This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I know we've been told Princess Anne and her descendents won't advance in front of her younger brothers to right behind Prince Charles and his descendents but does this mean that the line will continue to keep current women and married-to-Catholics off the list and only be employed for future descendents? Therequiembellishere ( talk) 20:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a claim in the lead that the British monarch is also monarch of 15 other countries in the Commonwealth. That statement, though, does not take into account the Statute of Westminster 1931, nor subsequent constitutional evolution in the Commonwealth realms that has led to the present situation where all the realms are independent of one another, as is recognised in other areas of this article. It is thus now the case that there are 16 separate monarchies headed by the same one individual, not that 15 countries are subject to one individual as monarch of one country (hence, the amendments to the British succession laws by the British queen in her British parliament will have no force in, say, Canada; amendments to the Canadian succession laws by the Canadian queen in her Canadian parliament are necessary). What I had put was at least accurate, if not perfectly written; whereas, what's there now is simply wrong. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've no issue working in "constitutionally equal", or some similar phrasing. But the way it's recently been done isn't correct; the realms aren't "constitutionally equal", it's the way the sovereign is shared that is. The realms are each "equal in status". Also, there's no evident connection between the first and second sentences in the paragraph as currently written. I propose:
Since the 16 Commonwealth realms [name realms in a footnote here] are all equal in status and independent of each other, but share one monarch — presently Elizabeth II — in a constitutionally equal fashion, the legal changes, according to convention, must be identical in each country and can be implemented only with some realms' request and consent to amendments made by the British parliament and other realms passing amendments through their own parliaments, which process used depending on the country's own constitutional arrangements.
The last part still seems a little clunky; but, I'm trying to take into consideration some of the valid points raised in the discussion below, and it's difficult to sum up such a complex matter in a couple of sentences. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
According to the Guardian [9] at least two realms do not require direct legislation to amend the succession. I believe that these realms, and possibly others, have constitutional arrangements which deem the British sovereign to be their own automatically. For the chart can we clarify which realms precisely are required to pass legislation and which do not? Vale of Glamorgan ( talk) 14:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I see another difficulty: The Canadian Constitution Act 1982 specifies that the consent of the Parliament of Canada and all the Provincial Parliaments is necessary to amend the Canadian Constitution in matters pertaining to the Queen. Would this be the case here? If so, it's a good thing that the Quebec Government is not currently in the hands of the Parti Quebecois. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.160.58.187 ( talk) 15:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
If I might add something to this. Apparently the Cook Islands will also need to make their own law regarding the sucession since any new NZ laws don't apply in there. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 08:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The article currently says and any changes would only first take effect if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were to have a daughter before a son. I think that is supposed to mean that the changes will not make any difference if the couple have a son as their firstborn. But, I also read it as possibly meaning that if the couple doesn't have a son, the changes will be null and void, and have to be made again by the relevant parliaments to apply to future generations. I think the whole sentence could be removed, and replaced with something about how this relates to Charles' siblings and their children instead, something far less obvious. / Coffeeshivers ( talk) 16:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Does this in any way affect Sark? СЛУЖБА ( talk) 19:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Since this is supposed to be about gender equality, has anyone proposed that the husband of a Queen regnant should be called King (consort) instead of just Prince consort? Emerson 07 ( talk) 04:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Scotland had two kings consort in the 16th century; they are nothing new in the UK. Spain had one in the 19th century. Therefore, the position would be far from invented.
Actually, the reason husbands of queens regnant are more commonly called princes is that the masculine title of king is considered higher in rank than the feminine title of queen. Thus, calling the queen regnant's husband prince is not a discrimination against men. It is still a discrimination against women, as it is implied that a married woman cannot share her rank and title with her husband without being subjugated to him. Surtsicna ( talk) 16:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
There has been a recent "move" to this page that is incorrect. A> it is not just the "British throne", it is the throne to the 16 realms, it is not a "fait-accomplit" as it is still a proposed change. It must be approved by all the members. A block on renaming the article has also been made, so this cannot be simply undone by a user. -- Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 21:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
"2011 proposals to reform royal succession in the Commonwealth realms" is shorter. DrKay ( talk) 07:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
My only comment on changing the title is that I think that "change" is more NPOV than either "reform" or "update". But I'll go with the consensus, if there is one. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 08:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
well researched and thorough article but surely something must have happened since October 2011. Nankai ( talk) 10:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
News articles today are saying that that baby will go into the line of succession just behind William, and it won't matter if it's a boy or girl. Previously, a girl would have been pushed further down by the arrival of younger brother(s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 18:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The federal Constitution of Australia says that any references in the document to the Queen extend to "to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom". I understand then that, if the United Kingdom changes its law of succession, then those changes automatically apply to Australia, at least at the federal level, without any need for a constitutional amendment (which would, in turn, require a referendum). I agree though that, to the extent that the rules of succession are part of state law, there may be a need for the some of the states to change their law to incorporate the new rules, irrespective of whether they already apply to the federal government or not. 187.57.183.136 ( talk) 23:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The article has passages like "However, the requirement for the sovereign to be in communion with the Church of England would remain."
There is no such requirement in the rules of succession - the only requirement is that the monarch cannot be a 'Papist'. They are not even required to be Christian. Seperately the monarch becomes Supreme Governor when ascending the throne, but they aren't required to be Anglican (or Protestant) to get to that position in the first place.
Mauls ( talk) 12:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Can we consider changing the title? The position has moved on from that in 2011, and will presumably continue to develop through legislation in 2013 - but the whole process is covered in this article. We need a title that avoids a date. Would Changes to the rules of royal succession in the Commonwealth realms cover it, or is there a better alternative? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 17:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no action. Article was moved by a non-administrator during the discussion, and there is no clear consensus to move it back. — Darkwind ( talk) 05:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Perth Agreement → ? –
The explanatory notes published with the Succession to the Crown Bill refer to the 2011 proposals as the "Perth agreement". Since the title of this article is quite unwieldy I'd like to propose that it be changed to Perth Agreement of 2011 or Perth Agreement on the royal succession.
68.171.231.80 (
talk) 15:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
There are no sources for the name "2011 proposals to change the rules of royal succession in the Commonwealth realms" so I don't see a problem with changing it. Drape Company ( talk) 02:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The Commons Library issued a research paper [15] on Succession to the Crown Bill 2012. Included at Pgs. 20-24 (23-27 in the PDF) are the legal requirements in the Commonwealth Realms, plus other things.-- Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 22:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I have split the entire Canadian legislation session to Succession to the Throne Act, 2013. However, I understand what I left as introduction there was not the best, so you may edit as appropriate.-- Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 19:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I am confused, and yes new to this, there have been a bunch of edits on this page, amongst the edits are ones that are going on is to replace secondary sources with primary sources. My understanding was that secondary sources were the preferred method of sourcing articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka ( talk • contribs) 22:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
No I do not have much experience, that is why I was asking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka ( talk • contribs) 23:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
The article on Pledge of Loyalty Act 2006 is interesting but its relevance here is not explained. Qexigator ( talk) 16:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Here are the issues with the edit made recently to the Canada section of this article:
It was thus, overall, not an improvement on the previous composition. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I was under the impression that subpages were not allowed, and even disabled in wikipedia main? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
You are correct in thinking I created the subpage in order that it may be transcluded into the two articles and therefore kept up to date on both. I believe Mies was correct to remove the timetable from the Succession page, thus eliminating my original reasoning. So I have returned the sub-page content to her parent article and tagged the subpage with a db-g7 request. D B D 15:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Currently, the table says that the states other than Queensland have consented to Commonwealth legislation. in fact, the cited article shows that their respective governments have agreed, but that does not necessarily mean that their respective parliaments have passed the necessary bills requesting Commonwealth legislation. The table is about "parliamentary progress." Consequently, I plan to remove these statements. We have to wait until each state parliament makes its request. For a similar process, see Australia_Act_1986. 72.83.246.254 ( talk) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Each of the two edit summaries [16]
is correct in its own way. Words are needed such as found in the lead for Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, which are concise without carrying an unintended nuance beyond bare factual reporting, leaving the finer details to the two main articles. Qexigator ( talk) 07:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Information has been added about a proceeding in the Quebec Superior Court for the Canadian government's Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 to be declared unconstitutional. [17] The article would be improved if there could be added further information to give a reader some indication whether or not this has any practical effect for the timing of the alteration in the law of succession under legislation in other realms pursuant to the Perth Agreement. Qexigator ( talk) 07:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Why don't they include another change that would limit the number of eligible successors to the immediate relatives of the reigning monarch: descendants, aunts and uncles, first cousins and that's it like most modern European monarchies instead of having every (eligible) descendants of Sophia of Hanover on the list. So from a list of thousands to twenty or so.-- The Emperor's New Spy ( talk) 06:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
What if at least 1 Realm fails to adopt the changes? Would it follow the old succession principle, or would all Realms follow it? twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF ( talk) 15:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, here is the source you asked for: [18] Richard75 ( talk) 12:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
But what if it's not a Commonwealth Realm that fails, but a State of Australia, like South Australia? -- twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF ( talk) 09:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Editors may wish to note that an update mentioning Perth Agreement has been made to "Succession laws" section of Monarchies in Europe. [19] -- Qexigator ( talk) 08:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The tag which has been put at the top of the page reads "This article includes inline citations, but they are not properly formatted. Please improve this article by correcting them. (October 2013)" Two points: 1_The link "correcting them" may be faulty. 2_Perhaps the party who considered it to be such a problem as to be worth tagging could proceed with making such corrections as are seen to be needed, bearing in mind that these may not be within others' perception? Qexigator ( talk) 17:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Further to the above, the present version is now littered with a dozen or so of these unnecessary tags which are useless for the purpose of the article, which is to communicate information to inquiring readers, for whom the references as given normally suffice. It would be more helpful in the joint editing work if an editor who feels strongly enough to place a tag would be good enough to consider instead applying the cite template, or leave the text unblemished. Qexigator ( talk) 00:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Has there been any progress with the bill? The article states it was passed three months ago. I was just wondering if the table's been kept up to date. - 101090ABC ( talk) 11:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
An editor has inserted Jersey in the Timetable. [20] This is not consistent with the conternt of the Table, the article as a whole or any part of it, nor the linked artcles: Commonwealth realm, Succession to the Crown Act 2013 (UK), Jersey + External relations of Jersey. The Timetable [21] has been exclusively for the 16 Commonwealth realms and, in the case of the Commonwealth of Australia the six states of that federation whose legislation is a necessary part of Australia's legislative progress. Jersey's connection with the Crown as one of the Crown dependencies (and see List of viceregal representatives of Elizabeth II) is undoubtedly notable, but Jersey's Succession to the Crown (Jersey) Law 2013 [22] can be relevant enough here only to warrant at most a footnote to UK in the Timetable. Qexigator ( talk) 08:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
+ Seeing that Jersey's participation has been explained in the linked article Succession to the Crown Act 2013: [23] "Jersey passed its own Succession to the Crown (Jersey) Law 2013 to give effect to the provisions in Jersey law", no further mention is needed here. Qexigator ( talk) 10:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Parts of the page had been changed to say that Royal Assent had been granted to the Succession to the Crown Bill 2015 on 19 March. This is FALSE. Please actually read the sources used. Although the Australian Parliament's website says it has passed both houses, this is not the same at all as Royal Assent. That will show up separately, as may be seen on the page for this [1], or any other assented bill [2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:5D80:8205:68F6:B86F:8F14:CA4B ( talk) 05:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
This is Nick Clegg's statement yesterday in which he says "Today these changes have come into effect across every Realm." (End of third paragraph.) It is irrelevant that he does not speak for all of those countries in some official capacity but is only a minister in the UK. He is simply stating a fact, and this is a valid source for that fact. Richard75 ( talk) 09:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Resolved. [26]. -- Qexigator ( talk) 09:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The legal challenge in Quebec leaves the law with the same status as any law that is facing a legal challenge the law remains in place until and unless it's ruled unconstitutional. That's as true for this law as it would be for any law. However, if the Canadian courts strike it down, it would only be struck down in Canada. The court ruling would have no effect outside of Canada, much as if say, a decade ago the O'Donohue v Canada had struck down the Act of Settlement restrictions on Catholics succeeding the throne. Now there could be some political consequence if, as a result of a court ruling, the federal government asked the provinces to pass concurrent legislation (as happened in Australia with the states) and, say, Quebec refused to do so because of the continued ban on Catholics occupying the throne. In that case, the Commonwealth PMs could be forced to consider some sort of Perth II to remedy the Catholic issue but even so, the individual laws, outside of Canada, implementing the Perth Agreement would remain in place until and unless they were amended (or successfully legally challenged in their respective courts). 147.194.16.123 ( talk) 19:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
We don't need this column in the table. It was agreed that every realm would bring in the changes at the same time on the same day, co-ordinated by New Zealand. Unless evidence later comes to light that this plan failed -- which is entirely speculative and is contradicted by the sources in the article -- this column serves no purpose at all. Richard75 ( talk) 10:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
It was always the case that the changes would all come in at the same time. There are already sources in this article to say that. There is no source anywhere to suggest that that didn't happen according to plan. The New Zealand commencement order is just one example of this happening. Just accept it. Richard75 ( talk) 18:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I have re-read your comment, and nothing in it addresses what I said. The commencement orders explicitly come into force at the same time. Richard75 ( talk) 20:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
If it was implemented in the Americas on the 25th, we can't say it was implemented on the 26th - we don't have a source for that. We can, however, give one time zone, conveniently the same one used as a standard by the entire world. This is not the time zone used by Canada or Australia. -- Pete ( talk) 22:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it is important to note that the legislation came into effect simultaneously in each realm, even though it was 25 March in some and 26 March in others. The convention for different timezones is that we use UTC to avoid confusion, or use the zone of the most directly involved nation. -- Pete ( talk) 09:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
No source supports The changes came fully into force throughout the Commonwealth realms simultaneously on 26 March 2015 (UTC). [28] Given that the UK commencement order was dated 24 March UK time, the Australian proclamation was dated 24 March Australia time (which zone?), the NZ commencement order was dated 25 March NZ time, Harper's (Canada) statement was dated 26 March Canada time, it is safe to surmise that all have been coordinated but they were not issued simultaneously.
Thus, the actual hour, if ever arising for judicial decision, must be determined in each jurisdiction according to its own laws.If lawyers in all the realms would normally read the UK commencement as taking effect as at the beginning of 26 March, UK time, that would agree with the words used in Australia. What is meant by '1 pm on 26 March (New Zealand daylight time)' is for NZ to determine. How can this kind of detail be other than UNDUE? It has no bearing on the present or past actuality, and lacks notability. Qexigator ( talk) 13:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Qex, your edit here still retains a sentence that presumes Canada and the Caribbean realms that passed their own legislation commenced that legislation on the 25th, which contradicts other statements that say all the realms brought their laws into force on the 26th. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Could someone please tell me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Thanks. 198.96.87.59 ( talk) 20:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Recent revisions by others seem to have resolved the anomalies discussed above arisiing from the desire of the parties to the Perth Agreement to let 'implementation' be 'simultaneous' in all realms of that Commonwealth where the sun never sets (SYN permitted on Talk pages), subject to sight of the Canadian commencement instrument when it has become accessible online. Cheers! Qexigator ( talk) 06:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
+An informative link to an explanatory lecture on video: Professor Anne Twomey - Succession to the Crown: foiled by Canada? (18th Sept 2014) (39 min.)( [32] has been added to 'Commonwealth realm'. [33] -- Qexigator ( talk) 06:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I am somewhat amused to see this description of Professor Anne Twomey and her entry in "The Conversation". Professor Twomey has a long and distinguished career in constitutional law and her books are well regarded. The Conversation is not a personal blog. When she says something in public about constitutional matters, it's pretty solid. As a female, her opening remarks: A small blow was struck for women on Thursday. At 11am, laws came into effect across the Queen’s Realms to change the rules of succession to the throne, with retrospective application back to 2011. Males are no longer favoured over females, so that an older sister will become sovereign ahead of her younger brother. are hardly "campaigning" or tendentious. Eminently understandable. -- Pete ( talk) 19:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I have restored the source. If anyone wishes to dispute Professor Twomey as a reliable source, WP:RSN is available. -- Pete ( talk) 19:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
We should be pointing out that if the Duke of Cambridge's second child is a girl, she won't be bumped down the succession until/if Prine George has legitimate children. Where's before, a younger brother would push her down. GoodDay ( talk) 22:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Harper's statement did not mention St Lucia, but the article Timetable has 'Legislation passed'. Clarification by source is needed if that means the UK act. Qexigator ( talk) 10:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Is the "commencement order" column in the chart really necessary? It seems to me that it's unlikely to ever be complete as it will be very difficult for any wikipedia editor to track down commencement orders from various small island nations whose governments don't publish such things online. 147.194.16.123 ( talk) 15:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
The agreement removed the disqualification of persons who married Catholics, but it did not remove the disqualification of persons who became, or who were ever, Catholics themselves. I wonder why they didn't go the extra mile and do that.
The monarch must still be in communion with the Church of England. Quote from our article:
A person who is a practising Jew or Muslim or Taoist would be just as incapable of satisfying the communion requirement as a Catholic would be, but it's only Catholics who are explicitly excluded, even though they're already excluded by the communion requirement. Also, a person baptised a Catholic when two days old, whether they ever practised that religion or not, is permanently dead as far as the law of succession is concerned, whereas a practising Jew, Muslim or Taoist who converts to the Church of England is welcomed with open arms into the line of succession. Removing the ban on Catholics being monarch would have changed precisely nothing in terms of the line of succession, but it would have removed a completely redundant, unnecessary and inappropriate perception of religious bigotry, so out of keeping with today's values.
Is there any coverage of this issue that we could usefully include in the article? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
As long as the Church of England is the church by law established, the Monarch is its head, and the ban must stay. You can argue disestablishment if you want to. Maybe a ban on all non-Anglicans, so as not to pick on the Catholics?
They got rid of this one in 1910, a part of the coronation oath of every monarch since William III:
“I A B doe sweare That I doe from my Heart Abhorr, Detest and Abjure as Impious and Hereticall this damnable Doctrine and Position That Princes Excommunicated or Deprived by the Pope or any Authority of the See of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their Subjects or any other whatsoever. And I doe declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God.”
George V said he was not going to slap his Catholic subjects in the face like that, and got a change to a simple affirmation of the Protestant religion. Some discussion of this could improve the article. 77.69.34.203 ( talk) 11:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Should Canada even be listed in the template, if its succession is still male-preference? GoodDay ( talk) 16:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
M keeps reverting the statement "it was sufficient for parliament to assent to the British legislation regarding succession." as OR and not supported by the source. However the source quotes the judicial ruling as saying « le Canada n’avait pas à modifier ses lois ni sa Constitution pour que les règles de succession royale britanniques puissent être modifiées et en vigueur ; l’assentiment à celles-ci suffisait selon le préambule du Statut de Westminster et la convention qui s’y trouve » (emphasis added) so I don't understand his objection. Alexander's Hood ( talk) 00:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I won't get into this dispute, except to point out something. If Canada's royal succession has not been clarified? Then according to the Perth Agreement, none of the Commonwealth realms successions are clarified. Hopefully, others can figure this legal/constitutional stuff out. PS - IMHO, whatever is decided at Monarchy of Canada? will have an effect on this article & all the other Commonwealth realm monarch articles. GoodDay ( talk) 01:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
It's June 2017. Did the Appeals court have the hearing yet? GoodDay ( talk) 11:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Perth Agreement. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
This section begins, "The Act of Settlement 1701, the Bill of Rights 1689, His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936, and the Royal Marriages Act 1772 are part of the laws of Canada." In fact it is the position of the Canadian government that the parts affecting royal succession have never extended to Canada. The sources include out of date opinions and a more recent article that says the Canadian government is wrong. If there are no objections, I will remove the sentence, which is confusing in light of the rest of the section. TFD ( talk) 23:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
That is a disingenuous answer. Most readers would assume that it means the succession laws are part of the laws of Canada. If not, there would be no reason to include them. I have asked for more input at NPOVN. TFD ( talk) 00:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Seeing as we don't have it at Monarchy of Canada, that the Canadian succession was changed in March 2015. Perhaps per consistency, we should make it clear that nothing has changed in that realm. That of the 16 Commonwealth realms, one realm (Canada) allows Catholics to ascend its throne & male-preference is still in effect. GoodDay ( talk) 15:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Someone reverted revised pictures, why, I'm not sure. Newer is better, or else why not have stuff from when all the adults were 17 or something? Unless God forbid Kate has a miscarrage, the bundle in her tummy has priority over Princes Harry and Andrew. The Duke of York can only take the throne in a major tragedy or a coup, so technically, he's no longer covered by the Royal Marriages act and doesn't need to be shown. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 18:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Given that in announcements of his public engagements (such as below) he is named as Prince Henry, that is how he should be named in this article, which concerns his public status in the royal line of succession:
Who could be affected, other than boys born between the Perth Agreement and its coming into effect (and their elder sisters)? That set is now capped; it ought to be feasible to list at least all those descended from Victoria. (I would not be surprised to find that the case mentioned is unique in that clade.) — Tamfang ( talk) 04:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I know we've been told Princess Anne and her descendents won't advance in front of her younger brothers to right behind Prince Charles and his descendents but does this mean that the line will continue to keep current women and married-to-Catholics off the list and only be employed for future descendents? Therequiembellishere ( talk) 20:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a claim in the lead that the British monarch is also monarch of 15 other countries in the Commonwealth. That statement, though, does not take into account the Statute of Westminster 1931, nor subsequent constitutional evolution in the Commonwealth realms that has led to the present situation where all the realms are independent of one another, as is recognised in other areas of this article. It is thus now the case that there are 16 separate monarchies headed by the same one individual, not that 15 countries are subject to one individual as monarch of one country (hence, the amendments to the British succession laws by the British queen in her British parliament will have no force in, say, Canada; amendments to the Canadian succession laws by the Canadian queen in her Canadian parliament are necessary). What I had put was at least accurate, if not perfectly written; whereas, what's there now is simply wrong. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've no issue working in "constitutionally equal", or some similar phrasing. But the way it's recently been done isn't correct; the realms aren't "constitutionally equal", it's the way the sovereign is shared that is. The realms are each "equal in status". Also, there's no evident connection between the first and second sentences in the paragraph as currently written. I propose:
Since the 16 Commonwealth realms [name realms in a footnote here] are all equal in status and independent of each other, but share one monarch — presently Elizabeth II — in a constitutionally equal fashion, the legal changes, according to convention, must be identical in each country and can be implemented only with some realms' request and consent to amendments made by the British parliament and other realms passing amendments through their own parliaments, which process used depending on the country's own constitutional arrangements.
The last part still seems a little clunky; but, I'm trying to take into consideration some of the valid points raised in the discussion below, and it's difficult to sum up such a complex matter in a couple of sentences. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
According to the Guardian [9] at least two realms do not require direct legislation to amend the succession. I believe that these realms, and possibly others, have constitutional arrangements which deem the British sovereign to be their own automatically. For the chart can we clarify which realms precisely are required to pass legislation and which do not? Vale of Glamorgan ( talk) 14:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I see another difficulty: The Canadian Constitution Act 1982 specifies that the consent of the Parliament of Canada and all the Provincial Parliaments is necessary to amend the Canadian Constitution in matters pertaining to the Queen. Would this be the case here? If so, it's a good thing that the Quebec Government is not currently in the hands of the Parti Quebecois. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.160.58.187 ( talk) 15:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
If I might add something to this. Apparently the Cook Islands will also need to make their own law regarding the sucession since any new NZ laws don't apply in there. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 08:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The article currently says and any changes would only first take effect if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were to have a daughter before a son. I think that is supposed to mean that the changes will not make any difference if the couple have a son as their firstborn. But, I also read it as possibly meaning that if the couple doesn't have a son, the changes will be null and void, and have to be made again by the relevant parliaments to apply to future generations. I think the whole sentence could be removed, and replaced with something about how this relates to Charles' siblings and their children instead, something far less obvious. / Coffeeshivers ( talk) 16:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Does this in any way affect Sark? СЛУЖБА ( talk) 19:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Since this is supposed to be about gender equality, has anyone proposed that the husband of a Queen regnant should be called King (consort) instead of just Prince consort? Emerson 07 ( talk) 04:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Scotland had two kings consort in the 16th century; they are nothing new in the UK. Spain had one in the 19th century. Therefore, the position would be far from invented.
Actually, the reason husbands of queens regnant are more commonly called princes is that the masculine title of king is considered higher in rank than the feminine title of queen. Thus, calling the queen regnant's husband prince is not a discrimination against men. It is still a discrimination against women, as it is implied that a married woman cannot share her rank and title with her husband without being subjugated to him. Surtsicna ( talk) 16:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
There has been a recent "move" to this page that is incorrect. A> it is not just the "British throne", it is the throne to the 16 realms, it is not a "fait-accomplit" as it is still a proposed change. It must be approved by all the members. A block on renaming the article has also been made, so this cannot be simply undone by a user. -- Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 21:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
"2011 proposals to reform royal succession in the Commonwealth realms" is shorter. DrKay ( talk) 07:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
My only comment on changing the title is that I think that "change" is more NPOV than either "reform" or "update". But I'll go with the consensus, if there is one. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 08:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
well researched and thorough article but surely something must have happened since October 2011. Nankai ( talk) 10:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
News articles today are saying that that baby will go into the line of succession just behind William, and it won't matter if it's a boy or girl. Previously, a girl would have been pushed further down by the arrival of younger brother(s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 18:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The federal Constitution of Australia says that any references in the document to the Queen extend to "to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom". I understand then that, if the United Kingdom changes its law of succession, then those changes automatically apply to Australia, at least at the federal level, without any need for a constitutional amendment (which would, in turn, require a referendum). I agree though that, to the extent that the rules of succession are part of state law, there may be a need for the some of the states to change their law to incorporate the new rules, irrespective of whether they already apply to the federal government or not. 187.57.183.136 ( talk) 23:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The article has passages like "However, the requirement for the sovereign to be in communion with the Church of England would remain."
There is no such requirement in the rules of succession - the only requirement is that the monarch cannot be a 'Papist'. They are not even required to be Christian. Seperately the monarch becomes Supreme Governor when ascending the throne, but they aren't required to be Anglican (or Protestant) to get to that position in the first place.
Mauls ( talk) 12:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Can we consider changing the title? The position has moved on from that in 2011, and will presumably continue to develop through legislation in 2013 - but the whole process is covered in this article. We need a title that avoids a date. Would Changes to the rules of royal succession in the Commonwealth realms cover it, or is there a better alternative? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 17:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no action. Article was moved by a non-administrator during the discussion, and there is no clear consensus to move it back. — Darkwind ( talk) 05:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Perth Agreement → ? –
The explanatory notes published with the Succession to the Crown Bill refer to the 2011 proposals as the "Perth agreement". Since the title of this article is quite unwieldy I'd like to propose that it be changed to Perth Agreement of 2011 or Perth Agreement on the royal succession.
68.171.231.80 (
talk) 15:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
There are no sources for the name "2011 proposals to change the rules of royal succession in the Commonwealth realms" so I don't see a problem with changing it. Drape Company ( talk) 02:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The Commons Library issued a research paper [15] on Succession to the Crown Bill 2012. Included at Pgs. 20-24 (23-27 in the PDF) are the legal requirements in the Commonwealth Realms, plus other things.-- Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 22:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I have split the entire Canadian legislation session to Succession to the Throne Act, 2013. However, I understand what I left as introduction there was not the best, so you may edit as appropriate.-- Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 19:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I am confused, and yes new to this, there have been a bunch of edits on this page, amongst the edits are ones that are going on is to replace secondary sources with primary sources. My understanding was that secondary sources were the preferred method of sourcing articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka ( talk • contribs) 22:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
No I do not have much experience, that is why I was asking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka ( talk • contribs) 23:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
The article on Pledge of Loyalty Act 2006 is interesting but its relevance here is not explained. Qexigator ( talk) 16:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Here are the issues with the edit made recently to the Canada section of this article:
It was thus, overall, not an improvement on the previous composition. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I was under the impression that subpages were not allowed, and even disabled in wikipedia main? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
You are correct in thinking I created the subpage in order that it may be transcluded into the two articles and therefore kept up to date on both. I believe Mies was correct to remove the timetable from the Succession page, thus eliminating my original reasoning. So I have returned the sub-page content to her parent article and tagged the subpage with a db-g7 request. D B D 15:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Currently, the table says that the states other than Queensland have consented to Commonwealth legislation. in fact, the cited article shows that their respective governments have agreed, but that does not necessarily mean that their respective parliaments have passed the necessary bills requesting Commonwealth legislation. The table is about "parliamentary progress." Consequently, I plan to remove these statements. We have to wait until each state parliament makes its request. For a similar process, see Australia_Act_1986. 72.83.246.254 ( talk) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Each of the two edit summaries [16]
is correct in its own way. Words are needed such as found in the lead for Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, which are concise without carrying an unintended nuance beyond bare factual reporting, leaving the finer details to the two main articles. Qexigator ( talk) 07:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Information has been added about a proceeding in the Quebec Superior Court for the Canadian government's Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 to be declared unconstitutional. [17] The article would be improved if there could be added further information to give a reader some indication whether or not this has any practical effect for the timing of the alteration in the law of succession under legislation in other realms pursuant to the Perth Agreement. Qexigator ( talk) 07:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Why don't they include another change that would limit the number of eligible successors to the immediate relatives of the reigning monarch: descendants, aunts and uncles, first cousins and that's it like most modern European monarchies instead of having every (eligible) descendants of Sophia of Hanover on the list. So from a list of thousands to twenty or so.-- The Emperor's New Spy ( talk) 06:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
What if at least 1 Realm fails to adopt the changes? Would it follow the old succession principle, or would all Realms follow it? twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF ( talk) 15:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, here is the source you asked for: [18] Richard75 ( talk) 12:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
But what if it's not a Commonwealth Realm that fails, but a State of Australia, like South Australia? -- twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF ( talk) 09:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Editors may wish to note that an update mentioning Perth Agreement has been made to "Succession laws" section of Monarchies in Europe. [19] -- Qexigator ( talk) 08:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The tag which has been put at the top of the page reads "This article includes inline citations, but they are not properly formatted. Please improve this article by correcting them. (October 2013)" Two points: 1_The link "correcting them" may be faulty. 2_Perhaps the party who considered it to be such a problem as to be worth tagging could proceed with making such corrections as are seen to be needed, bearing in mind that these may not be within others' perception? Qexigator ( talk) 17:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Further to the above, the present version is now littered with a dozen or so of these unnecessary tags which are useless for the purpose of the article, which is to communicate information to inquiring readers, for whom the references as given normally suffice. It would be more helpful in the joint editing work if an editor who feels strongly enough to place a tag would be good enough to consider instead applying the cite template, or leave the text unblemished. Qexigator ( talk) 00:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Has there been any progress with the bill? The article states it was passed three months ago. I was just wondering if the table's been kept up to date. - 101090ABC ( talk) 11:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
An editor has inserted Jersey in the Timetable. [20] This is not consistent with the conternt of the Table, the article as a whole or any part of it, nor the linked artcles: Commonwealth realm, Succession to the Crown Act 2013 (UK), Jersey + External relations of Jersey. The Timetable [21] has been exclusively for the 16 Commonwealth realms and, in the case of the Commonwealth of Australia the six states of that federation whose legislation is a necessary part of Australia's legislative progress. Jersey's connection with the Crown as one of the Crown dependencies (and see List of viceregal representatives of Elizabeth II) is undoubtedly notable, but Jersey's Succession to the Crown (Jersey) Law 2013 [22] can be relevant enough here only to warrant at most a footnote to UK in the Timetable. Qexigator ( talk) 08:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
+ Seeing that Jersey's participation has been explained in the linked article Succession to the Crown Act 2013: [23] "Jersey passed its own Succession to the Crown (Jersey) Law 2013 to give effect to the provisions in Jersey law", no further mention is needed here. Qexigator ( talk) 10:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Parts of the page had been changed to say that Royal Assent had been granted to the Succession to the Crown Bill 2015 on 19 March. This is FALSE. Please actually read the sources used. Although the Australian Parliament's website says it has passed both houses, this is not the same at all as Royal Assent. That will show up separately, as may be seen on the page for this [1], or any other assented bill [2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:5D80:8205:68F6:B86F:8F14:CA4B ( talk) 05:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
This is Nick Clegg's statement yesterday in which he says "Today these changes have come into effect across every Realm." (End of third paragraph.) It is irrelevant that he does not speak for all of those countries in some official capacity but is only a minister in the UK. He is simply stating a fact, and this is a valid source for that fact. Richard75 ( talk) 09:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Resolved. [26]. -- Qexigator ( talk) 09:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The legal challenge in Quebec leaves the law with the same status as any law that is facing a legal challenge the law remains in place until and unless it's ruled unconstitutional. That's as true for this law as it would be for any law. However, if the Canadian courts strike it down, it would only be struck down in Canada. The court ruling would have no effect outside of Canada, much as if say, a decade ago the O'Donohue v Canada had struck down the Act of Settlement restrictions on Catholics succeeding the throne. Now there could be some political consequence if, as a result of a court ruling, the federal government asked the provinces to pass concurrent legislation (as happened in Australia with the states) and, say, Quebec refused to do so because of the continued ban on Catholics occupying the throne. In that case, the Commonwealth PMs could be forced to consider some sort of Perth II to remedy the Catholic issue but even so, the individual laws, outside of Canada, implementing the Perth Agreement would remain in place until and unless they were amended (or successfully legally challenged in their respective courts). 147.194.16.123 ( talk) 19:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
We don't need this column in the table. It was agreed that every realm would bring in the changes at the same time on the same day, co-ordinated by New Zealand. Unless evidence later comes to light that this plan failed -- which is entirely speculative and is contradicted by the sources in the article -- this column serves no purpose at all. Richard75 ( talk) 10:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
It was always the case that the changes would all come in at the same time. There are already sources in this article to say that. There is no source anywhere to suggest that that didn't happen according to plan. The New Zealand commencement order is just one example of this happening. Just accept it. Richard75 ( talk) 18:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I have re-read your comment, and nothing in it addresses what I said. The commencement orders explicitly come into force at the same time. Richard75 ( talk) 20:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
If it was implemented in the Americas on the 25th, we can't say it was implemented on the 26th - we don't have a source for that. We can, however, give one time zone, conveniently the same one used as a standard by the entire world. This is not the time zone used by Canada or Australia. -- Pete ( talk) 22:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it is important to note that the legislation came into effect simultaneously in each realm, even though it was 25 March in some and 26 March in others. The convention for different timezones is that we use UTC to avoid confusion, or use the zone of the most directly involved nation. -- Pete ( talk) 09:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
No source supports The changes came fully into force throughout the Commonwealth realms simultaneously on 26 March 2015 (UTC). [28] Given that the UK commencement order was dated 24 March UK time, the Australian proclamation was dated 24 March Australia time (which zone?), the NZ commencement order was dated 25 March NZ time, Harper's (Canada) statement was dated 26 March Canada time, it is safe to surmise that all have been coordinated but they were not issued simultaneously.
Thus, the actual hour, if ever arising for judicial decision, must be determined in each jurisdiction according to its own laws.If lawyers in all the realms would normally read the UK commencement as taking effect as at the beginning of 26 March, UK time, that would agree with the words used in Australia. What is meant by '1 pm on 26 March (New Zealand daylight time)' is for NZ to determine. How can this kind of detail be other than UNDUE? It has no bearing on the present or past actuality, and lacks notability. Qexigator ( talk) 13:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Qex, your edit here still retains a sentence that presumes Canada and the Caribbean realms that passed their own legislation commenced that legislation on the 25th, which contradicts other statements that say all the realms brought their laws into force on the 26th. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Could someone please tell me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Thanks. 198.96.87.59 ( talk) 20:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Recent revisions by others seem to have resolved the anomalies discussed above arisiing from the desire of the parties to the Perth Agreement to let 'implementation' be 'simultaneous' in all realms of that Commonwealth where the sun never sets (SYN permitted on Talk pages), subject to sight of the Canadian commencement instrument when it has become accessible online. Cheers! Qexigator ( talk) 06:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
+An informative link to an explanatory lecture on video: Professor Anne Twomey - Succession to the Crown: foiled by Canada? (18th Sept 2014) (39 min.)( [32] has been added to 'Commonwealth realm'. [33] -- Qexigator ( talk) 06:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I am somewhat amused to see this description of Professor Anne Twomey and her entry in "The Conversation". Professor Twomey has a long and distinguished career in constitutional law and her books are well regarded. The Conversation is not a personal blog. When she says something in public about constitutional matters, it's pretty solid. As a female, her opening remarks: A small blow was struck for women on Thursday. At 11am, laws came into effect across the Queen’s Realms to change the rules of succession to the throne, with retrospective application back to 2011. Males are no longer favoured over females, so that an older sister will become sovereign ahead of her younger brother. are hardly "campaigning" or tendentious. Eminently understandable. -- Pete ( talk) 19:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I have restored the source. If anyone wishes to dispute Professor Twomey as a reliable source, WP:RSN is available. -- Pete ( talk) 19:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
We should be pointing out that if the Duke of Cambridge's second child is a girl, she won't be bumped down the succession until/if Prine George has legitimate children. Where's before, a younger brother would push her down. GoodDay ( talk) 22:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Harper's statement did not mention St Lucia, but the article Timetable has 'Legislation passed'. Clarification by source is needed if that means the UK act. Qexigator ( talk) 10:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Is the "commencement order" column in the chart really necessary? It seems to me that it's unlikely to ever be complete as it will be very difficult for any wikipedia editor to track down commencement orders from various small island nations whose governments don't publish such things online. 147.194.16.123 ( talk) 15:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
The agreement removed the disqualification of persons who married Catholics, but it did not remove the disqualification of persons who became, or who were ever, Catholics themselves. I wonder why they didn't go the extra mile and do that.
The monarch must still be in communion with the Church of England. Quote from our article:
A person who is a practising Jew or Muslim or Taoist would be just as incapable of satisfying the communion requirement as a Catholic would be, but it's only Catholics who are explicitly excluded, even though they're already excluded by the communion requirement. Also, a person baptised a Catholic when two days old, whether they ever practised that religion or not, is permanently dead as far as the law of succession is concerned, whereas a practising Jew, Muslim or Taoist who converts to the Church of England is welcomed with open arms into the line of succession. Removing the ban on Catholics being monarch would have changed precisely nothing in terms of the line of succession, but it would have removed a completely redundant, unnecessary and inappropriate perception of religious bigotry, so out of keeping with today's values.
Is there any coverage of this issue that we could usefully include in the article? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
As long as the Church of England is the church by law established, the Monarch is its head, and the ban must stay. You can argue disestablishment if you want to. Maybe a ban on all non-Anglicans, so as not to pick on the Catholics?
They got rid of this one in 1910, a part of the coronation oath of every monarch since William III:
“I A B doe sweare That I doe from my Heart Abhorr, Detest and Abjure as Impious and Hereticall this damnable Doctrine and Position That Princes Excommunicated or Deprived by the Pope or any Authority of the See of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their Subjects or any other whatsoever. And I doe declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God.”
George V said he was not going to slap his Catholic subjects in the face like that, and got a change to a simple affirmation of the Protestant religion. Some discussion of this could improve the article. 77.69.34.203 ( talk) 11:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Should Canada even be listed in the template, if its succession is still male-preference? GoodDay ( talk) 16:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
M keeps reverting the statement "it was sufficient for parliament to assent to the British legislation regarding succession." as OR and not supported by the source. However the source quotes the judicial ruling as saying « le Canada n’avait pas à modifier ses lois ni sa Constitution pour que les règles de succession royale britanniques puissent être modifiées et en vigueur ; l’assentiment à celles-ci suffisait selon le préambule du Statut de Westminster et la convention qui s’y trouve » (emphasis added) so I don't understand his objection. Alexander's Hood ( talk) 00:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I won't get into this dispute, except to point out something. If Canada's royal succession has not been clarified? Then according to the Perth Agreement, none of the Commonwealth realms successions are clarified. Hopefully, others can figure this legal/constitutional stuff out. PS - IMHO, whatever is decided at Monarchy of Canada? will have an effect on this article & all the other Commonwealth realm monarch articles. GoodDay ( talk) 01:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
It's June 2017. Did the Appeals court have the hearing yet? GoodDay ( talk) 11:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Perth Agreement. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
This section begins, "The Act of Settlement 1701, the Bill of Rights 1689, His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936, and the Royal Marriages Act 1772 are part of the laws of Canada." In fact it is the position of the Canadian government that the parts affecting royal succession have never extended to Canada. The sources include out of date opinions and a more recent article that says the Canadian government is wrong. If there are no objections, I will remove the sentence, which is confusing in light of the rest of the section. TFD ( talk) 23:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
That is a disingenuous answer. Most readers would assume that it means the succession laws are part of the laws of Canada. If not, there would be no reason to include them. I have asked for more input at NPOVN. TFD ( talk) 00:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Seeing as we don't have it at Monarchy of Canada, that the Canadian succession was changed in March 2015. Perhaps per consistency, we should make it clear that nothing has changed in that realm. That of the 16 Commonwealth realms, one realm (Canada) allows Catholics to ascend its throne & male-preference is still in effect. GoodDay ( talk) 15:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Someone reverted revised pictures, why, I'm not sure. Newer is better, or else why not have stuff from when all the adults were 17 or something? Unless God forbid Kate has a miscarrage, the bundle in her tummy has priority over Princes Harry and Andrew. The Duke of York can only take the throne in a major tragedy or a coup, so technically, he's no longer covered by the Royal Marriages act and doesn't need to be shown. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 18:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Given that in announcements of his public engagements (such as below) he is named as Prince Henry, that is how he should be named in this article, which concerns his public status in the royal line of succession:
Who could be affected, other than boys born between the Perth Agreement and its coming into effect (and their elder sisters)? That set is now capped; it ought to be feasible to list at least all those descended from Victoria. (I would not be surprised to find that the case mentioned is unique in that clade.) — Tamfang ( talk) 04:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)