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

[PrincessKaimi]

And we may be about to find out whether that eldest child is a girl or not. I believe the debate will heat up a little bit more if the baby is a girl.

 

[NGalitzine]

As long as the heiress apparent receives the income from the Duchy I cannot see a major case for also giving her the ducal title. Charles only uses it when in the duchy but there is no real reason for it.

 

[Ish]

And we may be about to find out whether that eldest child is a girl or not. I believe the debate will heat up a little bit more if the baby is a girl.

I can't see there being a huge debate about the future titles of a newborn's husband or children, or for that matter the titles of said newborn after 2 people die.

But then, we seem to be having such a debate now, so...

For the Duchy of Cornwall, it doesn't become an issue until the Queen and Charles die. The Cambridge Baby, regardless of gender, cannot hold the title until William is king. I can see the issue being discussed under Charles' reign (if Cambridge is a girl), but not sooner. I do think it's likely to be changed so that a daughter of the monarch can hold it, but not until such a time as it becomes more relevant.

For the spouse and children of a female Baby Cambridge: we already know that in the case of a female heir LPs can be issued, and will likely be issued, to allow their spouse and children to have an HRH and princely titles. That happened with Elizabeth (I doubt a repetition of the spouse being an HRH but not a prince will happen). It only seems logical that in the future, if Baby C is female then when she gets married LPs will be issued to cover her spouse and children. At that time, they may even issue LPs that are broader, allowing for all female heir apparents to have their spouses and children be HRH Prince(ss). Female Baby C is covered in this department.

 

[Warren]

Queensland has been arguing that each of the states [of Australia]...is a separate Crown in its own right.

Further to the question of separate [Australian] state Crowns, I'll quote part of a handout the local State MP has letterboxed to constituents:

"In 2011 Commonwealth countries agreed to enact laws to remove discrimination against female heirs to the throne...In the [NSW State] Parliament I raised concerns that the Succession to the Crown (Request) Bill could reduce the argument that NSW has its own Crown separate to the Commonwealth because it only refers to the 'Crown of Australia'. Monarchists and republicans concerned about State rights share this view.

Since the Australia Acts of 1986, the Queen can only act on the advice of the [State] Premier on State matters. It remains unresolved whether this means she is Queen of NSW separate to being Queen of Australia. NSW should have adopted a similar bill to Queensland, which specifically protected the possibility of a separate Crown."

Note that the issue is irrelevant to a monarchy/republic debate, it is about that perennial of Australian politics, "States Rights". While the Federal Constitution of 1901 gives the Commonwealth Government relatively limited and strictly defined powers, the tendency of Federal administrations of both sides of politics has been to seek expansion of those powers, such attempts generally meeting strong resistance by the States.
.

 

[Lenora]

Britain could have two rival monarchs if Commonwealth fails to agree primogeniture law change - Telegraph

Britain could have two rival monarchs if Commonwealth fails to agree primogeniture law change

A failure by Commonwealth states to change the primogeniture rule could lead to a first-born daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge becoming monarch in the UK – but a later son being king in other countries. Many Commonwealth countries have failed to agree to the new law, which would allow a first-born daughter of Kate and William becoming the monarch even if they later have a son.

Without this agreement, a situation could arise where a first-born daughter becomes queen in Britain and some Commonwealth realms but, in countries where the law has not been given assent, a younger brother becomes king – creating rival monarchs. To avoid the prospect of Britain having different sovereigns in different countries, the Succession to the Crown Act has to be accepted in each of the 15 Commonwealth realms where the Queen is head of state. But just three of the 15 have so far given assent.

The delay to the new rules, championed by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, has caused such concern that Lord Tankerness, a member of the House of Lords and a barrister, was sent in May on a tour of some of the realms to urge them to bring in the change and offer advice on how they might do so.

The act will come into force only once the law is altered, but it will be backdated to include any children born after October 2011, the date when Commonwealth leaders first agreed to end the primogeniture rule. The countries that need to approve the change are: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Papua New Guinea, St Kitts and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Barbados, Tuvalu, Grenada, Solomon Islands, St Lucia and the Bahamas.

The three that have approved the change are St Kitts and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines and Canada, although Ottawa's decision simply to give assent to the British law, rather than creating its own bill, has sparked an appeal.
.

 

[NGalitzine]

Royal baby bill challenge joined by Quebec attorney general - Canada - CBC News

This is what happens when governments rush things along without necessarily following the right process. The government of Quebec is joining a lawsuit challenging the federal governments right to make changes in the succession, which they view as a constitutional change, without consulting the provinces. In this I agree with the government of Quebec. Note that no one is challenging the law itself or the need for the change, this is all about correct constitutional process.
Now that we have a new baby prince and there is no need to rush things anymore, hopefully all of the Commonwealth realms will take the time to follow there own correct constitutional processes so there could not be future challenges. Always better to take the time to do things right the first time.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I was just about to post that I imagine this will all be forgotten for another time.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Britain could have two rival monarchs if Commonwealth fails to agree primogeniture law change .

This of course is total rubbish - as the agreements at CHOGM was that the change would only take effect once ALL the realms had passed the necessary legislation so there was no split.

Of course it is irrelevant now - and can wait another 30 or so years before anyone has to worry about the situation - when The Prince of Cambridge is about to become a father.
.

 

[Countessmeout]

I was just about to post that I imagine this will all be forgotten for another time.

I think it has gone too far already to stop. The bill is already being voted on and agreed to. It's not at the talking stage or proposal stage, they have already taken costly steps to start the process. It seems foolish to stop it now, even with a Prince.

Sad to say, but even with modern medicine, there is a chance little Prince C won't see the throne, and a younger sibling would.

 

[Ish]

It's not going to be stopped, but it's not going to be rushed anymore. Some states which haven't passed it yet may out it on the backburner and (hopefully) the government of Canada will be forced to redo how they did it.
.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Until there's a spare, of course it's in doubt. But this bill isn't a priority and never really has been. If it had been it would have been sorted out years ago.

 

[Jacknch]

It is still good to know that if William and Catherine have a girl next time she will still remain high up in the line of succession rather than disappear down the line like Princess Anne!
Also, by the time events come to pass where the new succession rules will come into play, said new rule will have been established for decades!

 

[Iluvbertie]

She would only go down further if they had a second son after a first girl.

 

[Jacknch]

She would only go down further if they had a second son after a first girl.

Is it not correct that after the change of succession rules, if W&C have a girl next time she will be ahead of any subsequent sons therafter?

 

[Ish]

Is it not correct that after the change of succession rules, if W&C have a girl next time she will be ahead of any subsequent sons therafter?

After the change of the rules children will be in the line of succession according to the order of their birth, regardless of gender.

 

[wbenson]

The change, when/if it goes into effect, will mean that any girl, anywhere in the line of succession (not just the descendants of Charles), will not be displaced by a boy born after October 2011.

In this hypothetical family:

• Margaret, born 2006
• George, born 2008
• Mary, born 2012
• John, born 2013

they would be ordered George-John-Margaret-Mary before the change comes into force, but George-Margaret-Mary-John afterwards. (George and Margaret were born before 2011 and stay in their sex-determined order, but John was born afterwards and won't come before his elder sisters.)

 

[Countessmeout]

It's not going to be stopped, but it's not going to be rushed anymore. Some states which haven't passed it yet may out it on the backburner and (hopefully) the government of Canada will be forced to redo how they did it.

There was never a rush to start. It has been agreed, the new laws apply to any children born after 2011. If the little Prince had been a princess, Will and Kate could have had a further 6 sons, 12 grandsons and so on and so on, and this little Princess would still be heir when the law was changed. We would just see an occurrence like in Sweden, where CP went from being the heir, to the spare. As long as the queen, Charles and William don't all die before it is passed, there was never any rush.

Why move it to the backburner? Do it and get it done with. Putting it on the back burner is the same as stopping it. Why waste all the time and effort put into it so far, just to set it aside now, even if temporarily?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Why should the other realms waste the time and effort now when it isn't necessary? We have better things to do with our parliamentary time then worry about this issue.

 

[monarchist-us]

I think that eventually the laws will come into force, but I agree: any urgency whatsoever to enact this law has been scrapped because functionally, it doesn't change anything.

Even if the Duchess has a daughter, I think it will take a third pregnancy (and the possibility of the "spare" daughter being superseded by a younger brother) for the changes to be considered important.

It's nice to remove codified sexism from the laws, but it can wait since it may very well not have any real effect on succession for the next 100 years, just like the changes wouldn't have changed anything in the previous 100 years.

 

[amaryllus]

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.

 

[monarchist-us]

If anything the only real effect of passing it anytime soon would mean that republicans would have to stop concern trolling over people losing their places in the succession over marrying Catholics.

 

[Americanskipper]

I am glad this question can be put to a stop for a generation.

 

[Jacknch]

Why move it to the backburner? Do it and get it done with. Putting it on the back burner is the same as stopping it. Why waste all the time and effort put into it so far, just to set it aside now, even if temporarily?

I couldn't agree more with you. There was NEVER any urgency for this new law to be passed and the efforts made so far should not be wasted simply because it is presumed it is not now needed or that parliaments apparently shoudl not waste their time on it. Parliaments are not just there to deal with current issues (which frankly they waste too much time on anyway with LITTLE result).

It is a simple fact and quite reasonable and correct that in a situation where only one person can, or is allowed to, inherit something, that that person should be the first born child.
Accordingly, it is right and proper to ensure that a change in the law concerning succession is well established by the time such situation arises even if such situation does not come to pass for another few decades.

 

[Furienna]

Yes, so am I.

 

[Valerie Rose]

I, also

 

[ralmcg]

Her Majesty's realms share the same monarch but otherwise are independent of each other. That means that each realm could alter, for itself, the line of succession. Each realm can also choose who will be regent. So, for example, while Prince Harry is regent for the United Kingdom, Australia could make a law that makes Princess Anne the regent. So, for purposes of selecting the Governor-General and the state governors, Princess Anne would be the one whose appointing power would be recognized.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I'd have to ask Iluvbertie on this but I don't think it works like that, well in my mind it shouldn't. This is why the succesion act must be agreed by all commonwealth realms.

 

[Ish]

Her Majesty's realms share the same monarch but otherwise are independent of each other. That means that each realm could alter, for itself, the line of succession. Each realm can also choose who will be regent. So, for example, while Prince Harry is regent for the United Kingdom, Australia could make a law that makes Princess Anne the regent. So, for purposes of selecting the Governor-General and the state governors, Princess Anne would be the one whose appointing power would be recognized.

Well, if you look at the way the current attempt to change the succession is happening it's been treated as an all of nothing - either they all change the succession or they don't.

I don't think each realm could - or would - have a different regent either. Most of the realms seem to accept the idea that whoever is the monarch in the UK, or regent for that matter, is the monarch or regent throughout the Commonwealth.

If Australia, say, wanted to name Anne as their monarch instead of Charles, then Australia would no longer have need for a Governor General as Anne would (presumably) move to live in Australia and would not need a full time representative of the crown, which is essentially what the GG is.

 

[BritishRoyalist]

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

 

[NGalitzine]

Her Majesty's realms share the same monarch but otherwise are independent of each other. That means that each realm could alter, for itself, the line of succession. Each realm can also choose who will be regent. So, for example, while Prince Harry is regent for the United Kingdom, Australia could make a law that makes Princess Anne the regent. So, for purposes of selecting the Governor-General and the state governors, Princess Anne would be the one whose appointing power would be recognized.

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.