Succession to the Crown Act 2013

[paulchen]

I know there are other versions for other Commonwealth Countries, but when do these laws come into force?

The UK version received Royal Assent on 25th April this year. Are we waiting for any other country in particular. Has the birth of a male hei in the form of HRH Prince George of Cambridge meant that everyone has lost interest, much as happened in Japan?

[observer]

According to the Wikipedia article on the Perth Agreement, not all Commonwealth realms have yet to pass the necessary legislation, some have said they don't need to pass any legislation, and the government of Quebec has a constitutional challenge to federal Canadian legislation, so the process is not yet complete to change the succession to absolute primogeniture.

I imagine, however, that the earliest date at which the legislation would have any effect is if or when Prince George's eldest child is a daughter.

Of course, by that time, the situation could be overshadowed or overtaken by debate about whether or not a same-sex marriage for the heir or monarch would be acceptable to all the Commonwealth realms. And I imagine that might be more contentious than any debate about equal succession rights.

[Aidan Work]

Here is news from New Zealand;

au.ibtimes.com/articles/529467/20131212/new-zealand-royal-succession-law.htm#.UquXbOysGkw .

[wind2706]

I've a doubt. New succession line will be effective for peoples born in 2012 and following years, while peoples born before are under Old Law, is it? Prince Edward has two children, Louise and James, both born before 2012 and under Old Law, so James is in line for successione before his older sister. Suppose that Prince Edward will have a third child, a son: what about him? Being born under New Law he will be in line after both his siblings, but sister Louise is under Old Law, so she is in line after all her brothers.....I really don't understand why they didn't simply change Law for everyone putting every woman in her right place....

[observer]

Dec 15, 2013 13:52:22 GMT wind2706 said:

I've a doubt. New succession line will be effective for peoples born in 2012 and following years, while peoples born before are under Old Law, is it? Prince Edward has two children, Louise and James, both born before 2012 and under Old Law, so James is in line for successione before his older sister. Suppose that Prince Edward will have a third child, a son: what about him? Being born under New Law he will be in line after both his siblings, but sister Louise is under Old Law, so she is in line after all her brothers.....I really don't understand why they didn't simply change Law for everyone putting every woman in her right place....

Lady Louise would rank after Viscount Severn but before her new-born brother.

[wind2706]

That's what I imagined, but it's absolutely unfair, a discrimination amoung brothers in this case. Do you know why they didn't simply change rules for everyone?

[observer]

Dec 19, 2013 19:12:38 GMT wind2706 said:

That's what I imagined, but it's absolutely unfair, a discrimination amoung brothers in this case. Do you know why they didn't simply change rules for everyone?

The Act affects only the situation of children born after 28 October 2011. It did not change the relative positions of the-then currently living members of the royal family in the line of succession.

I imagine that they did not change the position of everyone because (a) legislation that is retroactively affective is not generally done (the situation with regard to Sweden was unusual), and (b) it could call into question past successions.

The Act is still discriminatory in that it favors older children over younger, of course. But any Act is discriminatory is some fashion or other.

[Cinderella]

Also, adults might not like suddenly being pushed higher up in the succession. Peter Phillips, for instance, leads a private life. Whereas Princess Beatrice has always known she might theoretically be queen someday. It could be considered unfair to make them swap places.

[wind2706]

I don't agree. Every country who changed succession law did it in the normal way, putting everyone in his/her right place, but Norway, where new law will be effective beginning with the children of current Crown Prince (who was already 20 when law was changed). The case of Sweden was different because Crown Prince was only 1, so he didn't know that his position was changed. In the case of Britain there was no effective changement, following line Charles-William-George-Henry, so it would be unprobable that Princess Anne and her issue could reign. The fact that Peter Phillips lives a private life isn't important, being a theorical succession line: everyone has the right to refuse succession, of course, when theory becomes reality. I seem very unfair that old Princess Anne is preceeded by her young nieces. More, in future we'll have to know the birth date of everyone to establish his/her place in succession line.....

[paulchen]

I would agree with you there, Cinderella, that Peter Phillips leads a private life except for something that surprised me at the time. Why did Autumn change from being Roman Catholic to Anglican? If he is such a private person and so low down in the Order of Succession what difference did it make if he lost his position for marrying a Roman Catholic?

[observer]

Dec 26, 2013 10:02:53 GMT wind2706 said:

I don't agree. Every country who changed succession law did it in the normal way, putting everyone in his/her right place, but Norway, where new law will be effective beginning with the children of current Crown Prince (who was already 20 when law was changed). The case of Sweden was different because Crown Prince was only 1, so he didn't know that his position was changed. In the case of Britain there was no effective changement, following line Charles-William-George-Henry, so it would be unprobable that Princess Anne and her issue could reign. The fact that Peter Phillips lives a private life isn't important, being a theorical succession line: everyone has the right to refuse succession, of course, when theory becomes reality. I seem very unfair that old Princess Anne is preceeded by her young nieces. More, in future we'll have to know the birth date of everyone to establish his/her place in succession line.....

I am not sure that you are correct in stating that countries that have changed their succession laws "did it in the normal way." As I understand it, the succession laws have usually affected only future possible heirs rather than those already in place. Sweden's law was retroactive, depriving Carl Philip of a place he already held. Other countries have changed, as Norway did, to affect heirs born to current heirs only, as retroactively affective laws are usually deemed as unconstitutional.

I am sure that you are incorrect when you write, "everyone has the right to refuse succession, of course, when theory becomes reality." As I understand it, succession is automatic under the relevant succession law, and no one can refuse it. Either they have to be deprived of the right to succeed by, e.g., contracting an illegal marriage, living outside the country, etc., or they have to seek a law that effectively declares them dead and thus ineligible to succeed. That is why Charles will become king whatever ignorant journalists write about the succession skipping to William - it would take an Act of Parliament/s to allow him to refuse.

[wind2706]

Where did you read such a thing, Observer? Apart from Norway (and possible future case of Spain, where succession law will be changed beinning from the children of current Crown Prince Felipe), ALL other monarchies (Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg) changed succession line for everyone. For instants, Princess Astrid of Belgium now preeceds younger brother Laurent, Princess Alexandra of Luxembourg now preeceds younger brother Sébastien. Sweden followed the normal way, it's Britain which is an exception. You can read succession lines on Wikipedia.
And I don't think that peoples called to succession couldn't refuse: it would be unworthy of a civil country. Nobody can be compelled to do something that he/she doesn't want. By the way many Princes of Saudi Arabia, too, refused to succeed when their turn came, you know, such as Crown Princess Charlotte of Monaco. And other Kings left when they were tired to reign.Everyone has the right to do what he/she wants, this is basical in modern life.

[paulchen]

I'm sorry Wind but not ALL monarchies have changed their laws of succession. Liechtenstein still has the house law of Agnatic primogeniture which basically means "men only". And I'm not aware of any Middle Eastern monarchies even having anything exactly written down other than that it is the will of the incumbent monarch who he is succeeded by.

As for abdication/giving up the succession to the throne, it isn't a matter of free will as in constitutional monarchies these things are governed by parliament and acts of parliament. As monarchs are not voted in as heads of state like presidents, so they cannot just vote themselves out. Of course, if the monarch is in a position to want to abdicate due to age or it has come to the stage of complete inevitability to the post, then I don't think parliament would object. However, having said that, what if the British Parliament had not voted to agree to set up the necessary act to allow King Edward VIII to abdicate...?

By the way, Wind, many thanks for making the forum lively again. People may not agree with everything you say, but youu have a right to express your opinion and it's good to discuss these things openly and honestly. That's what the forum is there for.

[observer]

wind2706, perhaps I should have said that none of the changes to succession laws, other than the Swedish one, stripped an existing crown prince of his title in favor of an elder sister.

To my mind, there is a difference between displacing an existing heir and altering the order of the line of succession. Princess Astrid was in the line of succession, not the heir, and she simply changed places with her younger brother without materially affecting her chances of becoming monarch. Sweden altered the line of succession and displaced someone who had been born crown prince. The current King of Sweden is reported to have commented that this was wrong, by the way. Norway didn't, and Spain probably won't, though Prince Felipe has not one but two elder sisters.

Denmark displaced an heir presumptive in the 1950s by changing its succession laws to male-preference, but the heir presumptive was extremely unpopular and his wife was a suspected Nazi sympathizer, and the change had nothing to do with gender equality.

With regard to the right to refuse, in European constitutional monarchies, who succeeds whom is a matter of law, and generally heirs have no right of refusal, as I (and, I think, Paulchen) understand it.

Monegasque succession is in a class by itself. Charlotte was legitimated and declare heiress presumptive to stave off the possibility of a German becoming Prince of Monaco. She ceded her rights, it is true, perhaps because the 1911 constitution (as does the present one) permitted it and the reigning prince allowed. Monaco, however, is not a kingdom and I doubt whether its example would be followed by any other monarchy.

With regard to the Arab states you mentioned, I think succession passes according to Islamic law and custom, and who succeeds is often the decision either of the reigning king (who can choose his successor) or of a family council, and often is not a matter for the state or the people to decide. Succession is often brother to brother, or the eldest male member of the family, or the male deemed most worthy of succession. Of course, none of them has gender equality.

The possibility does exist under Thai law for Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn to succeed on the death of the present king despite the fact that she has an elder brother because the king has the sole prerogative to nominate his successor. He has already nominated the current crown prince, but technically Princess Sirindhorn is of equal rank and title and could succeed if the current king so decided - or perhaps if the cabinet or privy council so decides. She is the third child and second daughter of the king and queen. Her elder sister married an American commoner and lost her title, etc.

With regard to other matters that would be "unworthy of a civil country," or that "Everyone has the right to do what he/she wants, this is basical in modern life." recall that members of royal families may need by law to be members of a particular church or faith (e.g., Christian in Europe, Muslim in Malaysia and Brunei or Buddhist in Thailand and Cambodia - and Hindu in the case of the former Kingdom of Nepal) , to have their marriages and/or divorces approved by the sovereign and/or the government (a cause of the Nepali royal massacre and why the Norwegian king Harald took so long to marry), may have to bring up their children in a particular country or particular way (as in Denmark and Sweden), to have public scrutiny of their income and/or expenditure (as in Belgium, Spain, UK, etc), and often need governmental approval to travel outside the country (most European sovereigns). Even abdication needs governmental approval - in Cambodia it needed a constitutional amendment to allow King Sihanouk to do so.

That's the dark side of privilege - the root meaning of which is "private law," meaning something that is specific to an individual. Royals may be privileged but they are also subject to laws that the rest are not.

[wind2706]

I seem that talking with you is very difficult, because you always understand different things from those I meant. I NEVER said that all monarchies changed their succession line. I said that all monarchies which changed the line changed it for everyone and not for future. Sweden is the one monarchy which removed a Crown Prince (but they did it because he was only 1, so he still didn't know to be the Crown Prince). Norway had a Crown Prince 20, so it didn't remove him. ALL other monarchies WHIC CHANGED SUCCESSION LINE, that are Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, did it in the normal way, that is changing it for everyone. They all had males as Crown Princes, so there was no immediate changement. Also Britan has two males as first and second in line, so it could easily change succession line as every other country (I mean those who changed the line) did, without creatingt this mess. Observer, you are beginning to say my same things: you said that Princess Astrid of Belgium is not the heir, but just in line for succession. Well, also Princess Anne of Britain is not the heir, but just in line for succession. So what? Why didn't she take her place in normal line? Charles - William - George - Anne - Peter - Savannah - Isla - Zara - Andrew - Beatrice - Eugenie - Edward - Louise - James - David - Charles - Elizabeth.....clear, simple, easy and right.