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

[ralmcg]

In the differrent realms outside of the UK the Governor General is effectovely the Regent for the monarch so there is no need for a new royal Australian or Canadian Regent in the UK. It would make absolutely no sense at all to have different royal Regents living in the UK acting for the different realms.

The Governors General of the other realms are still appointed by the monarch. In theory a realm, being independent of the UK, could choose a different way of choosing a regent, who would then formally appoint the Governor General in the name of the monarch.

 

[NGalitzine]

I realize that the GGs are appointed formally by the monarch but I do not understand your suggestion that we should have different Regents acting on behalf of the monarch for the different realms. It just seems silly and needlessly bureaucratic. We would have one regent in the UK acting on behalf of the monarch if need be. That seems quite sufficient to sign the warrants appointing the different GGs in the realms.
Why would Australia for instance come up with its own way of appointing a Regent who would then turn around and appoint a Governor General of Australia? I cannot see the sense in that at all.

 

[Jacknch]

real matters need attention not hypothetical daughters and changes most people won't live to see take effect...we have monarchs lined up for the next 60 or 70 years barring the unthinkable.

I'm not sure I understand. Other countries with monarchs managed quite successfully and without fuss to change their laws of succession, without affecting the progress of their other respective parliamentary business.
One might think that it suggests the British parliament and the parliaments of the British realms are so incompetant and useless that they cannot manage to add one simple and straightforward addition to the business they are already dealing with. Or it might suggest that the parliaments of other monarchies have nothing significant to do other than tweak their constitutions.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

I certainly hope that contemporary lawmakers are concerned about the future, 60-70 years from now. What is fair and right is fair and right, regardless of how little or much affect it has on individuals living right now.

 

[Ish]

I'm not sure I understand. Other countries with monarchs managed quite successfully and without fuss to change their laws of succession, without affecting the progress of their other respective parliamentary business.
One might think that it suggests the British parliament and the parliaments of the British realms are so incompetant and useless that they cannot manage to add one simple and straightforward addition to the business they are already dealing with. Or it might suggest that the parliaments of other monarchies have nothing significant to do other than tweak their constitutions.

Changing constitutional matters is a lot harder than simply "tweaking" things.

This change has actually been implemented fairly well in most cases, but the methods through which some governments have done so has been questioned. Changing the constitution of a state that is divided into federal and state/provincial governments is a lot more than just one governmental body changing a law.

There's also the fact that the succession has religious discrimination in it, which is unconstitutional in some of the Commonwealth realms. Other realms can also use this to further the republican debate.

No other monarchy has had to change it's succession laws in 16 independent realms before. It's kind of understandable that this isn't turning out to be all that simple to do, regardless of the competence levels of the parliaments.

 

[VictoriaB]

I was wondering was there ever talks of changing the Succession Law when Charles and William were born?

I don't remember there being any talk about the succession changing when Diana was pregnant with William. If there was it was so muted that it was not mentioned in the press.

I would be very surprised if the matter was raised when the Queen was pregnant with Charles. King George was still reigning and, even though women had proved themselves during the recent war, women's rights/female equality were still very much in the future.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The idea of a girl being able to inherit if William was a girl and then a boy was certainly mentioned in the press - I have the papers here - and it was stated then that it would happen - and would have actually been easier 30 years ago as a lot of the realms have passed new laws since then removing any power for the UK government to make laws for them on any issue.

The matter wasn't raised when The Queen was pregnant with Charles as no one would have thought that it was right - remember Denmark at that time still didn't allow a female to inherit at all - that was still a few years away from being changed to allow the present Queen to succeed her father.

As for a different regent - not on - as there would be a need for a new Regency Act to be passed in each realm allowing them to appoint their own Regent - to do what exactly - sign a couple of documents to appoint GGs or State/Provincial governors who do the actual work. So we would need 16 different realms to agree to allow each other to appoint different Regents - not going to happen.

 

[Ish]

The idea of a girl being able to inherit if William was a girl and then a boy was certainly mentioned in the press - I have the papers here - and it was stated then that it would happen - and would have actually been easier 30 years ago as a lot of the realms have passed new laws since then removing any power for the UK government to make laws for them on any issue.

You raise a really good point here.

Part of the problem in changing the law in Canada is the constitution (the other part, in my opinion, is the government). The constitution wasn't brought into effect in Canada until 2 months before William was born. It would have been easy then for Canada at least to change the succession.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

Isn't Canada ultimately going to follow what Great Britain does? And if not, would they choose an issue like secession to be different?

 

[Ish]

Canada is not a mindless follower of Great Britain.

I believe the intention in general is for all of the Commonwealth to pass the changes, as established by the commitment made to do so at a Commonwealth meeting a couple years ago.

The problem in Canada is threefold: on the one hand the way the government has tried to pass the laws is in violation of Canada's independence, on the other hand the way the government is doing so is in violation of the Canadian Constitution, and finally the laws themselves, namely the religious requirements, are in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

I didn't say mindless. Can't Canada be mindful and still follow the general rules of the U.K. Is there any movement in Canada to name a different monarch/regent?

Of course the intention is for all the Commonwealth to pass the changes - but if Canada follows England on this, that doesn't make it mindless (not to mention that nations don't have minds in the first place).

By "the government" - do you mean the parliament of...Great Britain? I'm confused. If Canadians view the parliament in the U.K. as "the government" then what is the status of their own laws and how did they become so different from those of "the government."

Is it like a states rights thing? Because to me, "the government" implies the laws themselves, so I'm confused how "the government" can be different from "the laws."

Just trying to understand Canada.

 

[Ish]

Ps 3721

I didn't say mindless. Can't Canada be mindful and still follow the general rules of the U.K. Is there any movement in Canada to name a different monarch/regent? Of course the intention is for all the Commonwealth to pass the changes - but if Canada follows England on this, that doesn't make it mindless (not to mention that nations don't have minds in the first place). By "the government" - do you mean the parliament of...Great Britain? I'm confused. If Canadians view the parliament in the U.K. as "the government" then what is the status of their own laws and how did they become so different from those of "the government." Is it like a states rights thing? Because to me, "the government" implies the laws themselves, so I'm confused how "the government" can be different from "the laws." Just trying to understand Canada.

Government means two things in Canada. On one hand it means the set of institutions that govern the whole country, similar to the American usage, while on the other hand it refers specifically to the current political leadership, similar to the British usage. In that sense it refers to the party in Parliament that holds the most number of seats; the party that holds the second most number is the loyal opposition.

The government in power introduced a bill that doesn't change the succession to the throne of Canada so much as it accepts the change of succession to the throne of the United Kingdom. Left unchallenged this means that either the line of succession to the throne of Canada hasn't been changed, which calls into question whether any of the other successions have been changed either, or that Canada is not an independent state and the UK can pass laws for us.

Furthermore, the relationship between crown and Canada is a constitutional issue, so to change the succession is to change the constitution. In order to change the constitution the provinces have to be consulted. If the succession to the throne of Canada has in fact been changed then the constitution has been violated, as have the rights of the provinces, because they were not consulted in the process. This is a basis for the challenge to the changes that's currently occurring.

Finally, also a part of the challenge to the changes, in Canada we have a thing called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's the first part of our constitution and according to it

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association.

This means that in Canada we have a fundamental freedom of religion that we do not extend to our monarch who, by law is not allowed to be a Catholic. That means that if we accept the changes as lawful and valid in Canada then they themselves - regardless of how they came to be - violate one of the fundamental freedoms that our society claims to be based on.

So basically, the change in succession violates our independence, our constitution, and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

 

[wbenson]

The Governors General of the other realms are still appointed by the monarch.

At least in Canada, that's the convention but I don't think it's required. The Governor General has the power to exercise "all powers and authorities lawfully belonging to [the monarch] in respect of Canada" and to "use Our Great Seal of Canada for sealing all things whatsoever that may be passed under Our Great Seal of Canada."

Isn't Canada ultimately going to follow what Great Britain does? And if not, would they choose an issue like secession to be different?

It's not an issue of agreeing with the change. Nobody is arguing that boys should come before girls. All 16 governments agreed in principle with the change and there are no politicians arguing that things should stay the way they are. What is going on in Canada is an argument about the powers of the federal parliament and the provinces. Canada has a complicated constitution that imposes onerous requirements on certain types of amendment, and one of the things that's hardest to change is any part of the Constitution relating to "the office of the Queen."

However, it's not universally accepted that it requires a constitutional amendment. The constitution itself lists the laws that are a part of the constitution, and the Act of Settlement is not on that list. But some believe that if it's not explicitly a part of the constitution, it must be subject to the constitution, and that discriminating against Roman Catholics violates the constitution.

The current administration of Canada crafted a very narrow argument as to how it wasn't a part of the constitution or a law subject to the constitution in order to try to squeeze through these concerns and not waste time. The province of Quebec recently joined a lawsuit that argues that it has to be one or the other and is void either way you look at it.

 

[Ish]

PM Harper has a constitutional mess on his hands. I think Canada will drop the entire issue like a hot potato now. To much heat from the monarchists and there are many of them in Canada.

It's not about dropping the issue - as a Canadian monarchist I don't think that's what should be done. They more need to go "we went about this wrong, let's restart and do it right."

Even in doing that, though, they're going to come into problems with the religious issues (which, I'm sure will be a problem elsewhere, Canada can't be the only Commonwealth realm that had a guarantee of religious freedom), that they need to find some way of approaching.

 

[An Ard Ri]

From the Daily Express

Buckingham Palace lists Roman Catholics in line of succession

Buckingham Palace lists Catholics in line of succession | Royal | News | Daily Express

 

[Ish]

From the Daily Express

Buckingham Palace lists Roman Catholics in line of succession

Buckingham Palace lists Catholics in line of succession | Royal | News | Daily Express

Children who are being raised Catholic aren't excluded until they are confirmed in the Catholic Church.

Both Lord Downpatrick and Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor were in the succession until they were confirmed. Their younger sister, Lady Amalia, is still in line as she hasn't been confirmed yet.

 

[Dman]

Royal succession changes reach final hurdle-
Royal succession changes reach final hurdle | Royal Central

 

[Marty91charmed]

Sorry if my question is silly: so, this is the law of which everybody talked about during Kate's pregnancy? Once George is King and has a daughter as first child she can be the future Queen right?

 

[Mirabel]

I thought that the law was already in effect in the UK?

Wasn't it the case that, if George had been a girl, she would now be next in line?

 

[Marty91charmed]

I don't know... tha's why I asked! I think that in order to be effective only western OZ has to pass it...

 

[Blog Real]

Also thought that the law had been changed.

 

[Roslyn]

Also thought that the law had been changed.

It has been passed in the UK but can't be proclaimed to commence until all the realms have passed legislation along the same lines/approving it. So as things currently stand if George has a daughter first and then a son, the daughter will lose her place. Hopefully that situation will change very soon.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I thought that the law was already in effect in the UK?

Until it passes in ALL realms it can't apply in any realm so it still has some way to go.

First it has to pass in WA and then federally in Australia.

Interestingly the way this has been dealt with in Australia says that the states are separate monarchies and thus a referendum for a republic at federal level would see us federally become a republic but each of the states could remain as monarchies. It is this issue that could still see a constitutional challenge through our High Court to determine whether or not the states are, in fact, separate monarchies but first of all this legislation had to be past at state level, and then federally and then a constitutional challenge could be launched. Whether it will happen is another thing but I wouldn't be surprised.

It also has to wait for the decision of the Canadian High Court and come thus pass all their constitutional questions - which are to do with the way the legislation was past there effectively allowing the British law to simply apply in Canada. It may very well be that they also have to pass it at provincial and federal level again.

In essence, as there is no rush - won't become an issue for about another 25 to 30 years when George is expecting his first child there is no real rush as the children can be raised knowing what is happening even though it is still to come - but it is important for the federations of Canada and Australia to get their constitutional issues sorted out - to get it right now.

It would be awful if the law was past and everyone believed that it was past and then there was a constitutional challenge as a daughter with a younger brother was about to assume the crown only to find that one of these two countries hadn't past the law constitutionally meaning that the law was null and void.

Another 6 - 12 months won't really affect anyone but getting it right is the best way to go.

And remember it isn't the issue of the law itself that is the constitutional issue but whether the Australian states are separate monarchies to the federal government.

I think the issue in Canada also has something to do with the religious question on the law but I am sure a Canadian could explain that better than I could.

Wasn't it the case that, if George had been a girl, she would now be next in line?

If George had been a girl she would be next in line as William's only child. However a younger brother would have been able to replace her. That being said, had George been a girl this law would probably have passed a little faster through the other realms legislative and legal processes.

They said, when the Perth Declaration was made, that it would take about 3 years and it hasn't yet been 2 years so they are ahead of the game.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Until it passes in ALL realms it can't apply in any realm so it still has some way to go... They said, when the Perth Declaration was made, that it would take about 3 years and it hasn't yet been 2 years so they are ahead of the game.

Thank you, Iluvbertie - I was in the mood for some substance - and there you were with it!

 

[Ish]

I think the issue in Canada also has something to do with the religious question on the law but I am sure a Canadian could explain that better than I could.

If memory serves there were 3 issues with the way the law was passed in Canada.

1. It was simply accepting the British law instead of creating a Canadian one.
2. It only occurred at the federal level, even though the monarchy is a constitutional matter and thus the provinces have to be involved.
3. The law violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by saying that the monarch cannot be a Catholic.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Thanks Ish.

I knew that the religious issue was one of the problems and that would be an interesting one for the Canadians as the monarch is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Who knows - Canada may force the UK to separate Church and State and end that nearly 500 year position of the monarch and the Church of England.

 

[Ish]

Not a problem.

Looking on Wikipedia, there was also an expansion to the first point in that the law wasn't passed in English and French.

I think the people protesting it are aiming more to push a republican movement in Canada than a separation of church and state in the UK. Officially, the Monarchist League of Canada supports the legislation and how it came to be, while the Citizens for a Canadian Republic are denouncing it as unconstitutional.

The first appeal was from an Ontario man and was dismissed (he said at the time he was going to appeal the dismissal). The second was from two Quebec professors on behalf of an organization of sovereignists, federalists, monarchists, and republicans, which is an interesting collection of people if nothing else. I haven't heard of anything on either front since last summer though.

 

[Chubb Fuddler]

Whether or not Australia’s states are monarchies in their own right is a complicated issue. Dr Anne Twomey explores the constitutional issues in her excellent book The Chameleon Crown: The Queen and Her Australian Governors. It was quite clear-cut before the Australia Acts of 1986. All the states were still under the authority of the Queen of Great Britain, not the Queen of Australia. When a state needed a new Governor, the Premier provided a name to the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office. If the FCO agreed, it would make the formal recommendation to the Queen. But all that changed in 1986.

The state premiers assumed that they would have direct access to the Queen, who would be obliged to accept their advice. There was even a push in Queensland for the Queen to officially become Queen of Queensland. But Canberra and London were not keen on the idea. Canberra did not like the implication of sovereignty, and wanted the Governor-General to appoint state Governors (as the Governor General of Canada appoints the provincial Lieutenant Governors). London was worried the Queen might get dragged into an argument between squabbling states. Eventually a compromise was reached, but how it happened is not quite clear. The relevant sections in Dr Twomey’s book were removed prior to publication, at the request of Buckingham Palace (I suspect the Queen might have intervened). The result is that state premiers advise the Queen directly on the appointment of a Governor. This advice the Queen is obliged to accept. But the Queen is not obliged to accept any other kind of advice from a state premier, unless it has been agreed to beforehand.

This compromise at least excludes the possibility of the Premier of Victoria advising the Queen to sack the Premier of New South Wales. But it is still left an important question unanswered. Which crown is the Queen wearing when she appoints a state Governor? It is clearly not the crown of Great Britain. As a separate state crown probably does not exist, the Queen is probably wearing the Crown of Australia. But this has never been confirmed, and remains open to interpretation.

As to the succession, the states did not pass legislation to change it. The states’ legislation only requests that the Commonwealth Government pass legislation to make the appropriate changes. This is in accordance with section 51(xxxviii) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia:

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: .....the exercise within the Commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the Parliaments of all the States directly concerned, of any power which can at the establishment of this Constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia​

I think this supports the conclusion that the states are not fully separate monarchies, but come under the authority of the Queen of Australia. Prior to the referendum in 1999, the states agreed to change their constitutions if a republic was approved. But what if one or more states decided after the referendum not to change? Could a state government even continue to function? At some point the state would need a new Governor, but who would make the appointment? Not the Queen of Australia, she would no longer exist. How about the Queen of Great Britain? I think the Australia Acts might exclude that option, and the British government would not want the Queen dragged into an Australian constitutional quagmire. The government of a new Australian republic probably would explore all possible ways to force a monarchist state to jump on board, but things could get very complicated.

 

[Ish]

I am increasingly becoming of the opinion that the relationship between states/provinces/countries and the overall nation/realm is an overly complicated one in all of HM's realms, or at least the larger ones. Australia, Canada, and the UK all certainly seem to have some interesting sovereignty issues within themselves....

 

[JR76]

What about the Channel Islands? They are divided into the two Bailwicks of Jersey and Guernsey separately. As crown dependencies do they have to approve the legislation themselves or do they just follow what the Parliament in Westminster decides?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app