created Prince of Wales. When his child is heir apparent he or she is likely to also be created Prince of Wales as well.

Ok confused myself...did you mean the POW can only be held by the son of the monarch?

LaRae

POW can only be held by the heir apparent.

 

[NGalitzine]

Ok confused myself...did you mean the POW can only be held by the son of the monarch?


LaRae

I mean it has to be held by the heir apparent. If Charles III is on the throne, and William is alive he is heir apparent so Williams heir cannot be Prince of Wales because his child would only be 2nd in line and not heir apparent.

 

[Pranter]

So so could William be named POW and keep DOC as a 'lesser' title?


LaRae

 

[Iluvbertie]

They will remain Duke/Duchess of Cambridge until William becomes King but in all likelihood they will be given/inherit more senior titles.

When The Queen dies and Charles becomes King they have no choice and become instantly Duke/Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge. The Cornwall title is automatic to the eldest living son of the monarch who is also heir apparent.

If Charles predeceases his mother then William never becomes Duke of Cornwall but, following the precedent of George II I would imagine that The Queen would create William Prince of Wales - to clearly signify that he is the heir to the throne but he would still be Duke of Cambridge. The Prince of Wales titles has only ever been given to the heir to the throne.

When he becomes King Cambridge will merge with the crown and be available for re-grant. Of course if he has a son and then dies before becoming King then the son would inherit Cambridge as the title was created with the normal remainder of 'heirs male of the body'. If the son is the second or later child then the Cambridge title could be passed down while the daughter becomes The Queen.

If we go back to George V:

He was created Duke of York and that was the name he used until 1901.
From January to November 1901 he was officially known as The Duke of Cornwall and York.
In November he was created Prince of Wales.

He didn't cease to be Duke of York or Duke of Cornwall until 1910 when he succeeded to the throne at which point Cornwall passed to his son and heir and York was available for regrant to his second son in 1923. It then merged with the crown again in 1936.

George III - different again - his father (Frederick) had been created Duke of Edinburgh by his grandfather (George I) and became Duke of Cornwall at the accession of his father (George II) who also created him Prince of Wales. When he died Prince George (the future George III) immediately became Duke of Edinburgh and that was his only title until his grandfather (George II) created him Prince of Wales. He couldn't be Duke of Cornwall because he wasn't the eldest son of George II - that had been his father who died before becoming King.

 

[royalistbert]

It's now received royal ascent. No excuses for other realms now.

BBC News - Law ending exclusively male royal succession now law

 

[Lumutqueen]

It's now received royal ascent. No excuses for other realms now.

BBC News - Law ending exclusively male royal succession now law

I'm not sure how giving it royal assent means magically if will pass through other countries with ease. Each country has a way of doing things, and frankly this isn't the most important thing in the world at the minute.

 

[Roslyn]

The UK legislation may have received assent, but the various sections still have to be proclaimed to commence, and that won't happen with the main ones until the other realms have passed their legislation.

 

[Iluvbertie]

It's now received royal ascent. No excuses for other realms now.

BBC News - Law ending exclusively male royal succession now law

The UK doesn't dictate what happens in the other realms and each of them are separate realms with a personal union with the monarch.

They will take their own time and do things their own way until they, independently and individually make the decision that suits them - and if that delays things in the UK too bad.

The agreement was always it had to be approved in all realms before coming into effect and the other realms may not see this as all that important - particularly if the baby is a boy.

Australia, for instance, is moving towards an election in September with a strongly republican PM at the moment. It is therefore possible that in Australia this could end up in an argument over the republic issue - it could just as easily pass the federal government with no debate or opposition and then you have the Qld question - which could still see a constitutional challenge to whether or not the federal government has the power to determine the Head of State of each of the states.

 

[royalistbert]

Your PM agreed to it.

 

[Roslyn]

Our PM can agree till she's blue in the face but she can't make the States do anything they don't want about issues which are not within the province of the Federal Government. There's a long-standing States' rights issue here which everyone's backed away from the past when it got too heated, but the time may finally have come for it to be resolved by the High Court.

 

[royalistbert]

I would thought this would be a Federal matter. Last time I looked it was Queensland making a big noise about it.

 

[Iluvbertie]

That is the point - is it a Federal issue or is it a state and federal issue - remember that the state's constitutions predate the federal constitution.

Just because the PM agreed to it doesn't mean all that much when she is only months from a federal election and the possibility/probability of a change in government. She also has to deal with the fact that a large percentage of her party are republicans and could easily use this debate as a chance to force another referendum on that issue (which was promised back in 2007 for the second term of a Labor government but hasn't been delivered yet) - just to be difficult they could also vote it down simply to show Australia's independence - not saying they would but that is also a possibility.

The debate with Qld centres around the concept that The Queen, in addition to be Queen of Australia is separately Queen of each of the states.

That is why this could end up in a constitutional challenge in the High Court - which could take some time to resolve as it is no unusual for cases to take literally years to be heard in the High Court and then for the judges to make their decisions.

 

[royalistbert]

I apologies for being a bit heavy handed when I posted the link earlier.

 

[Ish]

This issue is similar to the one that I had expected to see occur in Canada. Here the relationship with the monarch is established in the constitution, and it can be argued that in order to change the succession to the throne the constitution has to be changed - which requires the consent of the provinces. That ended up not happening, and I'm honestly surprised that none of the provinces, especially Quebec which is currently lead by a separatist government, spoke up about it.

 

[angieuk]

Thanks so much everyone. Love reading all your replies.

 

[BritishRoyals]

Queensland puts its own stamp on royal succession - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Queensland isn't prepared to wait. They've passed laws allowing a first-born female child to become heir and to allow royals to marry Roman Catholics.

 

[Ish]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal...lock-Kate-Middleton-s-daughter-becoming-Queen

I was waiting for this...

 

[Lumutqueen]

Let's pray for a boy, lol.

 

[cepe]

But it doesn't matter yet so long as it gets sorted before the 2nd child is born.

I've read the article - all bad news till you get towards the end of the piece:

"However, some experts said it might still go ahead because the Act received royal assent in Canada in March".

 

[Jacknch]

Ooooh....this gets my goat! Just when all is well and everyone is happy, there's always some meddling, cantakerous pair of know-it-alls ready to come along and put a spanner in the works! They're the types who come and sit right next to you on the bus talking loudly even when there are plenty of other seats!

 

[cepe]

Ooooh....this gets my goat! Just when all is well and everyone is happy, there's always some meddling, cantakerous pair of know-it-alls ready to come along and put a spanner in the works! They're the types who come and sit right next to you on the bus talking loudly even when there are plenty of other seats!

oh yes! so true

 

[Ish]

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

 

[BritishRoyalist]

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.

 

[wyevale]

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 !

 

[Ish]

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.

 

[Biri]

Let's pray for a boy, lol.

Prayers will not already help; sex of the baby is already fixed.