Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Succession To The Throne: Should It Be Open To...  
User currently onlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19205 posts, RR: 52
Posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2004 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."
30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1993 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.
User currently onlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19205 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1990 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."
User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1985 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.
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1985 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 ?


User currently onlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19205 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1973 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."
User currently offlineSkidmarks From UK - England, joined Dec 2004, 7121 posts, RR: 55
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1962 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?

Happy stirring

Andy



Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional
User currently offlineQANTASforever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1948 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"  irked  - 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.

QFF


User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1947 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.

Kirkie ? Euwuwuw ! I would resign my citizenship.

ME FOR KING !


User currently onlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19205 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1947 times:

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 7):
Australia is not a "UK dominion"

Then the various Professors of various books I have on constitutional law are wrong.  Wink

'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."
User currently offlineQANTASforever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1946 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.

QFF


User currently onlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19205 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1946 times:

Sure. Here's one:

Barnett, H; 2004; Constutitional & Administrative Law; 5th edition; Cavendish Publishing.

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."
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1946 times:

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 11):
Could you provide any evidence to support your argument that Australia does not have Dominion status?

Oooh - take that, m'learned colleague !


User currently onlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19205 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1946 times:

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 12):
Oooh - take that, m'learned colleague !

LOL.  Wink



"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24926 posts, RR: 56
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1938 times:

And I thought you were talking about the toilet kind of throne


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineQANTASforever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1938 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.

QFF


User currently onlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19205 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1938 times:

I don't know whether you're right or wrong and personally I can't be bothered to argue something about which I am not particularly interested.

Why not write to Hilary Barnett and tell her?

[Edited 2005-03-11 15:26:19]


"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24926 posts, RR: 56
Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1937 times:

Christ, I think I just got baffled with bullshit


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineQANTASforever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1937 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.

QFF


User currently offlineQANTASforever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1937 times:

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 16):
Why not write to Hilary Barnett and tell her?

Who's that?

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 17):
Christ, I think I just got baffled with bullshit

Actually you have just been made the King of Australia.

QFF


User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24926 posts, RR: 56
Reply 20, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1937 times:

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 19):
Actually you have just been made the King of Australia.



Quoting Homer Simpson:
Woohoo



When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1937 times:

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 20):
Quoting Homer Simpson:
Woohoo



Quote:
Quoting Mel Brooks:
It's good to be the king !


User currently onlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19205 posts, RR: 52
Reply 22, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1937 times:

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 19):
Who's that?

The author of the aforementioned book - which is very highly regarded.

If you think you are correct and can justify yourself, then go for it.  Smile



"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineQANTASforever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1937 times:

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 22):
If you think you are correct and can justify yourself, then go for it.

Okay. I'll email the publisher and find her contact details.

I'm more than prepared to justify my opinion as I did in replies #15 and #18.

And as you know, I never back down from a good fight.  Wink

QFF


User currently onlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19205 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1936 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.  Wink



"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 Post contains images 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
28 GKirk : What the hell Frenchie?!?!
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 Post contains images 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
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Undeclared: Should It Be The Norm? posted Tue Apr 4 2006 04:22:04 by AerospaceFan
October 11th: Should It Be A Holiday? posted Sat Sep 23 2006 17:39:44 by Derico
Smacking Children, Should It Be Banned? posted Sun Feb 27 2005 18:18:04 by Orion737
Songate Refugee Camp-should It Be Closed?/Asylum posted Sat Feb 2 2002 12:13:00 by Donder10
Major Dilemma: Should It Be Catsup Or Ketchup? posted Thu Nov 22 2001 04:45:33 by Lax
Multiple Wives? Should It Be Allowed? posted Tue May 15 2001 10:22:17 by LAX
Grand Hyatt Kuala Lumpur. When Will It Be Open? posted Thu Feb 8 2001 14:31:39 by United Airline
"She Should Be Thrown To The Sea"- Vatican Policy? posted Thu Mar 17 2005 01:20:09 by Derico
Why Is It Unfashionable To Be A "Liberal"? posted Sat Nov 11 2006 05:13:59 by Singapore_Air
DaVinci Code Movie: Will It Be Faithful To Book? posted Fri Mar 3 2006 12:45:35 by BCAL