Pe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 18835 posts, RR: 54 Posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1397 times:
... any relevant person of any religion? I ask because the Act of Settlement 1700 states that only those of the Protestant religion may succeed to the throne. This Act excludes Roman Catholics and those married to Roman Catholics. The area of succession has been under discussion recently. A potential problem is that any change to the Act of Settlement Act 1700 would require the consent of the UK dominions, including Australia and Canada, and those countries which have the Queen as the head of state. So it might be difficult. Do you think that it should remain as it currently is, or change, namely to permit any relevant person of any religion?
[Edited 2005-03-11 11:34:27]
"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
Banco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 55 Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1386 times:
You have to understand that these never change until and unless there's a reason for it to change. So, if the prospective monarch became a Catholic, then the rule would change. Likewise if William's first-born is a girl. Until then, it's just never a priority to do it.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
Pe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 18835 posts, RR: 54 Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1383 times:
Quoting Banco (Reply 1): You have to understand that these never change...
That's not in question. What is relevant is whether YOU think it should change, perhaps, for instance, to show that the Monarch is up-to-date and not discriminatory on the basis of religion.
Quoting Banco (Reply 1): Likewise if William's first-born is a girl.
The line of succession dictates that male heirs and their children, regardless of sex, have precedence over female hiers. So if William has a second child - a boy - he would, I believe, be before William's daughter. This is another area which is currently under review.
[Edited 2005-03-11 11:45:42]
"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
Banco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 55 Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1378 times:
Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 2): That's not in question. What is relevant is whether YOU think it should change, perhaps, for instance, to show that the Monarch is up-to-date and not discriminatory on the basis of religion.
For sure. But the question is that such an issue raises the whole matter of disestablishmentarianism. And no-one wants to get into such a sticky area before they have to. It's inertia, really. So, yes, absolutely, but it won't happen until it has to because it opens a subject Parliament just doesn't want to get into.
Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 2): The line of succession dictates that male heirs and their children, regardless of sex, have precedence over female hiers. So if Harry has a boy, he would, I believe, be before William's daughter. This is another area which is currently under review.
Yes, that's my point. Had Anne been born before Charles this would also have become an issue. This one is something I think may well change before any heir to William is born, because it is so clearly anachronistic. But to be honest, since a monarchy is anachronistic in itself in so many ways, it isn't surprising that such anomalies do crop up.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
JGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1378 times:
I would say that the Act of Settlement is in conflict with EU Human Rights legislation. You cannot prescribe religion or gender as a job requirement any more.
More importantly, I reckon the whole monarchy idea abuses my human rights. Why can't I apply for the post of Monarch ? Just because my ancestors were Lincolnshire ferret-herders shouldn't preclude me from the job ! It's an outrage ! Seriously, what would happen if someone decided to take HMG to court for excluding non-Royals from the job of Head of State - there'd be a case, right ?
Pe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 18835 posts, RR: 54 Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1366 times:
Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 4): I would say that the Act of Settlement is in conflict with EU Human Rights legislation. You cannot prescribe religion or gender as a job requirement any more.
Interesting concept! I will have to look into it.
"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
Skidmarks From UK - England, joined Dec 2004, 7121 posts, RR: 60 Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1355 times:
With all due respect for the EU Human Rights Legislation, I think they have absolutely naff all to do with who ascends the throne. And if they think they can influence it, then it is time we left Europe to get on with interferring with itself!!
Thats sure to stir the pooh a touch, wouldn't you say?
QANTASforever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1341 times:
There are people on this website grinning triumphantly at seeing me make an entrance here, but I could not pass this one up:
Quoting Pe@rson (Thread starter): A potential problem is that any change to the Act of Settlement Act 1700 would require the consent of the UK dominions, including Australia
Australia is not a "UK dominion" - we are a completely sovereign nation entirely removed from the affairs of your country (thankyouverymuch!).
However, this is an issue that involves all nations that recognise Queen Elizabeth II as their head of state. This decision must be made with the approval of ALL parties concerned - the UK is only one of many and I believe should only have an equal say.
The Australian constitution makes clear that it recognises the Monarch of the United Kingdom as head of state and thus bestows upon QEII the title of "Her Majesty Elizabeth II - The Queen of Australia". So if the rules that dictate the laws of succession within the framework of by-laws that govern the House of Windsor and the Act of Settlement Act 1700 choose to recognise GKirk as the monarch, then Australia will immediately recognise GKirk as the King of Australia.
So while officially and governmentally the decision is under the jurisdiction of the British Royal House, it would be seen as extremely disrespectful and reckless to not at least confer with the other nations that share this monarch equally amongst them.
JGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1340 times:
Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 7): So if the rules that dictate the laws of succession within the framework of by-laws that govern the House of Windsor and the Act of Settlement Act 1700 choose to recognise GKirk as the monarch, then Australia will immediately recognise GKirk as the King of Australia.
Then the various Professors of various books I have on constitutional law are wrong.
'This decision must be made with the approval of ALL parties concerned.'
Hence: 'A potential problem is that any change to the Act of Settlement Act 1700 would require the consent of the UK dominions and those countries which have the Queen as the head of state.'
"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
QANTASforever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1339 times:
Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 9): Then the various Professors of various books I have on constitutional law are wrong.
That is absolutely correct.
In fact, could you send me some quotes from said books?
I would greatly appreciate them.
Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 9): Hence: 'A potential problem is that any change to the Act of Settlement Act 1700 would require the consent of the UK dominions and those countries which have the Queen as the head of state.'
My comment was simply underscoring your point. I wanted to give an Australian legal perspective.
Chaper. 19; page 268; paragraph 2: "Any amendment to the Act of Settlement would require the consent of the parliaments of the United Kingdom's Dominions..."
Footnote after 'Dominions':
"Statute of Westminster 1931. Australia and Canada have Dominion status. New Zealand ceased to be a Dominion in 1987: see the Constitutional Act 1986 (NZ), s.26."
So Australia clearly did have Dominion status when the book was produced. It might have ceased to be one afterwards, in which case your argument would be valid, but equally it might have retained this status. Could you provide any evidence to support your argument that Australia does not have Dominion status?
[Edited 2005-03-11 15:08:24]
"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
QANTASforever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1331 times:
My correction was not with regards to dominion status, rather "UK Dominion" status. A dominion literally is the sovereign territory of a government.
The language used in that quote "..of the United Kingdom's Dominions.." - indicates a status of ownership that the UK has over NZ, Australia, Canada etc.
In Australia's case this is not true. Australia is a federated Commonwealth under the crown of the head of the house of Windsor - it has no affiliation with the United Kingdom, it's government or parliament in any manner moreso than it recognises the entity known as the British monarch as the Australian head of state independently of the British Government. While at various stages in the past this was not the case, it is today. The Australia Act (Cth) 1986 was the final separation. This document made Australian law independent of British parliaments and courts. The Commonwealth's Australia Act was the final one of the seven Acts of the seven Australian parliaments needed for a constitutional change to the whole Federation. The British Parliament also legislated to complete the untying of this constitutional 'apron string'.
The Australia Acts ended the inclusion into Australian law of British Acts of Parliament and abolished all remaining constitutional provision for appeals from Australian courts to the Privy Council in London.
Thus ceasing any possession the UK ever had over the Commonwealth.
The actual definition of "Dominion" according to the British Government is ambiguous and open to interpretation. The Statute of Westminster recognised the titles of the states involved in the preamble to the statute:
"And whereas the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland have severally requested and consented to the submission of a measure to the Parliament of the United Kingdom for making such provision with regard to the matters aforesaid as is hereafter in this Act contained:... "
Canada and New Zealand are the only nations identified as Dominions specifically - yet all were referred to as Dominions in a more general manner simply as an indication of a state that recognised the sovereignty of the King and federated or created a government under the monarch. In this general sense Australia is a dominion - but as of 1986 it is not a Dominion of the United Kingdom.
QANTASforever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1330 times:
I must clarify, the statute does clearly say what a dominion is:
"1. In this Act the expression "Dominion" means any of the following Dominions, that is to say, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland."
I believe the use of the word is more for the benefit of the statute than as a term used generally in reference to the country. With regards to the literal definition of a dominion, I find it at odds with the British Imperialist view.
And dare I say that the modern definition now supercedes the Imperialistic language of yesteryear?
Either way, the point I make in my previous post (I believe) still stands.
Pe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 18835 posts, RR: 54 Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1329 times:
info@cavendishpublishing.com
info@cavendishpublising.com.au
Guess those will help.
Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 23): And as you know, I never back down from a good fight.
LOL. Next time choose something more exciting. I might be more forthcoming then.
"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
25 JGPH1A: Don't stop now - it was like an episode of Kavanaugh (or Matlock !) - I love a good courtroom drama, me !
26 Banco: Or in this case, more like an episode of the late unlamented daytime reconstruction/drama "Crown Court" that used to bore the bants of us all when we
27 JGPH1A: Ooh, major childhood flashback ! Yes, actually now that you mention it. Can just picture Pe@rson in his white brillo-pad wig hehe
29 QANTASforever: OMG yes yes yes!!!!! I remember that show!!! It was homework at University. lol I had totally forgotten about it. But hey - I find this things intere
30 JGPH1A: I agree ! It's like Kirkie insisting that Scotland is a "country" when as any fule kno it isn't. It's pointless arguing about it, but it's the princi
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 18835 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From UK - England, joined Dec 2004, 7121 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
- we are a completely sovereign nation entirely removed from the affairs of your country (thankyouverymuch!).
From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24621 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
