I don’t know what Elizabeth may have said, but in any case, altering the line of succession would require an act of Parliament, it’s not something the Queen can do by herself. I guess it may even require the assent of all the countries who have Elizabeth as head of state, and in some of them changing the line of succession would require a constitutional amendment.
In Sweden, though, the law was changed to allow succession without regard to gender. This caused the Crown Prince to lose his place as heir apparent to his older sister, and apparently the King wasn’t too happy about it.
I recall it being proposed that girls would inherit equally with boys, by order of age. However, I don’t recall any definitive resolution of the issue.
There have been a number of attempts over the past decade or so to pass Private Member’s Bills to give daughters the same rights as sons. As is usual with such Bills, none of them got anywhere.
As they touched on the royal prerogative, this required the Queen to give permission for those Bills to be debated in Parliament. Which was always given. Such permission has however invariably been overinterpreted to mean that the Queen had announced her support for the change. But actually that permission was never more than a formality. Indeed, not only was she only acting on the advice of ministers, it is conventional for such permission to be given even if ministers disapprove of the measure being proposed. However, equally, the informal indications - i.e. royal officials briefing off the record - have always been that she personally doesn’t have a problem with the idea. It’s not as if she’s going to be affected.
That’s good, and I suspect there will be few problems with the idea of gender equality in the succession in Her Majesty’s realms outside the United Kingdom.
Uh … what? Even if William sires a legal heir as soon as possible, what is the need to act fast? There are still two people – Charles and William himself – who would precede any child of William’s. And why would it be essential to get this done before any such child is born? In fact, if William’s first child is a girl, it might act as a catalyst for change. As of now, there’s no urgency, is there?
I guess perhaps they’re thinking that a law about succession can only be applied to those born after the law is passed. I don’t know if that’s true - the Swedish example above applied to people who were already born - but it’s one possible explanation for the urgency.
I suppose if Wills and Kate had a female child before the Act was passed, then the female could be considered as an usurper to the “rightful” heir (assuming they have more boys).
edit* Usurper if the Act was passed after Kate and Wills had two kids, the first being a girl and the second a boy.
The law could be changed so that the Princess Royal and her children came before her younger brothers in the line of succession. That’s not likely to have any practical effect, given that Prince William and Prince Harry are both likely to have children, but it might be worth doing for the principle of the thing. I doubt if the Duke of York would object, or if he would even mind very much being dropped from number 4 to number 7 in line.
He seems to be a little embarrassed by the fancy at times, no?
If Wills & Kate had a female child, that child would be the next heir apparent (if the act were passed). That has quite an effect. If they had three daughters first and a son later and then William dies, the first born daughter is the heir, not fourth born son or Harry.
It was always my understanding that the heir was the first son, and if the couple had no children or all children died somehow it, would go to the brother of the current heir.
So King Red has a daughter, 1Princess Pink. Then he has a son, 2Prince Blue, and another daughter, 3Princess Rose.
King Red dies and 1Prince Blue becomes king. Prince Blue dies without heirs so 2Princess Pink becomes Queen. Queen Pink reigns for 30 years, has two children, both female. The children die, and then the Queen dies, so 3Princess Rose is now Queen Rose. Her children, 1.3Prince Navy and 2.3Princess Yellow, are #2 and #3 in line now.
So Princess Yellow is the second in line to who was once the third in line to the throne. :eek:
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.
Section 2 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 says:
“Her Majesty” here means Queen Victoria, since that act was passed during her reign. And that Act is an act of the United Kingdom Parliament, and is one of the covering clauses of the Constitution of Australia, not part of the Constitution proper.
So, the U.K. Parliament could legislate to change “Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom”, but it would be required by the Statute of Westminster to consult with Australia over any change affecting Australia.
However, there is obiter dicta in Sue v. Hill ([1999] HCA 30), from a minority of the High Court of Australia, that the U.K. Parliament cannot change the succession of the monarchy in right of the Commonwealth of Australia, so it may be safer if the Australian Parliament takes action at the same time as the U.K. Parliament to change the succession. Otherwise (in an extreme case of several premature deaths) the U.K. might have Queen Ann while Australia has King Andrew.
… it may be safer if the Australian Parliament takes action at the same time as the U.K. Parliament to change the succession. Otherwise (in an extreme case of several premature deaths) the U.K. might have Queen Ann while Australia has King Andrew.
[/QUOTE]
Although that’s a funny situation to find yourself in, would it really be a problem in practice? The Monarch of Australia — now distinct from the Monarch of the UK — could still execute his duties toward Australia. (Or not?)
I don’t think she has the authority to do that.
The succession of the monarchy is controlled by Parliament (for the last 300 years or so), and I think it would take an Act by them to do this.
A famous case in Australian constitutional law, but clearly more interesting than I’d assumed. I shall have to bump it up my reading list. Thanks!
However, you’re (I think) talking about ordinary legislation; in other words, not something that would trigger the Constitution’s notorious s. 128. That’s what I had in mind when I said that a “constitutional amendment” wouldn’t be necessary.
As I understand it, the provisions of ss. 1-8 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia Act are protected from any alteration by s. 8 of the Statute of Westminster, but that protection is in turn protected only by a requirement that s. 15 of the Australia Acts be complied with. In other words, provided that each of the states passes ordinary legislation requesting a change, the federal Parliament can itself then pass ordinary legislation. This is the worst-case scenario as I see it.
Incidentally, the Statute of Westminster doesn’t require consultation as a matter of law; it merely states the convention that there be consultation in its preamble.
Of course without duties in the UK to busy himself King Andrew IV of Australia might just decide to move to Canberra fulltime. :smack: I don’t think many Aussies would like that.
It would cause a nightmare for the staff at Buckingham Palace!
As mentioned in post #51 above, a split succession did in fact happen after the abdication of Edward VIII. The UK legislation confirming the abdication was assented to by the King (i.e. Edward VIII himself) on 11th December. The relevant Irish legislation was assented to by the Governor-General on the 12th and was not back-dated. So Edward VIII reigned for one day longer in the Irish Free State than in the UK. In South Africa, they didn’t pass any legislation until the following month, but then back-dated the effective date of the abdication to the 10th!
I think I’m right in saying that the only specific power remaining to the Sovereign (other than in the UK) is the appointment or dismissal of a Governor-General.
The succession within the UK is governed by a combination of the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement, and the various Acts of Union.
Why Andrew IV? There’s been no King Andrew in England, Scotland, the U.K. or Australia. He would be just King Andrew. His sister, however, would be Queen Anne II.
And the prospect of having a resident monarch, perhaps demanding a palace in Canberra to live in, would doubtless speed up the process towards an Australian republic.
HM can assent to Australian legislation, if it’s reserved by the GG for her assent or if she is present in Australia. She has also opened the Parliament in Canberra (though I’m not sure if she can convene or prorogue it).
Yes, much of the press coverage has overegged the idea that there’s some ticking countdown that requires immediate action. Logically, it cannot become an issue until they produce a son younger than a daughter, so, barring the birth of fraternal twins, the timeframe is actually at least eighteen months. And, as the Swedes have shown, it can be done retrospectively. (Although it would be rather unfair to do so once the demoted prince was old enough to understand what was happening. In the Swedish case, Prince Carl Philip was then still only a baby.)
But there may also be some baser political calculations behind the current moves. Although the change itself will be utterly uncontroversial, the Government won’t want it becoming a pretext for discussions on other, more contentious issues. Passing it in the afterglow of the wedding reduces that danger. Also, if one was being really cynical, one might suspect that Cameron wants to give Clegg something to do after the AV referendum. Especially if AV is rejected.
