|
|
Post by observer on Dec 4, 2012 22:56:58 GMT
Despite what the press is stating, it is not yet certain that a first-born girl child of William and Catherine will be sovereign automatically (unless the legislation is retroactive) because the Commonwealth realms have yet to pass such legislation. The BBC is reporting that David Cameron has stated that they have agreed on a bill but it has yet to be voted on. An interesting twist is that it is not generally recognized that the monarch is part of the constitution of each of the six Australian states. Governors, for example, are appointed on the advice of the state premiers and not of the prime minister of Australia. I believe that it is not clear that a change in the succession laws at the federal level is binding at the state level. Professor Anne Twomey, a Sydney University constitutional law professor, recently wrote: "In Australia, the issue is complicated by the federal system. It is most likely that the Federal Parliament does not have unilateral power to change the rules of succession. It has no specific power to do so and as the Queen is also a part of state constitutions and state parliaments, it is likely that any Commonwealth attempt to interfere with state constitutions would be invalid. The most appropriate approach is to use a section of the constitution that permits the states and the Commonwealth to co-operate to enact laws that only the Westminster Parliament could have enacted at the time of Federation. This would entail each state parliament passing a law that requests the Commonwealth to enact the changes to the Australian law of succession." See www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/archaic-and-sexist-law-overshadows-pending-arrival-of-a-new-royal-20121204-2at9p.html. Changing the federal constitution in Australia is extremely difficult, as republicans found at the time of the referendum on an Australian federal republic. |
|
|
|
Post by observer on Dec 5, 2012 14:19:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Cinderella on Dec 5, 2012 20:23:37 GMT
If one Australian state didn't go along with the changes to the laws, could they have ended up with a different monarch than everyone else?
|
|
|
|
Post by observer on Dec 5, 2012 23:18:07 GMT
If one Australian state didn't go along with the changes to the laws, could they have ended up with a different monarch than everyone else? That certainly seems to be the implication of Prof. Twomey's article. I expect, however, that the state would have accepted the current proposed changes by the time the new baby inherits the throne, which could be decades ago given the longevity of the present British royals. |
|
|
|
Post by kingapolloxxxii on Dec 6, 2012 6:11:51 GMT
I am curios about how the new succession law will apply to the other females in the family; it want be retroactive in the respect that The Princess Royal moves up in line to the throne; but from what i have read it applies to the children of the current Prince of Wales and future generations.
Does that mean all children born after the Oct 2011 ( they are backdating to that time frame) of other branch's of family rank in order of birth or just the Wales decedents?
|
|
|
|
Post by observer on Dec 7, 2012 8:17:04 GMT
It appears now that the government of the Australian state of Queensland is opposed to the way suggested to the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) by the federal government for changing the succession laws. The federal government's view is that each state should refer its powers to the Commonwealth which would then pass amendments. The state premier is reported to have said, "Our position is that we will pass legislation in accordance with our position as a separate sovereign state. It's the principle of the thing." See www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/right-royal-split-over-how-to-change-succession-rules-20121207-2b0lb.html#ixzz2ELsgNYJn |
|
|
|
Post by observer on Dec 7, 2012 8:21:45 GMT
I am curios about how the new succession law will apply to the other females in the family; it want be retroactive in the respect that The Princess Royal moves up in line to the throne; but from what i have read it applies to the children of the current Prince of Wales and future generations. Does that mean all children born after the Oct 2011 ( they are backdating to that time frame) of other branch's of family rank in order of birth or just the Wales decedents? We will have to see what the legislation actually says but I imagine that the effect of the legislation essentially will be of concern only to William and to Harry's children. Currently following them in the line of succession is Prince Andrew and he has two daughters, of whom the elder one precedes the younger. As I said in an earlier post some time ago about this issue, current and future legislation enshrines age discrimination. It will also not address the inequality of the sexes in terms of a queen consort but no king consort. |
|
|
|
Post by observer on Dec 8, 2012 8:22:12 GMT
Anne Twomey, in her 2007 book "The Chameleon Crown - The Queen and Her Australian Governors" says that the effect of the British and Australian Commonwealth "Australia Acts" of 1986 (which removed the British sovereign from state governments and substituted the Australian one) may possibly have created a separate crown for each Australian state. This could matter, for example, in any proposal for Australia to become a republic as well as in the current moves to change the succession laws.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulchen on Dec 11, 2012 12:31:13 GMT
My understanding is that the changes will apply as of last October when the move was first started. I am not sure whether this will be restricted to the children of Princes William and Harry but imagine it falls in line with the more "slimline" Royal Family which meant only 6 members appeared on the balcony of Buckingham Palace after the Thanksgiving Service for The Queen's Diamond Jubilee [Prince Philip would have made it 7 but he was, of course, ill]. Will this mean, though, two systems - the old one for the rest of the Royal Family - or will the Line of Succession be restricted to the descendants of The Queen and/or Prince Charles?
One thing that irritates me at the moment is the press saying that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's first child, if a girl, will miraculously be born third in line to the Throne under the new system. Erm, the baby will third in line to the Throne at birth under the old system whether it is a boy or a girl. The possible change in circumstances will only come into force at the birth of their second child...
|
|
|
|
Post by paulchen on Dec 13, 2012 15:36:11 GMT
The new Bill has just been published. It has just struck my mind whether the concept of the difference between Heir Presumptive and Heir Apparent will be specifically abolished somehow and also whether a future female heir will be entitled to be created Princess of Wales [plus Duchess of Cornwall, Rothesy, etc] in her own right. What would her consort be entitled to? I hope this has all be thought through...
|
|
|
|
Post by observer on Feb 14, 2013 0:55:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Cinderella on Feb 15, 2013 4:31:23 GMT
Wow, that is quite interesting. Thank you for the link.
|
|
