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

[Iluvbertie]

They are Crown Dependencies and so don't have to pass the legislation themselves.

Not all of the realms actually had to do so as it depended on the wording of the various constitutions in this regard - only about 12 realms had to pass the legislation as the other three have constitutions that allows things to do with the monarch to be dealt with in the UK parliament.

 

[JR76]

Thank you for answering my question. They mentioned Jersey on the radio just as I was reading this thread so I started wondering.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Rudolph]

Royal succession law can't be challenged: Ontario court | CTV News

TORONTO -- Ontario's top court says a Roman Catholic man can't challenge a royal succession law that he says discriminates against his religion.
Bryan Teskey tried to ask the courts to strike down a rule prohibiting Catholics from ascending to the throne, arguing it violates the charter.
But the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld a lower-court decision, ruling that the succession rules are not subject to charter scrutiny and that Teskey had no standing to bring the challenge.

As consistent with a previous court ruling in 2005

 

[Dman]

Martin @CourtierUK · 49m 49 minutes ago
Update on the royal succession changes (for anyone still interested after long delays): Western Aus Parliament intends to pass the changes…

Martin @CourtierUK · 48m 48 minutes ago
…in its bill by end of the year with the Australian Federal parliament passing final law in New Year. Laws could be effected Jan/Feb time.

Martin @CourtierUK · 43m 43 minutes ago
When finally effected early next year, it would have taken almost 5 years for the royal succession law changes to go from law to full effect

 

[Roslyn]

Better late than never!

 

[Iluvbertie]

They always said it would take around 5 years due to the different requirements in the different countries.

The interesting constitutional thing happening in Australia, with the states separately passing this legislation, is that they are being acknowledged as separate monarchies to that of the Federal government which theoretically would mean that we could become a republic federally but still be monarchies at state level.

 

[Ish]

They always said it would take around 5 years due to the different requirements in the different countries.

The interesting constitutional thing happening in Australia, with the states separately passing this legislation, is that they are being acknowledged as separate monarchies to that of the Federal government which theoretically would mean that we could become a republic federally but still be monarchies at state level.

The Aussies did it right. While I am in full support of the act itself, I'm still less than happy about how the Canadian government rushed it through.

 

[Dman]

Martin @CourtierUK · 3h 3 hours ago
The final stages of the royal succession changes are to continue tomorrow in the Western Australia parliament, following Christmas break.

Martin @CourtierUK · 3h 3 hours ago
Once bill has passed in Western Australia it’s all down to Australian federal parliament to pass law - then changes can finally be effected!

 

[Dman]

Martin @CourtierUK · 13h 13 hours ago
The Western Australian Parliament has finally passed the royal succession changes into law. Final stage now is Aus Federal Parliament.

Martin @CourtierUK · 12h 12 hours ago
Once the Australian Parliament have passed the necessary legislation, it will be up to The Queen (via Privy Council) to ‘activate’ changes.

Martin @CourtierUK · 12h 12 hours ago
WA Parliament took exactly a year to pass the necessary laws. We’re assured Federal Parliament is to be a lot quicker & giving priority.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Slowly but surely this act is making its way through parliament here:


Australian republic: Bill Shorten reignites debate by casting doubt on relevance of the royals

 

[Roslyn]

Good! I'm glad someone's doing it. Discussion about this Bill provides a perfect opportunity.

 

[royalistbert]

Slowly but surely this act is making its way through parliament here:


Australian republic: Bill Shorten reignites debate by casting doubt on relevance of the royals

I never heard of him while the royals are known WORLDWIDE.

 

[Iluvbertie]

He is the Leader of the Opposition here in Australia and was talking during the debate on the issue.


His mother-in-law is our most recent GG - before the current one - Dame Quentin Bryce.


This is the second time this year he has publicly again raised the issue of the republic and this time he did it during the debate in the Federal Parliament on the Succession to the Crown Act - his comments head the story about the changes to that legislation.


Who cares how widely the royals are known. The leader of the Australian Opposition has every right to speak on this issue and he could very well be our next PM - and it is clear what one of his issues will be - an Australian Republic.

 

[Ish]

I never heard of him while the royals are known WORLDWIDE.

Why is it relevant if a person in the UK has ever heard of an Australian politician? Why is it relevant if anyone outside of Australia has heard of him?

There are many British politicians people outside of Britain have never heard of, does that mean they're not important in Britain?

I doubt you could name the leader of opposition in Canada either, but that doesn't mean that he's not important in Canada.

 

[Roslyn]

Precisely! Whether or not our Leader of the Opposition is known to the people of the UK, or any other country outside Australia, is totally irrelevant. It is Australian citizens (and non-citizen resident British subjects who were enrolled to vote here as at 25 January 1984) who will determine the republican issue in our country, and no-one else.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Exactly. Bill Shorten is known to Australians and he is speaking about an issue about which he is passionate and is trying to re-ignite that issue in Australia. The fact that he used his speech in the debate about the Succession to the Crown Act and that is the headlines in the news here - not the Act itself but that Shorten used that debate to bring up again the republic is relevant to us.

 

[Lumutqueen]

When will Aus have the chance for a referendum again?
All this talk is tiring.

 

[Iluvbertie]

When we get a PM who is supportive of the idea - which could happen sooner rather than later as the biggest challenger to our present PM is a republican.


The talk will continue until it happens.


The ALP has Australia becoming a republic as party policy. They also have put forward the idea of a plebiscite with the simple question "Do you want Australia to become a Republic?"


That wouldn't make it definite but would force both sides of politics to work out a series of options.


The problem in 1999 was that the PM was opposed to the idea and the question didn't suit the republicans who want a directly elected President.


Put that question it would probably get up.


This is exactly what I thought would happen with the Succession to the Crown Act down here - it would see a return to the republic debate - at least for a few days - in making the idea news again - the republic was the headlines not the actual law itself.

 

[Chubb Fuddler]

Not, I hope, in my lifetime. I don't think the issue is as relevant (whatever that means) to Australians as republicans would like us to think. Republicans missed their chance in 1999, and you can't keep having referendums until the "right" answer gets through. Opinion polls do not show an overwhelming demand, or even a simple majority, for change. Republicans still haven't chosen a (new) preferred model, let alone a draft of the proposed changes to the constitution (or a draft new constitution). Until I see something concrete to consider, I must say the whole issue tends to bore me now, going, as it does, endlessly over the same old ground.

 

[Iluvbertie]

They will continue to put the topic on the table until they get their own way - that much is clear.


I notice that no one seems to have picked up the point that I have tried to emphasise - that the Succession to the Crown Act didn't get the headlines but the republic did.


Shorten used his speech for the legislation to promote the republic and that will continue to happen every few months while he is Leader of the Opposition - next time will probably be Anzac Day and then the Queen's Birthday etc etc.


The legislation only was mentioned in the papers because of his speech not because of the issues themselves.

 

[Roslyn]

Well succession to a foreign crown isn't of importance to many Australians, even those who consider that the existing position to be discriminatory and unjust. The issue of an Australian republic is, however, of interest to a lot of us, republicans and monarchists alike. The republic is an Australian issue.

 

[Furienna]

Well, as long as the British monarch technically is the regent of Australia, people should be interested in the succession issue. But I guess that many Australians hardly remember that they are part of the Commonwealth.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Are there any firm recent statistics on yes/no votes for the monarchy?

I just think if enough people want a referendum then one should be brought forward. For instance in Scotland, agreements went through parliament in Nov 2013, and the vote was less than a year later.

 

[Roslyn]

Well, as long as the British monarch technically is the regent of Australia, people should be interested in the succession issue. But I guess that many Australians hardly remember that they are part of the Commonwealth.

Why should the average Australian be interested in the succession issue? It is legislation which only affects one privileged foreign family living on the other side of the world and is only being enacted in the various Australian States and our Federal parliament because the consensus among legal and constitutional scholars is that it has to be done this way in order for the legislation in Britain, where it matters, to be effective.

Our Constitution provides that the executive power of the Commonwealth of Australia is vested in the British monarch and exercised by the Governor-General as the British monarch's representative. In reality, the identity of the British monarch from time to time doesn't matter a hoot here, because that person has no real involvement in the day to day running of our country and is irrelevant to our national identity.

I suspect most Australians know we are members of the British Commonwealth. We participate in the Commonwealth Games, and most Australians are quite interested in sport so that is information that is relevant to them. In fact the next Commonwealth Games are being held in Australia! But we can still be a member of the British Commonwealth as a republic and I am sure we will continue to do so when the time comes.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Most Australians don't care at all about the British royals or any other royals other than as a bit of fluff entertainment from time to time.


They aren't relevant to us on a day to day basis.


We get along quite well when they aren't here.


When Harry is here next month he will get coverage - in the media particularly the women's gossip magazines because they cover celebrities and that is what they are to us - celebrities - no different to pop stars or film stars.


It is just a matter of who is the celebrity visiting us this month - they will all get the coverage.

 

[Duke of Leaside]

So now that Australia's succession bill has received Royal Assent, does anyone have an idea when each country's succession act will be (simultaneously) proclaimed in each of the respective realms?

I wonder if they will try and do it before the UK parliament is dissolved on Monday for the election or will they wait until the court challenges in Canada are completed, which may well take years.

 

[Mbruno]

Not, I hope, in my lifetime. I don't think the issue is as relevant (whatever that means) to Australians as republicans would like us to think. Republicans missed their chance in 1999, and you can't keep having referendums until the "right" answer gets through. Opinion polls do not show an overwhelming demand, or even a simple majority, for change. Republicans still haven't chosen a (new) preferred model, let alone a draft of the proposed changes to the constitution (or a draft new constitution). Until I see something concrete to consider, I must say the whole issue tends to bore me now, going, as it does, endlessly over the same old ground.

Exactly. A referendum was held not so long ago (1999). The issue as I see it, was thus settled for at least a generation.

 

[Furienna]

So now that Australia's succession bill has received Royal Assent, does anyone have an idea when each country's succession act will be (simultaneously) proclaimed in each of the respective realms?
I wonder if they will try and do it before the UK parliament is dissolved on Monday for the election or will they wait until the court challenges in Canada are completed, which may well take years.

Well, there is no hurry as Prince George will be the heir anyway.

 

[Mbruno]

So now that Australia's succession bill has received Royal Assent, does anyone have an idea when each country's succession act will be (simultaneously) proclaimed in each of the respective realms?

I wonder if they will try and do it before the UK parliament is dissolved on Monday for the election or will they wait until the court challenges in Canada are completed, which may well take years.

The "ratification" process has now been completed in all Commonwealth realms. AFAIK, there is only one outstanding court challenge in Canada, which is likely to be heard in Quebec in June 2015 and, probably, will also fail like the previous one moved in the Ontario Court of Appeal.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Exactly. A referendum was held not so long ago (1999). The issue as I see it, was thus settled for at least a generation.

A generation is regarded as a period of 20 years and the referendum was 16 years ago so it is almost a generation since we voted.