The Canadian Royal Heritage Trust
Statement on Changing the Rules of Succession
Bill C-53 is a good development but it will not change the rules of
Succession to the Throne for Canada if and when enacted.
The Canadian Royal Heritage Trust supports the intent behind Bill C-53, “An Act to assent to alterations in the law touching the Succession to the Throne” tabled in the House of Commons by the Government of Canada on Thursday, 31 January, 2013, which would give the assent of the Parliament of Canada to a bill currently before the Parliament of the United Kingdom that, if enacted, will remove in British law elements of discrimination concerning female Succession to the Throne and the marriage of members of the Royal Family to Catholics.
This proposed Canadian Act is in accord with the requirements of paragraph 2 of the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, 1931 concerning the assent of the Dominion Parliaments and is within the competence of the Parliament of Canada to pass.
However, the assent of the Parliament of Canada to the British Bill (and subsequent Act) is, in itself, insufficient to change the rules of Succession for Canada. A second action is legally required, and if it is not taken then the current rules of Succession will remain the law for Canada after the rules have been changed for the United Kingdom.
1) Since passage of the Statute of Westminster, 1931, assent by the Parliament of Canada to legislation passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom has been insufficient for that legislation to extend to Canada.
2) From 1931 to 1982 paragraph 3 of the preamble and Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster, 1931 provided that such legislation would extend to Canada only with the explicit “request and consent” of Canada that it do so. In December 1936 the U.K. legislation providing for the Abdication of King Edward VIII and the Accession of King George VI was extended to Canada through Canada invoking Section 4 (“request and consent”) by an order-in-council and not through the assent of the Parliament of Canada, which was not in fact provided until March 1937, several months after the Accession of King George VI.
3) The Constitution Act, 1982 repealed Section 4 (“request and consent”) of the Statute of Westminster, 1931 insofar as it applied to Canada. Section 2 of the Canada Act, 1982 further specified that: “No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act, 1982 comes into force shall extend to Canada as part of its law”.
4) Therefore, no Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after 1982 can extend to Canada, with or without the assent of the Parliament of Canada, and the rules of Succession for Canada cannot be amended by post-1982 British legislation. They must be amended by a fully domestic Canadian procedure subsequent to Canadian assent to the British legislation.
A more detailed explanation of the status and history of amendments to the rules of Succession is provided in the accompanying background paper.
The Canadian Royal Heritage Trust, Suite 206C – 3050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario M4N 2K4; 416-482-4909; info@crht.ca Issued 4 February, 2013
Since 1997, The PMs of Britain have been quite content to tinker with constitutional issues and draft vague legislation, hurriedly written and full of gaping holes.
ReplyDeleteCameron is a blasted fool to think that the succession rules are in anyway flawed in the first place, given that they will not apply for many years in any case. This could in future divide the 16 realms into two camps for absolutely no benefit other than sake of ephemeral political tokenism in one country.
An honest glance at the statistics shows that most of the realms are Banana Monarchies of little geopolitical relevance. However, Britain and Canada are major industrialised economies in their own right. If a split were to occur in the lines of succession between Britain and Canada, it somehow should make traditionalists in both countries feel somewhat poorer for it.
Ultimately, it is the British foolishly forcing this issue upon the Canadians and creating this issue out of thin air. There is a nominally Tory government in both countries now, but in the future I can certainly imagine many special interest groups in Canada using such legal advice for their own reasons, even if in contrast to the spirit of any legislation passed by Harper in this parliament.
All more the pity.
It is sad, but not surprising, how this trust rushes to assure us that it is on the gender egalitarian bandwagon.
ReplyDeleteThere are good reasons to keep male primogeniture, but apparently "noone" wants a debate about it.
Dear J.K. Baltzersen,
ReplyDeleteThis is one of those issues that has been "put in play" because of popular fashion. It is tokensim that doesn't actually bring any advantage to anyone: overall, the only people that this legislation will influence is the Royal family, who effectively have to do whatever is legislalted upon this matter in any case. No-one in Britain nor in Canada really believes that a woman can't run the country or function as an excellent head of state, but this is actually pretty irrelevant to the point of the article.
The trust is actually trying to do its job properly and maintain the royal heritage of Canada within the spirit of the law and of the parlimentary decision to change the law to match practice in the other realms.
What they are saying is that the implementation in Canada is insufficient and open to challenges. They are drawing attention to the fact that there is a real risk that this issue could split the line of succession to the crown if not properly legislated and on that score I think that they should be commended.
The debate in question here is whether the proposed changes might split the realms, not whether the choice to do so is sound in the first place!
Best wishes,
P
I'm a constitutional authority, and you are completely correct in your assessment of the law in Canada. I do believe that it is a monumental mistake to replace the 947-year-old Royal Succession Rule from William the Conqueror with Nick Clegg the Conqueror's new 'written in stone' Succession Rule. The issue of allowing older Royal Daughters to come in front of younger Brothers should be dealt with on a per-person basis via Proclamation. The Succession Law should allow for this via Proclamation, but it should not write it into stone which is a future catastrophe for the Monarchy as soon as there is an unacceptable first-born -- i. e. mentally incapable such as Autistic or very unpopular like Sarah Ferguson. Furthermore, the Law should provide for the ability to discretely remove Heirs from the Line of Succession if they were unfit to become Monarch. Even if an Heir Apparent were brain-dead like former Israeli PM Ariel Sharon, that Heir would become King, and nothing can be done under current Law! This needs to be redressed before a catastrophe befalls our Monarchy!
ReplyDeleteMr. Terry Mester
Dear Mr Mester,
ReplyDeleteI am not an authority on Constitutional matters (nor on Ariel Sharon), but the system you describe sounds remarkably like appointing a Governor General.
I thought that a major benefit of the Monarchy is that it depoliticises the actual head of state. If the monarch were to be in someway mentally ill, then Britain could just appoint a regent who would act like a GG does in the other realms. Upon the monarch's death, the next of kin would rise to fill the position and it would be back to business as normal.
Isn't the ability to legislate an arbitrary change of Monarch somewhat against the whole idea of Monarchy?
P
Hello Sirs,
ReplyDeleteI've followed your blog ever since I found it in connection to the Restore the Honour blog, which successfully brought back the RCN and RCAF, and I'd like to say that it makes very good reading, but this is my first comment!
I see that you have followed the Royal Succession business, particularly in Canada. This is of great interest to me, as I'm a loyal Canadian, and am worried about an accidental split in personal union. I've read the arguments presented here that, under the current bill proposed by the Government, the succession would not properly be changed. However, I have found something to the contrary, which also puts for a logical constitutional argument. It argues that the Queen of the UK must be the Queen of Canada by virtue of the BNA Act, 1867, when one reads the preamble with section 9, which has legal force and reads "9. The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.", and section 35 of the Interpretation Act, which says that "“Her Majesty”, “His Majesty”, “the Queen”, “the King” or “the Crown” means the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories, and Head of the Commonwealth;". The argument further states that Canada voluntarily chooses to follow UK law regarding succession, and that succession is not part of the constitution. Therefore, the UK is not legislating for Canada, but legislating for itself, and Canada is following the rules which govern UK succession by Canada's own constitution, along with Canada's consent, as per the Statute of Westminster's preamble.
I would like to ask your opinions on these latest "talking points" from the Monarchist League of Canada, which they claim to be from the Prime Minister's office. I believe Anne Twomey covered this argument to some extent, but I believe, or perhaps hope, that the Government is correct.
For reference, and since I may have misinterpreted the text, here is the original: http://members.boardhost.com/monarchist/msg/1360128628.top
Many thanks for the link. I thought it appropriate to post it, so that both positions are published here.
ReplyDeleteA pleasure, sir.
ReplyDeleteREPLY to "P on February 7, 2013 at 11:22 AM"
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments, and my apologies for any confusion. Let me clarify the two suggestions I offered.
In the case of addressing gender equality, rather than summarily repeal the male primacy of Cognate Primogeniture, a new law could simply provide for issuing a Proclamation that a Royal Daughter would be treated the same as a Son under Primogeniture Succession Rules. This would then bump her ahead of her younger brothers. This would be a deliberative decision based upon whether or not she actually wants this -- because few women would want the burden of being Monarch, and it would also be based upon whether she would make a better Monarch than her younger brother.
In the case of removing Heirs from the Line of Succession, this of course would NOT apply to a Monarch. Prior to the Decease of a Monarch, Abdication is the only way for a Reign to come to an end. This is why the Monarch is officially the "Sovereign" because the Monarch has the "right to Reign". This is the view of Royalists which differentiates us from regular Monarchists. For an aged Monarch (like King George III) to require a Regent is not a problem. However, it would be untenable in this modern television media age to deliberately allow a mentally incapable or scandalized Heir Apparent / Presumptive to assume the Throne. Australia and other Realms, possibly including Canada, would certainly become a republic, and I zealously don't want to see Australia leave our Royal Family of Countries. As Royalists we are only about 25% of the population, and to keep majority support for the Monarchy requires that it function properly and that it be a source of pride. The Cameron / Clegg Succession Law would repeal the historical Royal Marriages Act 1772 -- which predates the American Declaration of Independence, and which is part of our Royal heritage! Clegg's Law would summarily kick out of the Line of Succession any member of the Royal Family who married without the Sovereign's consent, but then it does not provide for a general power of removal for any incapable or scandalized member. I do not support summary removal even if they married without consent, and the Royal Marriages Act is completely sufficient in rendering the marriage invalid. Royalists in Britain need to speak out now against the Cameron / Clegg Law.
You have to understand that Nick Clegg is a republican, and he's not interested in the survival of the Monarchy and our Family of Countries. He sees Britain's future as just another EU socialist republic, and the Commonwealth means nothing to him. I'm afraid that David Cameron is only a moderate Monarchist at best. Those of us who are old enough to remember the horrible 1990s know how things can go very bad, very fast for a Monarchy. I remember how Her Majesty's Ruby Jubilee Year of 1992 started out so nice, and then blew up into the 'annus horribilus'. In early 1993 Australian PM Paul Keating then started a republican process which didn't end until the 1999 Referendum which thankfully failed. There are going to be regular referenda in Australia every 20 or 30 years which demands that there be the necessary flexibility in Succession Law to prevent a bad monarch. Prince Albert of Monaco is a good current example of someone who would be rejected by the populations of the Windsor Countries. He can survive in Monaco, but he wouldn't here. The one lesson to learn from the 1990s is that republicans are a bunch of hyenas waiting in the bushes for the first convenient opportunity to pounce on the Monarchy, and eat it alive! That's why we have to get any change to Succession Law done right for posterity. Once a problem befalls the Royal Family, it's too late, and republicans take over the agenda!
Terry Mester
I have good news and bad news. I'll start with the bad news. The Cameron / Clegg Succession Bill was rammed through the British House of Commons. The so-called Conservative MPs failed wretchedly in performing their parliamentary duty. The Canadian Commons was even worse with our worthless MPs ramming the assenting Bill through in a half-hour! I sent a Submission to the House of Lords to inform them of the constitutional problem of schism with Canada as well as other problems. If you want an electronic copy of my Submission, just send me an E-Mail at: tlmester@yahoo.ca . I now understand the exasperation which Sir Winston Churchill must have felt in the 1930s when he was warning everyone that Germany would start another war, but the masses of idiots chose to drink Neville Chamberlain's "peace in our time" Kool-Aid. Now we have masses of Monarchists drinking Nick Clegg's "don't worry - be happy" Kool-Aid as if there will never be a problem again!
ReplyDeleteNow for the good news. Just as in Canada, the British Government has committed a legal breach which means that a Court challenge can be brought in Britain against their "Succession to the Crown Act 2013". However, there's no point to bring such a challenge until a majority of Britons can be turned against Clegg's Law. It's now abundantly clear that there is no organization lobbying zealously to defend our Royal Heritage. The British Monarchist League does not do any political lobbying whatever which renders them almost useless. Canada's Monarchist League is not much more effective with the Chairman having expressed enthusiastic support for Nick Clegg's Trojan Horse Succession Law. Such wishy-washy Monarchists are even more dangerous to the Monarchy than republicans. A new lobbying organization for the Monarchy in the whole Commonwealth is needed to zealously defend it. I am therefore establishing a "Commonwealth Alliance for our Royal Heritage" which will pursue more and more monarchy, and will demand true allegiance from politicians in Her Majesty's Realms & Territories. This Alliance will be politically active to protect the Monarchy. This Alliance is for Royalists as opposed to regular Monarchists. A Royalist is someone who believes that the Crown has a 'right to reign', and who believes that 'republicanism is treason'. Any Royalist who wants to join this new Alliance, which will always be free, can send me an E-Mail. The first order of business will be to pursue the repeal of Nick Clegg's Succession Act to replace it with a provision which maintains founding Kings Kenneth MacAlpin and William the Conqueror's Rule while making it possible for older Royal Daughters to be given the same place in the Line of Succession as a Son. This flexibility, which existed before the Bill of Rights 1688, is vital for the Royal Household of the future if the Monarchy is to survive beyond the next century. When proposing changes to monarchy you need to think in terms of centuries, and not present-day political interests. Any change we make today must still be good in 500 years if our Monarchy is to survive. Here is the Alliance's Facebook Link:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Commonwealth-Alliance-for-our-Royal-Heritage/439474312801193?ref=hl