Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Commonwealth realms agree to new succession rules
Sun Media via Toronto Sun ^ | 2011-10-28 | David Akin,

Posted on 10/28/2011 5:24:42 AM PDT by Clive

PERTH, Australia - The Conservative government has agreed to put new legislation before Parliament to give Canada's consent to change the

300-year-old rules of British succession that, among other things, favour male heirs to the throne over female ones.

Canada is one of 16 of Queen Elizabeth II's realms that met here Friday and agreed to changes proposed by UK Prime Minister David Cameron to update the laws of succession set out in the 1601 Acts of Settlement.

"Put simply, if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have a little girl, that girl would one day be our queen," Cameron told reporters here.

The agreement of Canada and the other realms is required before the changes are put before the British House of Commons. And Canada is one of a handful of realms where agreement to the changes must come in the form of legislation.

Cameron's initiative, which has the Queen's blessing, would also allow the monarch to marry a Roman Catholic, currently forbidden under the 1601 law.

"There was unanimous agreement that these changes recognized the equality of women and Catholics," said Prime Minister Stephen Harper. "These are obvious modernizations."

Harper did not say when the legislation would come before Canada's Parliament.

A third change would be to remove a requirement that descendants of a monarch need the monarch's permission to marry.

Cameron's office had noted that, had these changes been in place in 1509, for example, Margaret Tudor would have ascended to the throne following Henry VII, rather then her younger brother. Her younger brother, though, did take the throne and became Henry VIII, most famous for breaking with the Church of Rome in 1533 and establishing the Church of England.

Perhaps even more interesting, had the new rules been in effect in 1901, Queen Victoria's daughter, Princess Victoria, would have become Queen Victoria II in January of that year, rather then her younger brother who became Edward VII.

Princess Victoria died seven months after her mother and, had she been queen, the succession would have gone to Kaiser Wilhelm II, and he would have been King of Britain during the First World War.


TOPICS: Canada; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: formerlygreatbritain; londonistan; noengland; oncegreatbritain

1 posted on 10/28/2011 5:24:43 AM PDT by Clive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: exg; Alberta's Child; albertabound; AntiKev; backhoe; Byron_the_Aussie; Cannoneer No. 4; ...

-


2 posted on 10/28/2011 5:25:53 AM PDT by Clive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive
So, the Kaiser would get to be king?

I think these rules are toast already!

At the same time they probably make some American without a title the best claimant just nobody knows that yet.

3 posted on 10/28/2011 5:33:19 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive
Hey, when you are only pretending to have a monarchy, then all of the official rules on succession are somewhat spurious aren't they? What does it matter?

Your might say tradition, but world history isn't replete with tourist based monarchies.

4 posted on 10/28/2011 6:05:00 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive; annalex; MegaSilver
"Put simply, if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have a little girl, that girl would one day be our queen," Cameron told reporters here.

"There was unanimous agreement that these changes recognized the equality of women and Catholics," said Prime Minister Stephen Harper. "These are obvious modernizations."

I am glad to see someone is finally using their heads in the U.K. when it comes to this issue. Allowing Female succession should have been allowed years ago, BUT their is no time like the present.

Also, Getting rid of the outdated No-To-Catholics rule is good too, seeing as how far left and how empty the Church of England has gotten, many of their true believers will accept Union with the Catholic Church anyway. So in the coming years the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will be presiding over a large Catholic population.

5 posted on 10/28/2011 6:26:47 AM PDT by KC_Lion (I will NEVER vote for Romney! The GOP will go the way of the Whigs if they nominate him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive

The REAL issue with the monarchy is will Charles ever reach the throne, or will a deal be cut and he’ll be passed over. I can’t see the Queen stepping down..she could go another decade..and Charles will be a doddering, drooling, and even MORE senile fool than he is now by that time. Better to try and set the ground rules, now..BEFORE anything happens..


6 posted on 10/28/2011 6:31:02 AM PDT by ken5050 (Cain/Gingrich 2012!!! because sharing a couch with Pelosi is NOT the same as sharing a bed with her)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Our Heritage


Click The Pic To Donate

The Men Left Bloody Footprints In The Snow..............

7 posted on 10/28/2011 7:22:17 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson