# Idle Curiosity re British royal succession

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [April 16, 2011, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618 "2011-04-16T16:27:04Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 8

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\
**Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/141 "2011-04-29T22:53:55Z")

</div>

Succession can only be changed by an Act of Parliament. It would also take some involvement by the other countries that Elizabeth II is Queen of; the degree of involvement necessary is a matter of debate (for example, some people think that it could be done by an Act of the Canadian Parliament; others think it would take a grueling and painful constitutional amendment).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2011, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/142 "2011-04-30T15:14:29Z")

</div>

> [@A.Gwilliam](#):
>
> I’m fairly sure that this doesn’t actually require a constitutional amendment in any of the Commonwealth realms. This is because the various constitutions are written in such a way that while the existence of rules of succession is implied, the rules themselves do not form part of the constitution.

You seem to be changing your views on this. In [Post 24 of this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13696003&postcount=24), you said, with respect to the Canadian Constitution, that a constitutional amendment would be required to depose a monarch.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![A.Gwilliam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ea5d25/32.png) [@A.Gwilliam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A.Gwilliam)\
**Post date:** [May 2, 2011, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618/143 "2011-05-02T23:04:46Z")

</div>

> [@Northern\_Piper](#):
>
> You seem to be changing your views on this. In [Post 24 of this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13696003&postcount=24), you said, with respect to the Canadian Constitution, that a constitutional amendment would be required to depose a monarch.

Not so much changing my views, as not thinking them out properly! Mea culpa. :smack:

Clearly deposing the Sovereign would fall within the provisions of s. 41 of the 1982 Act. However, as an alteration to the rules of succession doesn’t affect the Sovereign **once they’ve become the Sovereign** , I think my brain foolishly ignored s. 41 as not being relevant. But altering the rules of who gets to do a job is as much “in relation to … the office” concerned as booting them out of that job. After all, changing the rules of who gets to be Governor-General would fall within s. 41… so of course changes to who gets to be Sovereign would be as well! :smack:

Thank you for pointing out this stupidity of mine; you’ve read my posts more clearly than I have! :o

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idle-curiosity-re-british-royal-succession/578618.md?page=7)