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

[Archduchess Zelia]

I honestly can't blame William and Catherine if they hope for a boy. Seems like that would be much easier than a firstborn girl. It shouldn't be though, but it seems like it's some headache-inducing issues.

 

[Ish]

I honestly can't blame William and Catherine if they hope for a boy. Seems like that would be much easier than a firstborn girl. It shouldn't be though, but it seems like it's some headache-inducing issues.

I think the headache inducing issues, at least succession-wise, come about because of the rush to change the laws. It's as if they expect the child to be a girl who is immediately displaced by a younger brother who is then immediately pushed into the throne.

There is no need to rush this act, despite the behaviour of some of the governments suggesting that it is necessary. It isn't necessary for 3 reasons:
1. In order for the Cambridge Baby to become monarch regardless of gender the Queen, Prince Charles, and Prince William all need to die. While the Queen might not be as young as she once was, barring disaster it's unlikely that the three of them are all going to die anytime soon.
2. If the Cambridge Baby is a girl then in order for her to be displaced a male Cambridge Baby would have to be born. Given as Cambridge 1 hasn't been born yet we're looking at at least another year before Cambridge 2 is born. Worrying about the succession issues here is putting the cart before the horse.
3. The law is designed to be retroactive and applies to any birth after 2011. Thus even is Cambridge 1 is a girl and Cambridge 2 is a boy and the law isn't passed until 2018, Cambridge 1 is still going to inherit (unless HM, Charles, and William all die before the law is passed, but after Cambridge 2 is born).

 

[cepe]

Frankly, the people communicating this to us are either politicians or so-called royal journalists, none of whom seem to either understand the process, acknowledge the role of the realms, or understand the implications.

We predicted this would happen way back in December.

 

[Skippyboo]

I think the reason it was rushed thru was Nick Clegg was pushing it and using baby c as a excuse. If they waited to see what baby c is and he is a boy, do they even bother with it.

I do find it funny that people are talking about fairness regarding the monarchy. That is what makes it a monarchy. It isn't a fair process. If you want to be king/queen conquer a country.

Do people sue Vatican City wanting to make non Catholics pope because it isn't fair that everyone can't be pope?

 

[AdmirerUS]

I think the reason it was rushed thru was Nick Clegg was pushing it and using baby c as a excuse. If they waited to see what baby c is and he is a boy, do they even bother with it.

I do find it funny that people are talking about fairness regarding the monarchy. That is what makes it a monarchy. It isn't a fair process. If you want to be king/queen conquer a country.

Do people sue Vatican City wanting to make non Catholics pope because it isn't fair that everyone can't be pope?

There is a no-longer-member who warned us of this. I say, let Canada's bits do as they please. The world will not stop on it's axis and maybe, that is a good thing. Imagine the future Queen stopping everywhere but... where she is not wanted. Oooh, wait - that is, in effect what happens today!

Even better - feminists. please go vacation in Queensland, most of Canada and avoid Quebec. Money talks.

 

[NGalitzine]

I don't see what the fuss is about. Each country has to go through its own necessary constitutional process. If a countrys government acted improperly or is challenged well there are courts to sort it all out. There is no great need to rush the process along, and certainly not a need to override constitutional requirements or boycotts of realms.
Hopefully Baby Cambridge will be a prince and then everyone can slow down, take a deep breath and act according to their respective laws and constitutions.
By the time William and Baby Cambridge come to the throne I think it is likely that most of the other realms will have become republics anyway.

 

[Roslyn]

3. The law is designed to be retroactive and applies to any birth after 2011. Thus even is Cambridge 1 is a girl and Cambridge 2 is a boy and the law isn't passed until 2018, Cambridge 1 is still going to inherit (unless HM, Charles, and William all die before the law is passed, but after Cambridge 2 is born).

Good point.

 

[Ish]

I think the reason it was rushed thru was Nick Clegg was pushing it and using baby c as a excuse. If they waited to see what baby c is and he is a boy, do they even bother with it.

I do find it funny that people are talking about fairness regarding the monarchy. That is what makes it a monarchy. It isn't a fair process. If you want to be king/queen conquer a country.

Do people sue Vatican City wanting to make non Catholics pope because it isn't fair that everyone can't be pope?

As to the rushing it, that is basically the argument all around, just substitute on PM's name for another. The problem is that in some of the realms this rush is causing for constitutional review. It's one thing to pass a law, it's another thing to violate a realm's constitution in doing so.

As to the fairness, I'm assuming you mean in reference to the Catholic issue. This isn't about the fairness, it's about religious discrimination. The head of a church has to be a member of that church, that makes sense. And in the English sense it makes sense for the monarch to be CoE because the monarch is also the head of the church. However, only in England is there a relationship between monarch and church. In Canada we have a constitutional right to freedom of religion that isn't extended by law to our monarch. That's the problem being argued here.

There is a no-longer-member who warned us of this. I say, let Canada's bits do as they please. The world will not stop on it's axis and maybe, that is a good thing. Imagine the future Queen stopping everywhere but... where she is not wanted. Oooh, wait - that is, in effect what happens today!

Even better - feminists. please go vacation in Queensland, most of Canada and avoid Quebec. Money talks.

What does Australia or Quebec's issues with the change have to do with feminism?

I don't see what the fuss is about. Each country has to go through its own necessary constitutional process. If a countrys government acted improperly or is challenged well there are courts to sort it all out. There is no great need to rush the process along, and certainly not a need to override constitutional requirements or boycotts of realms.
Hopefully Baby Cambridge will be a prince and then everyone can slow down, take a deep breath and act according to their respective laws and constitutions.
By the time William and Baby Cambridge come to the throne I think it is likely that most of the other realms will have become republics anyway.

I really agree with the first part of what you've said here. I won't debate the likelihood of other realms becoming republics. I think opinions on the matter fluctuate over time, with some realms having a stronger relationship with the monarchy than others.

 

[Roslyn]

What does Australia or Quebec's issues with the change have to do with feminism?

I suspect the the poster's comment arises from the fact the changes are to make male and remove the discrimination in favour of males.

However I welcome the direction to holiday in Queensland. I live a 45 minute drive from the border and I need very little encouragement to nip up there for a bit of a holiday. Port Douglas is particularly nice at this time of year but even Brisbane will do.

 

[AdmirerUS]

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!

 

[NGalitzine]

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.

 

[AdmirerUS]

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!

 

[Skippyboo]

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.

 

[Ish]

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.

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.

 

[wbenson]

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.

 

[Dman]

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

 

[AdmirerUS]

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!

 

[wbenson]

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.

 

[Iluvbertie]

...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.
.

 

[Ish]

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.

 

[Iluvbertie]

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.

 

[NGalitzine]

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.

 

[Iluvbertie]

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.

 

[ldmemail]

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.
.

 

[Iluvbertie]

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).
.

 

[Americanskipper]

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.

 

[NGalitzine]

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.

 

[royal-blue]

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.

 

[NGalitzine]

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.

 

[Ish]

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.