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

[wbenson]

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?

Today, taking effect on the 26th, at least in New Zealand.

Monarchy Succession Updated | Monarchy New Zealand

"Today, at a special meeting of the Executive Council, the Governor-General of New Zealand promulgated the Royal Succession Act Commencement Order 2015. [...] These important updates will take effect from 1 pm on 26 March 2015 (New Zealand daylight time)."

I haven't heard of any other plans. Not that it makes much difference since I think Prince Michael is the nearest person to the throne impacted. 1:00 PM is an oddly specific time though, so I wonder if it's being done to take effect at midnight GMT (New Zealand is 13 hours ahead).

 

[Spheno]

Not that it makes much difference since I think Prince Michael is the nearest person to the throne impacted.

Tāne and Senna Lewis are are the nearest persons to the throne impacted by this Act. Tāne will move from 28th to 29th place, his sister will move from 29th to 28th.

 

[Duke of Leaside]

Today, taking effect on the 26th, at least in New Zealand.

Monarchy Succession Updated | Monarchy New Zealand

"Today, at a special meeting of the Executive Council, the Governor-General of New Zealand promulgated the Royal Succession Act Commencement Order 2015. [...] These important updates will take effect from 1 pm on 26 March 2015 (New Zealand daylight time)."

I haven't heard of any other plans. Not that it makes much difference since I think Prince Michael is the nearest person to the throne impacted. 1:00 PM is an oddly specific time though, so I wonder if it's being done to take effect at midnight GMT (New Zealand is 13 hours ahead).

Yes it is done so that all the realms are coordinated.

Royal Succession Act Commencement Order 2015 (LI 2015/54) Contents – New Zealand Legislation

But oddly, I can't find anything else about any of the other realms announcing that their acts are commencing. (Midnight tonight (start of March 26) in London, 8PM tonight (March 25) in Ottawa, etc).

 

[padams2359]

They may want it done sooner. If baby C is a girl they may want it done before it becomes necessary, and the descenters will come out of the wood work. I mean necessary as in the D & D become pregnant with a third child, and it is a boy.

 

[Roslyn]

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

Everyone is assuming that because George exists that the issue is no longer relevant for his generation. However toddler George could become afflicted with some fatal disease or die in an accident, and if William & Kate's second child is a girl and Kate becomes pregnant with a third child the issue will be important again.

 

[Rudolph]

A small blow was struck for women on Thursday. At 11am, laws came into effect across the Queen’s Realms to change the rules of succession to the throne, with retrospective application back to 2011. Males are no longer favoured over females, so that an older sister will become sovereign ahead of her younger brother.

In a further blow to long-entrenched discrimination, a person will not lose his or her right to succession to the throne for marrying a Catholic.

This does not remove all discriminatory aspects of the rules of succession. Family and religion still play a critical role. A person can only be sovereign if he or she is a Protestant who is “in communion” with the Church of England, and can only inherit the throne if he or she is descended from Sophia, Electress of Hanover. That rules out most of us.

More: Power to the princesses: Australia wraps up succession law changes

 

[wbenson]

Succession to the Crown Commencement Proclamation 2015

I, General the Honourable Sir Peter Cosgrove AK MC (Ret’d), Governor‑General of the Commonwealth of Australia, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council and under items 3 and 5 of the table in subsection 2(1) of the Succession to the Crown Act 2015, fix the beginning of 26 March 2015 by United Kingdom time as the time and day on which Parts 2, 3 and 4 of, and Schedule 1 to, that Act commence.

 

[Roslyn]

Great stuff!

 

[Rudolph]

Commencement of Succession to the Crown Act 2013 :Written statement - HCWS490 - UK Parliament

 

[Lumutqueen]

@BBCPeterHunt: The Succession to the Crown Act has now come into force. If Kate's baby is a girl she will not be overtaken by any younger brothers.

@BBCPeterHunt: A royal can now marry a Roman Catholic and become monarch. But a Roman Catholic royal still cannot be king or queen.

 

[Mbruno]

I find it unlikely that the Quebec court will invalidate the act in Canada, but, if it does happen, at least for a while, the line of succession to the Canadian throne will differ from the line of succession to the throne of the other Commonwealth realms.

As explained before, Tâne Lewis has moved down to # 29, switching places with Senna Lewis, and Rufus Gilman has moved down to#32, switching places with Lyla Gilman. In addition, the Earl of St. Andrews and Prince Michael of Kent have been restored to the line of succession, respectively at numbers 34 and 44. BTW, I assume that King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands will also be back in the line of succession (at whatever remote place he is entitled to be) as his marriage to the Roman Catholic Queen Maxima will no longer disqualify him.

It is worth noting also that, once the second Cambridge baby is born, Princess Beatrice of York will no longer be among the six first persons in line to throne and, according to the new Succession Act, will no longer have to request the monarch's permission to get married.

 

[Iluvbertie]

My understanding it that until the law is actually gazetted in the UK it won't be in effect anywhere to avoid separate lines of succession.


If there is still any court matters to be cleared up they will be before this takes effect - although it seems that NZ has already decided to jump in and now have a different line of succession to the rest of us.

 

[Skippyboo]

You have to get to the Gloucester grandkids before there is a difference between with and without the law so the person 20 something in line is different in different countries for a period of time isn't really a big deal.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Tatiana Maria]

My understanding it that until the law is actually gazetted in the UK it won't be in effect anywhere to avoid separate lines of succession.

Commencement of Succession to the Crown Act 2013 :Written statement - HCWS490 - UK Parliament

It did take effect "across every Realm."

 

[Iluvbertie]

The biggest change immediately is that Eugenie can now marry without the Queen's consent and after the new baby is born so will Beatrice be able to do so.


They will have the freedom to simply get married without any fanfare or announcement if that is their wish.

 

[Polly]

My understanding it that until the law is actually gazetted in the UK it won't be in effect anywhere to avoid separate lines of succession.


If there is still any court matters to be cleared up they will be before this takes effect - although it seems that NZ has already decided to jump in and now have a different line of succession to the rest of us.

No, that's not so. As from 11.00 a.m. 26/3/15 (yesterday) these new succession laws came into effect, internationally and simultaneously. Everything's now been finalised, and in Australia's case, it didn't need any approval from the UK.

I refer you to Professor of Constitutional Law, Anne Twomey's excellent article to which Rudolph has provided a link (post 1056)

 

[Roslyn]

The proclamation of the commencement of this legislation marks quite a significant historical moment. Not only can Eugenie marry without her grandmother's consent, she can marry a Catholic and not lose her place in the succession.

 

[Polly]

Yes, Roslyn, yesterday was an historic moment for all, whether republican or Monarchist. I'm surprised that only those of us in Australia who read specialist news and commentaries seem to be aware of it - and Rudolph in Canada, of course.

I think, too, that most people all thought that it was all done and dusted a few years ago, which wasn't the case. Australia took its time, but we did it the right, proper and constitutionally legal way (like Canada, we're a Federation and every state had to ask the Commonwealth to act on its behalf), but it's now all done.

And about time, too.

 

[Duke of Leaside]

Finally something from here in Canada:

Statement by Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Canada providing assent to amendments to rules governing the line of succession | Prime Minister of Canada

I find it unlikely that the Quebec court will invalidate the act in Canada, but, if it does happen, at least for a while, the line of succession to the Canadian throne will differ from the line of succession to the throne of the other Commonwealth realms.

As explained before, Tâne Lewis has moved down to # 29, switching places with Senna Lewis, and Rufus Gilman has moved down to#32, switching places with Lyla Gilman. In addition, the Earl of St. Andrews and Prince Michael of Kent have been restored to the line of succession, respectively at numbers 34 and 44. BTW, I assume that King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands will also be back in the line of succession (at whatever remote place he is entitled to be) as his marriage to the Roman Catholic Queen Maxima will no longer disqualify him.

It is worth noting also that, once the second Cambridge baby is born, Princess Beatrice of York will no longer be among the six first persons in line to throne and, according to the new Succession Act, will no longer have to request the monarch's permission to get married.

It's interesting about King Willem-Alexander being restored to the line of succession. There are literally hundreds (perhaps thousands) of people like him who have been restored after being removed only by reason of marrying an RC. Another interesting one is Prince Ernst August of Hanover who has been restored to the line of succession after being removed when he married Princess Caroline of Monaco on January 23, 1999. The Queen gave her consent to their marriage as per the Royal Marriages Act 1772 on January 11, 1999.

 

[Duke of Leaside]

Another bit of minutiae re: changes regarding receiving the Sovereign's consent to marry:

Under the Royal Marriages Act 1772, failure to get consent meant that the marriage was invalid and therefore the children of that marriage were illegitimate and thus those children were not in the line of succession to the crown. However the Royal who married in contravention of the act did NOT lose his or her place in the line of succession. If he/she married again they would not first need divorce because legally the first marriage never existed in the first place. This is the case of the future George IV and others.

Now, while failure to comply with the consent to the marriage provisions of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 (for the first six people in the line of succession) no longer renders the marriage invalid, it does remove the person in contravention and the children from the marriage in question from the line of succession.

So previously the marriage was invalid and the children could not succeed to the throne but the person in question could marry in the future (as the future George IV did) and succeed to the throne as he did.

Now the person in contravention of the Succession to the Crown Act would be barred from succession forever as would the children of the contravening marriage.

So let's say Charles and Camilla had not yet married and today they got married without getting consent from the Queen. Charles would then be removed from the line of succession along with any children from their (legally valid) marriage. If Charles and Camilla then divorced and Charles got married a third time (to Camilla or anyone else and this time with the Queen's consent) then the children of that marriage would be in the line of succession but their father Charles would still be out by reason of his second marriage which was in contravention. Of course William and Harry (and George and their other descendants) would be unaffected by this.

Now it seems that the person marrying in contravention of the Queen's wishes will be punished (permanently) themselves for that transgression whereas before the intent seems to have been to just act like it never happened.

I'm curious if this aspect of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 was envisioned and intended by its writers.

 

[Skippyboo]

The Queen has never denied any of her family's marriage requests. Plus there is the option of going around the monarch's veto and take the request to parliament if the Royal is at least 25.

The reason why they limited it to 6, is there are many people in the line of succession that their marriage would need approval but the person has no shot at ever being monarch. The person who married the person 154 th in line to the British throne is isn't important if they are a bad character. It cuts down on the rubber stamping of marriages so number 154 doesn't have to ask the Queen to wed


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Duke of Leaside]

... Plus there is the option of going around the monarch's veto and take the request to parliament if the Royal is at least 25. ...

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Of course this option no longer exists. The Royal Marriages Act 1772 was repealed in its entirety as part of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 and the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 makes no provision for notice to be given after a monarch's veto such as existed in section 2 of the Royal Marriages Act 1772.

So, interestingly, although the number of people requiring consent is vastly reduced, there is no way around a monarch's veto any more. The Queen's word would be final!
(Unless and until of course parliament passes another law to deal with a specific case(s) or in a general sense.)

 

[Dman]

Don't Prince Ernst and Princess Caroline have to seek Her Majesty's permission to divorce?

 

[Roslyn]

Now it seems that the person marrying in contravention of the Queen's wishes will be punished (permanently) themselves for that transgression whereas before the intent seems to have been to just act like it never happened.

Which is the lesser evil? The system that allowed an irresponsible George IV to go through a marriage ceremony with Mrs Fitzherbert and then completely ignore that marriage when it was inconvenient for him, or one where the heir is held accountable for his actions?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Don't Prince Ernst and Princess Caroline have to seek Her Majesty's permission to divorce?

I doubt it - they didn't actually need it to marry as Ernest was a descendant of a British princess who had married into a foreign royal house (he was descended from the Empress Frederick).

If they wish to divorce they can simply do so, as have many other people in the line of succession without asking The Queen's permission.


This new legislation makes completely moot the 'Farran Exemption' which argued that none of the current British Royal Family actually needed consent anyway as they were descended from Princess, later Queen, Alexandra who herself was descended from a British Princess who married into a foreign royal house.


This new law is very clear - first six in line and that is all.


That leads to a possible scenario - which I would hope would never come to pass but ... what if after the new baby is born Beatrice announces that she is getting married in September - she will be 7th in line once the baby is born but in late August The Queen dies and thus Beatrice goes back up to 6th. What would be the reaction if Charles then refused his permission for her to marry?

 

[Skippyboo]

Succession to the Crown Act 2013

Why would Charles even refuse her to marry the man that she has been dating for several years? Dave isn't a convicted murder serving time in prison


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Mbruno]

Of course this option no longer exists. The Royal Marriages Act 1772 was repealed in its entirety as part of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 and the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 makes no provision for notice to be given after a monarch's veto such as existed in section 2 of the Royal Marriages Act 1772.

So, interestingly, although the number of people requiring consent is vastly reduced, there is no way around a monarch's veto any more. The Queen's word would be final!
(Unless and until of course parliament passes another law to deal with a specific case(s) or in a general sense.)

As far as I understand, the monarch's consent must be declared "in council", which, under the conventions of parliamentary government, implies it is actually the government, rather than the monarch in a personal capacity, that must consent to the marriage.

 

[Rudolph]

Orders in Council are Orders that have been approved at a meeting of the Privy Council personally by The Queen.

Orders of Council do not require personal approval by The Queen, but which can be made by The Lords of the Privy Council (Ministers)

 

[Iluvbertie]

Why would Charles even refuse her to marry the man that she has been dating for several years? Dave isn't a convicted murder serving time in prison


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

It was a simply 'what if' scenario?

We don't know what Charles thinks of Dave. He mightn't approve of him for some reason while The Queen does.

The point is more that the person in 7th could easily move back to sixth and thus their requirements under the law would change.

 

[Rudolph]

Consent of Sovereign required to certain Royal Marriages

A person who (when the person marries) is one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown must obtain the consent of Her Majesty before marrying.

Where any such consent has been obtained, it must be—

(a) signified under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom,
(b) declared in Council, and
(c) recorded in the books of the Privy Council.

-----------------------------------------------------------

The language of the statute is clear. The consent of the Queen is required and she must give the approval in council