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

[Rudolph]

MONTREAL — Two law professors are going to ask a Quebec court Monday to quash the Harper government’s move to change a federal law dealing with succession in the British monarchy.

In 2011 the leaders of 16 commonwealth countries agreed to change the succession rules to allow the eldest heir to take the Throne whether male or female.

Before the change, if the eldest child was a woman, she would have been passed over in favour of her brother.

The Harper government made the change by a simple federal law in 2013.

But University of Laval law professors Patrick Taillon and Geneviève Motard said it was a change to Canada’s constitution that should have required the consent of the provinces, which Prime Minister Harper never sought

More: Quebec law profs declare federal monarchy succession law ‘unconsitutional’ | Globalnews.ca

 

[Mbruno]

More: Quebec law profs declare federal monarchy succession law ‘unconsitutional’ | Globalnews.ca

We have to wait and see what the Canadian courts will say, but, in the worst case scenario, Canada will have a different line of succession for a while ( at least until the Succession Act is passed "properly", i.e. with the consent of all 10 provinces). The first person affected by the new rules is, however, currently number 29 in the line of succession. In practical terms then, there will be minimal impact if the new law does not apply immediately to Canada.

 

[Ish]

We have to wait and see what the Canadian courts will say, but, in the worst case scenario, Canada will have a different line of succession for a while ( at least until the Succession Act is passed "properly", i.e. with the consent of all 10 provinces). The first person affected by the new rules is, however, currently number 29 in the line of succession. In practical terms then, there will be minimal impact if the new law does not apply immediately to Canada.

In the worst case scenario the courts allow Harper's disregard of the constitution to stand....

Best case scenario is the courts agree that the way the law was passed violates the constitution and the Canadian federal and provincial governments implement the change in a way that doesn't invalidate Canadian sovereignty while also not pushing Canadian republicanism.

 

[Rudolph]

The current hearing in a Quebec Superior Court over how someone gets to be King or Queen of Canada is a case that monarchists, such as myself, find fascinating, but would rather not by taking place in the public spotlight.

If the court decides that the Harper government acted correctly two years ago when it changed the succession rules with a simple act of Parliament to say that Canada will do what the British do, people who think the monarchy in Canada is no more than an ongoing, unacceptable relic of our colonial past will say, “Aha!”

If the court says — as ultimately I hope it does — that the monarchy in Canada is not the same as the monarchy in Britain or anywhere else, and the succession rules for this country can only be changed in this country by a constitutional amendment requiring the assent of Parliament and all 10 provincial legislatures, we will trigger the four most paralyzing words in our political lexicon: opening up the Constitution. In this case, too, the republican hounds will be unleashed in a dreary, baying debate over whether Canada should retain the monarchy at all.

More: Michael Valpy: Who takes the Crown? | National Post

 

[eya]

Heirs in line to succeed the Queen include 'miracle worker' who talks to angels | Daily Mail Online

 

[Furienna]

Well, it seems like the only one on this list, who has any chance of getting near a throne, must be Märtha Louise. And even with her, we're talking about the Norwegian throne and not the British one. It is very interesting though to see how little you have to care of your "royal reputation", when you end up so low down on the list.

 

[AdmirerUS]

I think that the text about Succession on the royal.uk site has been updated from the old royal.gov site.

In any case, the discussion of Parliament's role is lucidly and emphatically explained. https://www.royal.uk/succession

The Mrs. Michael Tindall made me chuckle.

 

[Roslyn]

It might make you chuckle, but it makes me fume and swear and want to throw things.

Isn't that archaic notion of a married woman's identity being subsumed within that of her husband long past its use-by date? Why do women tolerate it any longer?

 

[Iluvbertie]

If it is that way for the wife of an untitled person why allow wives of peers to take their husband's titles?

It is the formal way of doing it of course but if it changes then we have to take away all references to a wife's status coming from her husband so Kate goes back to being Ms Catherine Middleton as HRH The Duchess of Cambridge is simply her style as the wife of HRH The Duke of Cambridge - different styles but same principle.

 

[Roslyn]

Make the changes across the board. That would be fine with me. It's all archaic and unjust. The whole system of royalty and peerage is archaic and unjust, but my main grievance is with the way married women lose their own identity and are treated differently than married men, and - particularly - how readily most people so readily accept it. This all goes back to the outdated doctrine of coverture that I rattle on about so much.

Coverture is no longer a part of the law, so why do women, for formal purposes, still lose their own identity when they marry? And why is it fair for a woman who marries a royal to become an HRH princess automatically when a man who marries a royal woman is not treated the same way. If the elevated status were due to marriage alone, it would work both ways, but it doesn't. It's unjust and unfair. In this respect, Philip and Henrik are right. But, of course, the sort of woman who marries a prince, or, perhaps, the sort of woman a prince is going to be prepared to marry, will not be a feminist who will reject the "HRH Princess" style and all that goes with it.

It's all about a married couple becoming the one legal person on marriage, and that person is the husband, not the wife. That is no longer the case under the law; it only lives on in social tradition. Women now have complete equality under the law, so why on earth do they allow themselves to lose their identity this way, and be formally referred to as Mrs (husband's name). It's high time that a married woman was at least able to be known as Mrs (if she chooses) (her first name) (husband's surname, if she chooses to use it). That form should not be reserved only for divorced women, but would give a woman the option to take her husband's surname but retain her own first name as part of her formal name. And why should a woman's name indicate her marital status? Married men use the same style they had when they were single; they are not tagged as married, so why should a woman be tagged that way with "Mrs"?

 

[Countessmeout]

Well, it seems like the only one on this list, who has any chance of getting near a throne, must be Märtha Louise. And even with her, we're talking about the Norwegian throne and not the British one. It is very interesting though to see how little you have to care of your "royal reputation", when you end up so low down on the list.

When you are born below the top 15 in line for the throne, most people wont even know you are royal. You are private citizens who actually pay your own bills. So if you marry a surfer from NZ or work as a shop girl, good on you. As long as you're not posing nude wearing fake crown jewels and emphasizing your place in line to the throne Martha Louise agreed to the removal of her HRH title to loosen her connection to the RF.

 

[Pranter]

It might make you chuckle, but it makes me fume and swear and want to throw things.

Isn't that archaic notion of a married woman's identity being subsumed within that of her husband long past its use-by date? Why do women tolerate it any longer?

Because many of us don't care and are comfortable with more traditional ways of doing things...taking my husband's surname doesn't make me a lesser person or somehow unequal, oppressed or subjugated.


LaRae

 

[Roslyn]

Because many of us don't care and are comfortable with more traditional ways of doing things...taking my husband's surname doesn't make me a lesser person or somehow unequal, oppressed or subjugated.


LaRae

That's fine. It's your choice, though it saddens me that so many women don't care. But taking your husband's surname is not quite the same as having all your identity subsumed within his by being known as Mrs (husband's first name) (husband's surname), which is what has happened with Zara, or being known as Princess Michael.

 

[Pranter]

That's fine. It's your choice, though it saddens me that so many women don't care. But taking your husband's surname is not quite the same as having all your identity subsumed within his by being known as Mrs (husband's first name) (husband's surname), which is what has happened with Zara, or being known as Princess Michael.

Yes exactly it's my choice. I wish feminists would respect it and stop acting like women who choose this are being somehow mistreated. It's insulting.

Zara's identity has not being 'subsumed' because she might be referred to as Mrs Michael Tindall. She still shows (in her career) using her maiden name. Either way, I've seen nothing to indicate she has an issue with how she is addressed.



LaRae

 

[Roslyn]

Yes exactly it's my choice. I wish feminists would respect it and stop acting like women who choose this are being somehow mistreated. It's insulting.

Zara's identity has not being 'subsumed' because she might be referred to as Mrs Michael Tindall. She still shows (in her career) using her maiden name. Either way, I've seen nothing to indicate she has an issue with how she is addressed.

LaRae

I have not said that women who choose to take their husband's surnames are being mistreated. That's a matter of choice, just as when a man chooses to take his wife's surname, or a couple chooses to adopt a hyphenated surname incorporating both their surnames, and when a woman chooses to keep her own surname. That is choice and it is quite a different thing from being described by others merely in terms of your relationship to a particular man. That amounts to having your identity subsumed, and that is not just a matter of opinion, it was a fact of the doctrine of coverture and the laws that applied under that doctrine. Referring to Zara as "Mrs Michael Tindall" is anachronistic and insulting, in my opinion, even if she is happy as a clam for them to do this.

 

[Pranter]

The focus should be turned into the direction of those women in the world who suffer true oppression, basically being chattel and having little to no right of self determination.

It seems rather misguided to carry on about women being referred to as 'Mrs Michael Tindall' when you have women undergoing true oppression elsewhere in the world.


LaRae

 

[miss whirley]

Yes exactly it's my choice. I wish feminists would respect it and stop acting like women who choose this are being somehow mistreated. It's insulting.

Zara's identity has not being 'subsumed' because she might be referred to as Mrs Michael Tindall. She still shows (in her career) using her maiden name. Either way, I've seen nothing to indicate she has an issue with how she is addressed.



LaRae

She actually competes by her married name now. Check her last few competitions . She's also has registered her name with British Eventing as 'Mrs Zara Tindall' . Here's her rider profile. https://www.britisheventing.com/asp-net/Events/Results.aspx?RiderId=33381

 

[Pranter]

And that's cool too..if she wants to compete using her married name, that's up to her. Everything I've seen has been still under Phillips (she was in the US at Rolex recently and identified as Zara Phillips) but anyway...she's fine with it so should everyone else be.


LaRae

 

[miss whirley]

And that's cool too..if she wants to compete using her married name, that's up to her. Everything I've seen has been still under Phillips (she was in the US at Rolex recently and identified as Zara Phillips) but anyway...she's fine with it so should everyone else be.


LaRae

The rolex event was in Spring 2015. Hardly 'recent'. Her competitions this year have called her Zara Tindall. Her two elite events this year a four-star(Badminton Trials) and a three-star (Chatsworth) both called her Tindall.

The official Badminton site (Zara is listed 23rd)- https://www.badminton-horse.co.uk/index.php/final-results-2016/

The official page for Chatsworth (type in Tindall)- Chatsworth

In fact, this year Zara has gone out of her way to insist she be called by her married name when she is competing. Several articles were written about it.

Zara Philips to now be known as Mrs Tindall as she prepares for the Rio Olympics 2016 | Somerset Live

Shane Watson: Zara Phillips plays the name game

 

[Skippyboo]

I'm confused: what does the succession to the crown act have to do with what name Zara uses? The two seem totally unrelated. ?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[miss whirley]

The Succession Act addressed issues of patriarchy, a woman using her husbands name is also seen as a vestigial of patriarchy. The Shane Watson article I posted moaned about the latter. That's why Pranter and Roslyn were connecting the topics.

I only jumped in to point out Zara's stance on the subject.

 

[Skippyboo]

Thanks !


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Mbruno]

The Succession Act addressed issues of patriarchy, a woman using her husbands name is also seen as a vestigial of patriarchy. The Shane Watson article I posted moaned about the latter. That's why Pranter and Roslyn were connecting the topics.

I only jumped in to point out Zara's stance on the subject.

I agree that this is not the appropriate forum to discuss Zara's last name.

 

[Pranter]

The rolex event was in Spring 2015. Hardly 'recent'. Her competitions this year have called her Zara Tindall. Her two elite events this year a four-star(Badminton Trials) and a three-star (Chatsworth) both called her Tindall.

The official Badminton site (Zara is listed 23rd)- https://www.badminton-horse.co.uk/index.php/final-results-2016/

The official page for Chatsworth (type in Tindall)- Chatsworth

In fact, this year Zara has gone out of her way to insist she be called by her married name when she is competing. Several articles were written about it.

Zara Philips to now be known as Mrs Tindall as she prepares for the Rio Olympics 2016 | Somerset Live

Shane Watson: Zara Phillips plays the name game

Rolex was last month in Kentucky, May 2016. She was not competing but was there as she was interviewed on the cross country course and discussed various fences on the course.

And yes the reason her name came up is that it was used as an example of how women are somehow being marginalized because they use their husbands surname or are referred to as Mrs John Smith (Zara was used as example).


LaRae

 

[miss whirley]

And that's cool too..if she wants to compete using her married name, that's up to her. Everything I've seen has been still under Phillips (she was in the US at Rolex recently and identified as Zara Phillips) but anyway...she's fine with it so should everyone else be.


LaRae

Rolex was last month in Kentucky, May 2016. She was not competing but was there as she was interviewed on the cross country course and discussed various fences on the course.

And yes the reason her name came up is that it was used as an example of how women are somehow being marginalized because they use their husbands surname or are referred to as Mrs John Smith (Zara was used as example).


LaRae

Bolded- you answered your own question. She was not competing. She was going to compete with High Kingdom at the 2015 rolex but he got injured. She was not a rider there in 2016. In 2016 she exclusively competes under the name Zara Tindall by her own choice. It shouldn't bother anyone that she no longer uses Phillips. Her choice.

 

[Pranter]

Actually she was still being identified as Philips at Rolex (rider or not)...however perhaps not everyone in the horse world is aware, yet, of her decision to use her married name.


LaRae

 

[JessRulz]

Okay, time to get back to the topic at hand - the Succession to the Crown Act. If you wish to further discuss Zara's choice of Phillips or Tindall, her own thread is more appropriate.

 

[Gawin]

How did Parliament come up with the number six? I realize the advantages of limiting the number of heirs who need the monarch's permission to marry – others further down the line of succession probably wouldn't be working royals or even HRHs and their chances of actually succeeding to the throne would be slim to none.

But why six instead of five or seven or eight or ten? Was the actual number ever discussed or debated in Parliament?

 

[Osipi]

How did Parliament come up with the number six? I realize the advantages of limiting the number of heirs who need the monarch's permission to marry – others further down the line of succession probably wouldn't be working royals or even HRHs and their chances of actually succeeding to the throne would be slim to none.

But why six instead of five or seven or eight or ten? Was the actual number ever discussed or debated in Parliament?

I'm going to take a guess at this and submit that the reason the number is set at six because it is the top six in succession to the Crown that are eligible to serve as Councilors of State. The exception is the consort of the monarch who also can serve.

 

[Duke of Leaside]

I'm going to take a guess at this and submit that the reason the number is set at six because it is the top six in succession to the Crown that are eligible to serve as Councilors of State. The exception is the consort of the monarch who also can serve.

I believe, actually that it’s the top FOUR in succession that are eligible to serve as Counsellors of State (provided they are 21 (or 18 in the case of the heir apparent or heir presumptive)), plus the consort. Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother was additionally eligible from 1953 for the rest of her life.

As to why they picked the number 6? It’s in the notes to the Act on the UK parliament website. Basically the rationale was this: NO ONE LOWER THAN 5TH HAS EVER SUCCEEDED TO THE THRONE so they picked 6 just to be safe.
The future Queen Victoria was 5th in line for a few months after she was born.