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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
So this means that the monarch's consort or future consort must agree that their child is brought up Anglican , and if they don't that child, as a catholic will be passed over as monarch.

Have I understood it correctly?
 
This is my understanding. The sovereign MUST be in communion with the Church of England or Church of Canada as it is over here lol

PM Stephen Harper of Canada said this today and David Cameron was quoted a few months ago stating the King or Queen must be an Anglican

PM Harper will shoot the whole thing down if the catholic exclusion is removed
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The monarch MUST be Anglican - as one of their positins is Supreme Governor of the Church of England. You can't have a Supreme Governor of the Church of England who isn't CoE (it would be like having a Pope who isn't RC).

Anyone who is a RC is still out for this reason but being married to one will be acceptable when this new legislation is eventually past.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes to pass in the UK and then in the other realms as that could be quite interesting if one realm doesn't pass the changes and thus splits the monarchy.

To pass this law it will still have to have the normal proceedings through the Parliament which involves three readings in each house, discussions in committee and has to pass both houses with exactly the same wording. Only one piece of legislation has ever done so in one day and that was the Abdication Act in 1936. This could take a very short period of time or longer, depending on objections and whether or not it leads to raising the debate on becoming a republic.
 
Thank you. I didn't know about the Canadian PM proviso. As a secure underpinning, it would be preferable that the 2nd in line ( or as we have now 3rd in line ) made this commitment.

Also please excuse rubbish typing. I'm on an iPad with predictive text and I'm making some classic errors. Just spotted elsewhere the use of levitated insad of alleviated - oops
 
Canada blocks Cameron

PM Harper is a true conservative Tory and his heart just isn't in this. He only reluctantly came on board for the very narrow issue of equal primogeniture because of lobbying from New Zealand

However, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has effectively blocked any reform of the Act of Settlement, which would permit a Roman Catholic to become the head of the Church of England.

In a campaign stop in Yellowknife in the Northwest Territories, Mr. Harper said Canadians were not prepared debate on the Act of Settlement.

In response to constituent’s question about the royal marriage and the succession, Mr. Harper said on April 20 “the successor to the throne is a man. The next successor to the throne is a man.”

“I don’t think Canadians want to open a debate on the monarchy or constitutional matters at this time,” he noted, adding, “that’s our position, and I just don’t see that as a priority for Canadians right now, at all.”

Without Canada’s support, the Act of Settlement cannot be amended
 
Duke - if you read the bill - it covers Britain, Scotland and N Ireland. It's the Parliament part of the issue and it does not resolve anything for the rest of the Commonwealth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Duke - if you read the bill - it covers Britain, Scotland and N Ireland. It's the Parliament part of the issue and it does not resolve anything for the rest of the Commonwealth.

I know but eventually all 16 realms will need to be in agreement or all of this is for nothing and Canada will shoot down the entire show if there is any language allowing Catholics near the throne. Unlike in the UK, Canada has a strong conservative majority government and doesn't need to makes deals with the devil, like Cameron must do

Much work to be done yet
 
Section 2 of this bill concerns the "Removal of disqualification arising from marriage to a Roman Catholic" and specifically states that all persons previously excluded from the line of succession due to this disqualification will be reinstated to the line of succession, provided they are still alive. So they both are back in.

I happily stand corrected. And to the poster who said that "... they are all alike ..." GROW UP! You live in the 21st Century:bang:

I wouldn't expect that a Catholic could be the Monarch/Head of the Church of England. Kinda like a Lutheran heading up the Vatican. Everybody needs to calm down, take a breath, and grow up!
 
There is no intention to allow a RC to be the monarch, only the spouse.

However if the UK passes this bill and Canada doesn't - and the first child is a girl and then a boy - then the boy will be heir to Canada while the girl will be heir to the UK.

My understanding is that the act won't take effect in one realm until it is passed in all of them but...that mightn't be the case at all and Canada may end up with a different monarch to the rest of the realms.
 
And if W&C have a first born son Nick Clegg will have to find a new pet project because all of this will be for naught. Our next three sovereigns after the Queen will be men. I'll be long dead by that time

Canada will have no issue as long as the king or queen and their children remain Anglicans
 
Last edited:
Maybe all the realms will pass it and then W&C will have two girls like George VI did, and it will all be for nothing!

I have actually read it the other way round - initially this was only to affect Charles' descendents but now it is to apply to all descendents born after 2011.

More changes to come I imagine.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:previous:

Perhaps. Then again, maybe we'll have the Swedish scenario when the King had a girl first and then a boy, which resulting in Prince Carl Philip being born as Heir Apparent to the Throne only to be downgraded to second-in-the-line (after his elder sister, Crown Princess Victoria) once Equal Primogeniture was adopted.

I think if the law has been unanimously agreed upon by all Commonwealth Realms, they should proceed with it sooner rather then later.
 
Last edited:
Succession to the Crown Act 2013

SUCCESSION TO THE CROWN ACT 2013

A BILL TO Make succession to the Crown not depend on gender; to make provision about Royal Marriages; and for connected purposes.

Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1 Succession to the Crown not to depend on gender

In determining the succession to the Crown, the gender of a person born after 28 October 2011 does not give that person, or that person’s descendants, precedence over any other person (whenever born).

2 Removal of disqualification arising from marriage to a Roman Catholic

(1) A person is not disqualified from succeeding to the Crown or from possessing it as a result of marrying a person of the Roman Catholic faith.

(2) Subsection (1) applies in relation to marriages occurring before the time of the coming into force of this section where the person concerned is alive at that time (as well as in relation to marriages occurring after that time).

3 Consent of Sovereign required to certain Royal Marriages

(1) 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.

(2) 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.

(3) The effect of a person’s failure to comply with subsection (1) is that the person and the person’s descendants are disqualified from succeeding to the Crown.

(4) The Royal Marriages Act 1772 (which provides that, subject to certain exceptions, a descendant of King George II may marry only with the consent of the Sovereign) is repealed.

(5) A void marriage under that Act is to be treated as never having been void if—

(a) neither party to the marriage was one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown at the time of the marriage,
(b) no consent was sought under section 1 of that Act, or notice given under section 2 of that Act, in respect of the marriage,
(c) in all the circumstances it was reasonable for the person concerned not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to it, and
(d) no person acted, before the coming into force of this section, on the basis that the marriage was void.

(6) Subsection (5) applies for all purposes except those relating to the succession to the Crown.
... ...

5 Commencement and short title


(1) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.
(2) The other provisions of this Act come into force on such day and at such time as the Lord President of the Council may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.
(3) Different days and times may be appointed for different purposes.
(4) This Act may be cited as the Succession to the Crown Act 2013.



 
As far as I know from past experience, a Roman Catholic who marries a Protestant or a person of another religious faith must promise to raise his or her children Catholic, and the non-Catholic prospective spouse must agree to this. That is the way it was decades ago in the U.S. when I was familiar with it, but possibly this changed. Princess Michael of Kent is Catholic but her two children by Prince Michael are said to have been raised Protestant. Likewise with Caroline, the Princess of Hanover, who is Catholic but is raising her Hannover child as a Protestant.
As far as I am concerned, there should not be this legal divide between Protestant and Catholic, as both pledge allegiance to Jesus Christ even above allegiance to their respective churches. However, if this still exists, the Catholic party to the Catholic-Protestant marriage could be accused of hypocrisy and even of lying, if they promised to raise their children Catholic when they wed. if they did not promise, then this is moot. If they made this promise in bad faith, then I think they should feel insincere, but probably they have resolved the matter within their own consciences.
 
Our Sovereign Queen took an oath on June 2 1953 and when you read this oath you will realise that there will never be a catholic monarch on the Maple Throne of Canada

Coronation Oath, 2nd June 1953

PM Cameron and PM Harper have said that the Sovereign of the Realms will be an Anglican and that's it.

Article 37 from the BCP states The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England
 
Last edited:
" (3) The effect of a person’s failure to comply with subsection (1) is that the person and the person’s descendants are disqualified from succeeding to the Crown. "

That's worded interestingly. It seems to apply to all of the person's descendants rather than just the ones who are born in the disqualifying marriage. Hopefully it would never be an issue, but it would seem possible for a parent who has become unmarried through one means or the other to spite his or her children by remarrying without permission.
 
To my reading of this there are two interesting points in that clause:

1. The person themselves lose their inheritance rights by undergoing this illegal marriage - not just their children.

Say Harry gets drunk one night and undergoes a marriage ceremony which his mates witness and the officiating person was a licencsed marriage celebrant he would immediately lose his place.

That hasn't been the case in the past - e.g. George IV underwent a marriage ceremony with Maria Fitzherbert but because he didn't have consent from the monarch he was able to later marry and remained in the line of succession although any children from Maria would have had no claim - like William IV's descendents have no claim (unless they have married someone with a legitimate claim).

Children born out of wedlock have never had inheritance rights to titles and their descendents can't claim due to an illegitimate ancestor.

2. It does seem strange that the wording implies that if William and Catherine divorced and then he married without consent that this current unborn child would also lose its rights.

Hopefully this confusion will be picked up in the committee stages and reworded before the law is past.
 
:previous: You make two interesting points, Bertie.

As for the first one, it is indeed a marked departure, and one of which I approve. The State should not "own" the heir. If the heir chooses to give up their place in the line of succession that way, they should have the right to do so. With respect to your hypothetical example, a person who is so silly as to get married while drunk shouldn't be in line to be monarch anyway. As for the second point, I read it the same way, and agree that it needs to be amended.
 
This 6-persons-next-in-line thing is not logical at all. It means that, after the Duke of Cambridge's child is born, Princess Beatrice of York will be excluded if she marries without a permission regardless of who her spouse is, while her younger sister will be able to marry a drug lord and remain in the line (provided that Eugenie's marriage takes place before Beatrice's). In fact, in that scenario, Princess Eugenie of York and her children sired by a drug lord would become closer to the throne.

I wonder where they got that idea from. No other monarchy has marriage approval requirements like that. Normally, all people in line have to obtain consent.
 
This 6-persons-next-in-line thing is not logical at all. It means that, after the Duke of Cambridge's child is born, Princess Beatrice of York will be excluded if she marries without a permission regardless of who her spouse is, while her younger sister will be able to marry a drug lord and remain in the line (provided that Eugenie's marriage takes place before Beatrice's). In fact, in that scenario, Princess Eugenie of York and her children sired by a drug lord would become closer to the throne.

I wonder where they got that idea from. No other monarchy has marriage approval requirements like that. Normally, all people in line have to obtain consent.

This coalition government in Britain makes it up as they go along. I think there are at least a couple of clauses or sections that will have to be re-written
 
I knew this would happen! Once you start messing with tradition, it's impossible to stop.

My daughter is the victim of a flawed system - Telegraph

How disgustingly hypocritical! As I said in another thread, her poor daughter is what she is and where she is precisely thanks to the flawed system by which female heirs are skipped and which thus enabled her father to inherit the title. But poor rich heiress won't get to be a countess, how unfair!
 
I read the article you linked, Mirabel, and your comment, Duke of Earl, that "there won't be an estate left in Britain after the lefties go through with their agenda." I, like the author of the article, am not an extreme feminist. I think her suggestion is good, that at least a woman should inherit a title if there is no male heir. (This has Biblical support in the law set forth by Moses that the five daughters of Zelophehad, without a brother, should inherit their father's estate if they married within their tribe--and I think England still is a Bible-revering country).
The author remarks that Scotland has had this type of inheritance for a long time, i.e., daughter inherits title and land if there is no brother. In fact it goes back to the Middle Ages, when Muriel, Lady of Rothes, inherited her father's castle in Rothes when her father, Peter de Pollock, had no sons. Muriel's daughter Eva, likewise had no sons, and passed the title on to her daughter (nameless in records). Down to the twentieth century, the title Lady of Rothes continued if there was no direct male heir. My cousin (many times removed) Georgiana Maxwell, was the last Lady of Rothes. I am descended from Robert de Pollock, Lady Muriel's uncle, who had at least one son, and thus never created a similar descent for his heirs.
I am not aware that the Pollock family were "lefties." They were Jacobites willing to give all for the ascension of the Stuart family. But of course one might say that Peter Pollock was a leftie because he left his castle to Muriel. I think probably he was not a leftie, being a staunch monarchist, but that WAS a long time ago.
 
Last edited:
My reference is to the politics of today, so how about Labour/Lib-Dems instead of lefties?
If the Tory party had a majority, none of this equal-primogeniture debate would be discussed.
 
Last edited:
I read the article you linked, Mirabel, and your comment, Duke of Earl, that "there won't be an estate left in Britain after the lefties go through with their agenda." I, like the author of the article, am not an extreme feminist. I think her suggestion is good, that at least a woman should inherit a title if there is no male heir. (This has Biblical support in the law set forth by Moses that the five daughters of Zelophehad, without a brother, should inherit their father's estate if they married within their tribe--and I think England still is a Bible-revering country).

Why? Titles are very rarely created with an intent to prevent their extinction. Sometimes titles just need to go extinct. Imagine Princess Beatrice becoming Duchess of York and thus ending the five centuries long tradition of granting the Dukedom of York to the second son of the sovereign. And what does Bible have to do with this? Are you seriously invoking it? I doubt it gives males and females equal inheritance rights, yet nobody mentions Bible when discussing abolishing male-preferance.

The author remarks that Scotland has had this type of inheritance for a long time, i.e., daughter inherits title and land if there is no brother. In fact it goes back to the Middle Ages, when Muriel, Lady of Rothes, inherited her father's castle in Rothes when her father, Peter de Pollock, had no sons. Muriel's daughter Eva, likewise had no sons, and passed the title on to her daughter (nameless in records). Down to the twentieth century, the title Lady of Rothes continued if there was no direct male heir. My cousin (many times removed) Georgiana Maxwell, was the last Lady of Rothes. I am descended from Robert de Pollock, Lady Muriel's uncle, who had at least one son, and thus never created a similar descent for his heirs

I have no idea which Rothes title you're referring to. There is an earldom of Rothes which was never held by a Georgiana Maxwell. There is a barony de Ross which was held by Georgiana Maxwell. Neither title is extinct so "Georgiana Maxwell" cannot have been last holder of either title.
 
Last edited:
:previous:Why? Titles are very rarely created with an intent to prevent their extinction. Sometimes title just need to go extinct. Imagine Princess Beatrice becoming Duchess of York and thus ending the five centuries long tradition of granting the Dukedom of York to the second son of the sovereign.


I personally am in total agreement with you. I just mean this entire 'debate' in government regarding equal-primogeniture is being driven because of a coalition government.
 
Imagine Princess Beatrice becoming Duchess of York and thus ending the five centuries long tradition of granting the Dukedom of York to the second son of the sovereign.

Had she been a boy it would have ended that "tradition" too.
I wouldn't call it a tradition, rather a series of unexpected events which through two generations have caused the Duke of York to eventually become King. Should we be sad to see the Duchy of Kent or the Duchy of Gloucester be continued through the next generations too?
 
Last edited:
I read the article you linked, Mirabel, and your comment, Duke of Earl, that "there won't be an estate left in Britain after the lefties go through with their agenda." I, like the author of the article, am not an extreme feminist. I think her suggestion is good, that at least a woman should inherit a title if there is no male heir.


But it will never stop there; what happens if there is a male heir but he isn't the eldest child? Or the other children decide they want their cut?

We may think it unfair, but male primogeniture is the reason so many of these large estates have endured throughout the years.
 
Back
Top Bottom