Talk:Perth Agreement

Extent of changes to the line of succession
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)


 * The law is very clear. Male preference ceases to apply to all persons in the line of succession born after October 28, 2011. 177.138.108.194 (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If passed, the changes will effect only Charles' progeny. If Charles & his progeny get wiped out? then the changes would effect only Andrew's progeny; etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is terribly unclear. Does it mean that male-preference cognatic primogeniture will continue to apply for all eligible descendants of Sophia except those of Charles? Does it mean that Savannah Phillips will rank lower than a potential younger brother? Will all Beatrice's sons rank higher than all her daughters? Surtsicna (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, Savannah would only move ahead of James if their father becomes King. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you, by any chance, confused her with Louise? Surtsicna (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If they adopt the legislation that is currently in the UK parliament, it is possible that Anne would move up to being 4th in line. Guardian article--UnQuébécois (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not unless there's a change to the proposal which was that the new rules would only apply to the descendents of Prince William. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Source stating this? (Not trying to be contrary, just what I am reading says otherwise)--UnQuébécois (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Slight correction, the new rules will only apply to descendants of the current Prince of Wales: "Announcing the succession changes, Prime Minister David Cameron said they would apply to descendents of the Prince of Wales. They will not be applied retrospectively.". Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's all academic at this point! You have sources saying one thing, others saying the oposite! Until the legislations are enacted in all 14 (possibly 24!) legislatures and they are applied then we can all be almost certain of what is goint to happen! And then we might have to wait another 50 years for it to even matter! --UnQuébécois (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This process is going to take about a half-decade anyway. And with Australia and Jamaica seeming to prefer becoming republics instead (and others like Barbados, St Vincent and Tuvalu not far behind) this could get very complicated. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My curiosity on the topic led me here; so for the benefit of later arrivals, here's what I found out. The effect of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 is that males born after 28 October 2011 will no longer take precedence over their older siblings (regardless of when they were born).  Males born prior to that date (e.g., James, Viscount Severn and Prince Andrew) remain in line ahead of their older sisters, but a putative younger brother of Savannah and Isla Phillips born after 2011 would not be placed ahead of his sisters.  Hope that makes sense.  Talanpoe (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Dated info
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)
 * The current wording makes clear that they are all independent sovereign states, which is terminology that is clear and accepted worldwide. Whatever form of words we have, it needs to do two things.  It needs to be correct, and it needs to explain for the non-specialist reader who and what it is we are talking about.   Many people around the world, mainly outside the 16 realms - examples here:, ,  - but also on occasion within those realms - examples here: , ,  - use terms like "British throne" and "British monarch" to describe the person and institution.  That may not be wholly correct, but it is understood.  Obviously, there are at least as many sources in Canada, Australia and so forth which do not use such words - they refer to "the Queen", "the throne", etc., but they do so essentially to an internal audience, who understand what it is that is being discussed.  We have a global audience, who may be confused by relatively impenetrable language.  I support a form of words that avoids incorrect usage, while also making clear who and what we are talking about.  Is a way round that to make reference to British laws, and the history of royalty in Britain, so that readers can infer what we are talking about without using terms like "the British monarchy"?   Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The current wording is not clear since it is inherently self-contradictory: the countries are independent but under the sovereignty of another country, which means they're not independent. What the media says or what's commonly said is irrelevant; popular does not automatically equal accurate. And if an international audience has already been mislead by mass media laziness, it's Wikipedia's place, as an encyclopaedia, to put forward accurate information, not reinforce misconceptions of colonialism.
 * Of course I agree that we should use a form of words that avoids incorrect usage; hence, my dispute of the present assertion made in the article. But, it doesn't help to start out with the inaccuracy that the subject of this article has to do only with British laws; I've already explained how, at least in some realms, the pertinent laws are no longer British, but domestic, and in the remaining cases, the laws aren't purely British. It's for that reason that I think what I composed is a step in the right direction: "Because the same person— presently Queen Elizabeth II— serves as monarch of each of the 16 Commonwealth realms, which are all independent of one another, the changes need to be enacted in legislation in each of the affected countries before they take effect." Again, it's not perfect; but what, precisely, is confusing about it? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily think it's confusing, but it's unhelpful in that it doesn't make clear that the person we are talking about is the British monarch - the term that would be most widely understood by a global readership. Stating that other countries have the same sovereign does not necessarily mean that they are under the sovereignty of that country - particularly when the wording makes clear that they are independent sovereign states (tautology, in my view, but doubly clear).  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes; when you say one country is under another country's sovereign, you are saying the one country is under the other country's sovereignty. The British monarch is specifically the monarch who is advised by the British privy council, is part of the British parliament, and in whose name the British courts met out justice; therefore, by saying the British monarch is Canada's (or any other realm's) head of state, you're saying Canada is ultimately subject to Britain's cabinet, parliament, and courts, which is most absolutely not the case at all. Putting aside for a moment what's popular usage, would you allow the article to your same logic but, instead, state the Jamaican monarch is Britain's head of state? People would likely find the claim ridiculous, since it communicates that Britain is subordinate to Jamaica. Saying the British monarch is Jamaica's head of state is more common, and thus would be more accepted; however, it's not merely coincidental that there's also a common misconception out there that Jamaica (and Canada and Australia and etc.) are still in some kind of colonial relationship with the UK. Like I keep saying: Popular doesn't always mean right, and there's no need for Wikipedia to feed common misconceptions.
 * I can understand that readers who possess the preconception that the British monarch is head of all the realms will be expecting to see that erroneous thinking reflected here. It would seem to me, though, that if they know of the British monarch, then they'll know who she is. If you don't think saying Elizabeth's name instead of the name of one of the offices she holds is helpful to readers, what might be? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  12:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How about something like: "The monarch, currently Elizabeth II, is sovereign of 16 independent states within the Commonwealth of Nations: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis.  The changes need to be enacted in legislation in each of the affected countries before they take effect."    Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we really have to list them all? GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We have two options - the current wording ("the British monarch....[and of].... 15 other independent sovereign states") or the one above. I think there is some merit in listing them all - it provides the necessary information with complete clarity.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's just that 16 is quite alot & has a tendency to bloat the paragraph. However, I suppose it's better then getting into another long drawn out -endless- British & 15 other 'VS' 16 are equal dispute. In otherwords, let's impliment the full list. GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Done (for the time being at least). Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: Per Monarchy of the United Kingdom: "The terms British monarchy and British monarch are frequently still employed in reference to the person and institution shared amongst all sixteen of the Commonwealth realms." Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hahahaha, I knew the pipelink to Monarchy of the United Kingdom was gonna be removed. Atleast United Kingdom has been left as listed first. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What you propose is better than the earlier one, but it has the wrong link piped; the monarchy of the UK has nothing to do with any realm outside the United Kingdom itself; implying otherwise only misleads readers. I'd also rather not list all 16 realms, since, as GoodDay points out, it bloats the paragraph; the list of realms is in the article Commonwealth realm, anyway. But, that's not a major issue for me.
 * Is this acceptable?: "Since the Commonwealth realms are all independent of each other, but one monarch— presently Elizabeth II— is shared equally by them as their respective head of state, the legal changes, according to convention, must be passed in a parallel fashion by each of the affected countries' parliaments before they can be implemented." That makes it clear that the realms are independent entities by both stating such overtly and refraining from contradicting that with any implications that the rest of the countries are subject to the authority of one country's head of state.
 * At worst, some extra detail could be added, if considered absolutely necessary; something like: "...one monarch— presently Elizabeth II (commonly referred to as "the British monarch")— is shared equally..." I'd rather avoid that, though; especially since it's the even more confusing term "the Queen of England" that's most commonly used to refer to Elizabeth II. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "In a parallel fashion" sounds clumsy to me - makes me think of a parallel universe - and I'm also not keen on "shared equally", which is wording that I think would need some citation. After all, she spends less time in Tuvalu than she does in the UK, so it's not really "equal" in any real sense.   There must be a form of words in some royal or Commonwealth document that uses an appropriate wording.   I like the list in this article (much more than at Elizabeth II), because I don't think it does bloat the text in the same way, and it makes clear all the countries where this particular constitutional change will be an issue in coming months.  If we list the countries in an early part of the article in that way, we could perhaps dispense with the table and flags later on.  Re the "British monarchy", are you proposing that the wording at Monarchy of the United Kingdom ("...frequently still employed in reference to the person and institution shared amongst all sixteen of the Commonwealth realms....") be changed?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the tricky thing about the Commonwealth realms. On paper (1931 Westminister statute) they're all equal. But in practice, they're not treated as equal. When was the last time Canada's Queen stayed in Ottawa for a whole year? GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The word "equal" comes directly from the Balfour Declaration of 1926: "They are autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations." Also, following on that same theme, British MP Patrick Gordon Walker, when Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in the 1950s, stated: "We in this country have to abandon... any sense of property in the Crown. The Queen, now, clearly, explicitly and according to title, belongs equally to all her realms..." [As quoted in Bogdanor] Here we're told "Elizabeth II was equally Queen of Canada and the United Kingdom. The monarch remained shared, but the institution of monarchy had now evolved into independent constitutional entities... Britain had to reconcile itself to the fact that it no longer had elevated status within the Commonwealth and that their queen was now equally, officially, and explicitly queen of separate, autonomous realms." Peter Boyce puts it in a way that might help us here: "...the Queen's crowns are constitutionally equal... [emphasis mine]"p.35
 * I'm not particularly concerned with other articles, at the moment. Whether it's apt or not to explain at Monarchy of the United Kingdom that the term "British monarchy" is still widely used in reference to the Crown in realms other than the UK is rather irrelevant to the issue we're discussing here; there's no contest that "British monarchy" is the popular term. The fact is, however, that it's actually a misnomer and using it here (bringing with it all its inaccurate implications) does a disservice to Wikipedia readers. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I know they are "equal in status", and that the monarch "belongs equally to all her realms". However, that does not have the same meaning as a statement that she is "shared equally".  My point remains as I replied to GoodDay - either we make specific use of the word "British" in some way, reflecting common global usage (and usage in other WP articles) - or we list the 16 realms.  I favour the latter, because it is precise, and gives the right amount of information to readers in this particular article, which concerns the constitutions of those specific 16 countries.  I'm not opposed to your suggestion of "Elizabeth II (commonly referred to as "the British monarch")", other than I'd prefer "often" (or even "sometimes") to "commonly".   Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, my point about the 16 realms not being treated equally by the monarch, is based on the fact that it's impossible for her to perform her duties as monarch of all her realms simultaneously. She can't (for example) personally open up all 16 Parliaments within a year. It's these limitations, that help create the impression of the UK being first-among- equals. Anyways, listing the 16 realms is likely the best agreed solution. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I really don't understand your objection to "shared equally", especially in light of the sources I provided at your request. I reiterate: Perhaps Boyce's words "constitutionally equal" could help us here, somehow. (Let's leave the "often" or "casually referred to as 'the British monarch'" suggestion until we've exhausted all other possibilities.)
 * I also repeat: whether we list the countries or not isn't a big deal for me. I'd prefer they not be listed; but, if others do, then, so be it. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Constitutionally equal" is quite correct; "shared equally" is not (what is being shared?). Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a third option "...is the sovereign of 16 independant states within...". GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 4 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)
 * A 75 word sentence on constitutional processes seems a little inappropriate for the lead. I'll give it some further thought.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've chopped the sentence up, and integrated it with the existing text. I think some of it would be better in the main text than in the lead, but is it an improvement?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My last proposal was long-winded, yes. What you've done to the article now is a slight improvement, but it still has some problems; it's still quite long and there remains that disconnect between the first two and the third sentences. I've condensed and slightly tweaked my last suggestion so as to remove detail about amendments, which can be covered later in the article. Also, I put the names of the Commonwealth realms into a footnote, though they can be made visible in the lead if it's considered better to do so. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem with a "disconnect" between the sentences. As the lead always summarises the main article, "disconnects" are always possible in introductions, but I don't see anything problematic or unusual in the slightest about leading from some essential background information into how the process is to be progressed.  As I've said before, I think it would be much clearer for readers if the 16 realms were listed in the introduction, without obliging them to scroll down to see the countries being discussed.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see an issue with the disconnect; it leaves the reader unaware of why the two facts are mentioned. But, I think you'll agree that the remedy to that is fairly simple. I think what's there now is satisfactory. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Whatever you guys can agree on, is fine with me. But, we should be careful not to loose the focus of this article - which is the succession amendments & not the setup of the Commonwealth realms. The 1 person reiging over 16 countries -vs- 16 reigning monarchs happen to be the same person can be a bogged down discussion. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Not all parliaments need give consent
According to the Guardian 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)
 * I believe it's true that there doesn't need to be legislation passed through all the realms' parliaments; I've a source that says Australia is one country where it wouldn't be necessary, just its consent to the legislation passed in Britain. Canada, on the other hand, is one of the countries that would require an act of the Canadian parliament to affect change to the Canadian line of succession. Whether or not that invokes S.41 of the Constitution Act 1982 has yet to be determined; there is an argument out there that, because amendments to the succession laws don't actually affect the powers and functions of the "office of the Queen", just how the occupant of that office is selected, the approval of all eleven legislatures isn't required. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's an even better twist, Quebec never approved the Canadian Constitution - though of course, it's still subject to it. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Bollocks. Quebec "signed" (i.e. agreed to be subject to) the constitution of Canada in 1867 and has never withdrawn from the arrangement. All that didn't happen in 1982 was the Quebec government's approval for the amendments and additions made. Lesveque's stupid argument that the changes couldn't go through without his consent - that Quebec alone had a veto over such amendments - was thrown out by the Supreme Court, which said provincial agreement wasn't even legally necessary at all, but Trudeau would be best to seek it from a majority of the provinces. All that's irrelevant to the subject being discussed here, anyway. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't be concerned, I didn't claim that Quebec could hold up the succession amendments. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I can well see you didn't. You made a totally irrelevant and incorrect assertion. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Cook Islands
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)


 * I'm not sure if the Wikipedia article is correct. Article 2 of the Cook Islands constitution says "2. The Head of State - Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand shall be the Head of State of the Cook Islands." This suggests to me that any change in the succession that New Zealand makes automatically takes effect in the Cook Islands as well. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Interpretation of "take effect"
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)

Sark.
Does this in any way affect Sark? СЛУЖБА (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt it will; Sark has only recently abolished feudalism so I guess such changes would be none of their business. It will certainly not affect succession to any peerage titles. Surtsicna (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sark is a royal fief, part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey which is a Crown Dependency and itself a possession of the Crown. I'm sure Sark has a great many administrative peculiarities of its own, but I don't see how its ownership by the Crown would be affected by any changes to the rules of succession.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Equality
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)
 * Now that would be asking too much!, but seriously I do not see why it should not be that way.--UnQuébécois (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. This is all pointless if the Prince consort remains Prince consort. Is gender equality one-sided? Reigen (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Governments can change the rules, but they can not change language (most of the time). Seems to me that attempting to redefine the word King as part of these changes would be a terrific way of rallying opposition to them. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not redefining the word King, but allowing the consort of the Queen regnant to be styled King Consort, just like the consort of a King regnant is styled Queen Consort, it what we are referring to.--UnQuébécois (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am quite aware of what you mean. And I argue that the very concept of a King Consort is incompatible with the definition of King. See for example "1. A male monarch; member of a royal family who is the supreme ruler of his nation." Being the ruler is inherent in the concept of kingship. I don't like the inequality either, but trying to invent King Consorts would require a new definition of the word King, and it would be foolish to mix up the very real possibility of gender-equal succession with the superficial issue of the title of a Queen Regnant's spouse. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The concept of a king consort is not a new invention, and has been used in the past in the UK/England. Language evolves on it's own, and new definitions for words come up all the time, this is not the case of a new definition or usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnQuébécois (talk • contribs) 18:41, 20 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)

Unwarranted rename.
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)
 * Very strange, many major news outlets reported that all 16 realms approved the changes already in October, 2011: Time, Tribune, Sunday Times etc. Brandmeistertalk  21:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should actually read the whole articles, the first one for example paragraph 5: "The changes (which still have to be ratified by Parliament) were announced at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth, Australia, where the Queen has been on tour, listening to didgeridoos and sampling kangaroo stew. ". They all state about the same thing, that yes the "PM"'s approved the changes, but that does not make it fact or law, we live in democratic societies that have procedures for updating our laws, and until this is done it is still proposed.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎  21:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Further to what UnQuébécois says above, what do the media's reports have to do with the odd retitle of the article? In the edit summary of the move, it's indicated the act was "approved". Where was this even proposed, let alone approved? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's clear that User:Brandmeister misinterpreted the press reports at the time of the PMs' meeting last year. The proposals have not - then or subsequently - been "approved" by anyone, except as a matter of principle by the PMs, and still have to go through the various constitutional stages in the different countries.  The Time report, for instance, notes that the changes "still have to be ratified by Parliament".  That is, they are still proposals.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That it was approved is a verifiable fact. I wonder why there was no further update in the media about ratification. Royal.gov.uk does not write a word either. It is strange that such a major proposal is waiting for formal authorization for almost a year now. Brandmeistertalk  22:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because a PM approves a change, does not make it fact or law.
 * You also have to consider that people who live in parts of the world where democracy is either non existent or not really democratic have different concepts of how things happen. In many countries "legislative approval required" only means that the "legislature" needs to rubber stamp what the "leader" says. (Sometimes it works that way here in Canada also, but not in this case!)--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎  22:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see now I used confusing wording, which doesn't help an already confusing matter. The "act" I referred to above was that of moving the article. In the edit summary for the move, it was said "no longer a proposal, approved". Since that was the given explanation for the page move, I assumed it was the move that was proposed and approved and I had never seen any proposal for a move, let alone approval for one. Now I wonder if it was the changes to the succession that Brandmeister meant were no longer a proposal and had been approved. If that is the case, then, besides being untrue, what justification is it for moving the article to under such a biased title? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with your latter interpretation of the edit summary, I think assumed that because the PM approved making the changes in Oct 2011, that the changes were in fact approved. Even if these changes ever get actual approval ie. legislative passage & royal assent, "British" is not at all a correct title for this article, for many reasons (not counting the 15 non "British" countries involved!)--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎   23:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there should be some consistency between Succession to the British throne and "royal succession in the Commonwealth realms" to indicate that they are not different things. Particularly, the word "rules" in the current title looks redundant to me (will not insist anyway). Brandmeistertalk  23:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You might be correct that we should have some consistency, however, that is not justification to just change the current article's name based on two false "assumptions". The rules that govern the royal succession are flexible, and are currently uniform in 16 realms, the rules governing the succession in each of the realms are what is being talked about here, not the succession. I am not sure where that is redundant? In my opinion, Succession to the British throne is somewhat inaccurate, but it is also factual. It is the British throne, it is the Canadian throne, it is the Australian throne, it is the Scottish throne, etc... and at some point some could possibly diverge. That is not the point right now, and any potential renaming needs to be discussed as it will certainly be controversial due to the subject. --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎  23:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

"2011 proposals to reform royal succession in the Commonwealth realms" is shorter. DrKay (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And so "are": "2011 proposal(s) to update succession rules of/in the Commonwealth realms", but yet the current one is the title that was agreed upon at the time. And any further renaming needs to be made by consensus, not just someone arbitrarily choosing something. I am okay with the current title, but would not oppose an agreed upon renaming if it made sense.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎  12:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I never said or meant that a name should be chosen arbitrarily. DrKay (talk) 07:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, but the recent page move to 2011 reform of succession to the British throne was arbitrarily chosen by a user with no apparent comprehension of the subject.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎  15:40, 17 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)
 * I'm not worried that the title will need to be changed anytime soon! No legislative actions have taken place since the big announcement! --MrBoire (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

any chance of an update?
well researched and thorough article but surely something must have happened since October 2011.Nankai (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No doubt unreported meetings have been held, but no legislation has been tabled. It's complicated.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

baby on the way for WIlliam & Kate
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)
 * When the legislation is passed by the necessary legislations, that will be the case. Although it will presumably happen in due course, it's jumping the gun to say that it's 100% certain at present.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's not official yet, despite what the media are reporting. --Herr Rockefeller (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Required changes to Australian law
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)

Supreme Governor of the Church of England
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)
 * They're required to make an accession oath on or shortly after succeeding. DrKay (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3/12-13/2/contents
 * Act of Settlement (1700) - Section 3
 * 'That whosoever shall hereafter come to the Possession of this Crown shall joyn in Communion with the Church of England as by Law established' Alekksandr (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * So should the OP's unilateral removal of the communion claims be reverted? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Article title
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)
 * I would suggest we hold off on a change to that title, since the changes to the succession rules have not been made, and may still not be. For now, the proposal put forward in 2011 is still the one being worked with. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Rename article Perth Agreement?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

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. &mdash;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)
 * Note: References to an unwieldy title refer to the previous name - 2011 proposals to change the rules of royal succession in the Commonwealth realms Apteva (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that is a very sensible suggestion - the current title is certainly unwieldy. However, I think we should perhaps wait to see how any reliable (non-primary) sources refer to it - the BBC report, for instance, does not use the term "Perth agreement" at all.  The notes to the UK Bill refer to the "Perth agreement" - with lower case a.  One question is whether it should move to Perth Agreement, or Perth agreement.  I don't think there are any other Perth agreements, so I don't think there's any need to include a date, or any explanation of it in the article title.    Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but BBC reporting has tended to be fuzzy, imprecise and inadequate. Qexigator (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We should be guided by WP:CRITERIA and WP:PSTS. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we should let ourselves be guided by logic. We are not talking about a specific agreement, so "Perth Agreement" would tend to make the most sense, regardless of the BBC and ENs. "Perth agreement" sounds like a kind of contract. Analogy also provides a guide; such things are generally capitalised (again leaving aside the BBC). Worrying too much about reliable sources here might be a mistake because the term is rarely used, making a generalisation about how it is "normally" printed basically pointless. If that last sentence raises some red flags by pointing out the dearth of sources, we could always go with 2011 Commonwealth royal succession proposals. It's much shorter than the 13-word monstrosity we have now. -Rrius (talk) 05:41, 14 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)
 * I've requested that it be moved back, since there's clearly no consensus here for the change.
 * I wouldn't object to the name "Perth Agreement" if there were more sources supporting its use; so far we only have one (and, as has already been pointed out, it uses the lower case "a" on "agreement"). A title doesn't have to be supported by a source; so, while "2011 proposals to change the rules of royal succession in the Commonwealth realms" may be a mouthful, using it breaches no Wikipedia policy of guideline. Plus, Rrius offered a perfectly acceptable truncated version. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Mies: It is now part of the ongoing official record:
 * "18. It is of fundamental importance for the Government to take the first step and pass this legislation, although it will not be commenced until the other Commonwealth Realms have put in place the changes which are necessary for them to implement the Perth Agreement." Succession to the Crown Bill, Explanatory Notes., Succession to the Crown Bill 2012 --Qexigator (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is another (or is it in effect the same?) reference to the Perth agreement here, and the term (with lower case a for "agreement") has been re-used by the media here, here, here, here, and here.  I know they are all drawing on essentially the same source, but it shows that the term is becoming used and certainly is more recognisably a common name than the previous 11-word title.  I've no objection to Rrius' suggestion, but in light of Qexigator's source I think there is now an unarguable case for sticking with the title "Perth Agreement".  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I did say my objections would lessen if more sources appeared. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Mies: does that mean your request for move back is withdrawn? Qexigator (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * All I desired was to see the title changed as the result of an established consesnsus; not a unilaterally made move. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No offence, Mies, but I'm adding my voice for Perth Agreement. It might not say much about the content, but neither does Gleneagles or Kyoto or Geneva and everyone knows what I'm talking about. Everyone knows exactly what I'm talking about. "Perth Agreement" is going to be one of those things, especially within the Commonwealth. --Pete (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You do think highly of your theories and projections. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but altering the succession laws is a big deal, and in the centuries to come, i reckon people will refer to the deal as "the Perth Agreement" and not "the 2011 proposals to change the rules of royal succession in the Commonwealth realms". Just a wild-assed guess, I suppose, and I'm more than happy to revisit the issue in the fullness of time. If we can look back in 2112 and see that I was wrong and you were right, I'll cheerfully and graciously support your request for a name change. --Pete (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Mies: Skyring? Pete? Whatever that is about, we certainly know at today's date that what was reported as having been agreed in Perth in 2011 is now known as the Perth Agreement. Time to leave the title as that, no?. Qexigator (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Some documents you'd be interested
The Commons Library issued a research paper 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)

Canadian Legislation split
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)

Recent edits and source changes
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)
 * I don't believe that editor has much experience on Wikipedia. I feel they should proceed a little more cautiously here. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:24, 9 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)

NSW Pledge of Loyalty Act 2006
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)


 * I can't see how it's relevant and the sources didn't relate it back to the Perth Agreement so it's a bunch of WP:SYNTH at the moment. I've reverted the edits. --  Jamie  ut 18:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * (WP:SYNTH) is the synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. As such, I have cited reliable, published legislative Australian constitutional sources that are directly related to the topics referred to in the Legislative processes-section, and directly support the material being presented, along with Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), against undue weight (WP:WEIGHT) to a particular view. The disproportionate undue weight in the Legislative processes section is the (14) references to the term Heirs and Successors as constitutional considerations. Neutrality requires each article fairly and proportionally represents all significant viewpoints. Stephen2nd (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Show me where in your sources it relates to the Perth Agreement and I'll concede the point. --  Jamie  ut 10:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Canada
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)
 * 1) It broke prose only partly into entirely unnecessary bullet points.
 * 2) It eliminated mention of the fact that the Succession to the Throne Act 2013 assents to the Succession to the Crown Bill 2012 as tabled in the British parliament.
 * 3) It needlessly duplicated mention of the House of Commons.
 * 4) It placed references after punctuation.

Perth Agreement/Timetable
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)


 * Looking at WP:SUB it looks like you're correct and you're not supposed to have subpages on articles. Having a quick look at Perth Agreement/Timetable it appears it's been set up so both the Perth Agreement & Succession to the British throne articles don't have to be individually updated so perhaps it would be beneficial to move the timetable somewhere more appropriate and transclude it from there. --  Jamie  ut 20:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * They're impossible in the sense that the software doesn't consider them subpages. They're possible in the sense that you can still create pages at those titles — it would be indeed awkward to have an article on the GNU/Linux naming controversy if we couldn't have slashes in subpages, and lots of people searching for information on September 11, 2001 would be confused when 9/11 gave them MediaWiki:Badtitletext.  The current usage isn't appropriate, but this is a perfect situation for a template: let's just move Perth Agreement/Timetable to something like Perth Agreement Timetable.  Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is that table even at Succession to the British throne? It makes for needless duplication and isn't pertinent to the subject of that article. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that article (Succession to the British throne) is exclusively about the succession under current law. If the law is changed, the article will be updated. Qexigator (talk) 15:26, 18 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. DBD 15:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Now I feel as though I caused you to waste your time... But, I really couldn't see a reason to entirely duplicate that table at the British succession article. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm the one who seems to have wasted time? I do not see why this time-table needs to be in any other article, but I do see the point and usefulness of having the ability to have one place to update certain information that is in multiple articles. Am not too familiar with all the workings of Wikipedia software, did not know you could include one article in another in such a fashion, only templates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talk • contribs) 18:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Status in Australian States
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)

To reconcile the recondite
Each of the two edit summaries
 * 1_unnecessary scare quotes and incorrect "as", which implies a specific version, an implication not present in the actual legislation and
 * 2_it's a direct quote from the legislation

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)

Canada- Quebec
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. 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)

Sophia of Hanover's descendants
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&#39;s New Spy (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * TENS Thomas, The Royalty and Nobility Barnstar: As they say in other places - "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the article - not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."  You know that, but if the question bothers you, why not have a go at some original research? Qexigator (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The UK's more conservative. Moreover, I think they're right. What if they die out, after all? twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Delay.
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)
 * That realm would keep the old rules. The other realms would have to decide whether to carry on regardless with the new rules, or abide by the old ones. The plan is to be unanimous though. Richard75 (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reference for that, Richard? My understanding is that any change affecting the law of succession has to be approved by all the Commonwealth realms, or it applies to none of them. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  20:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That is one interpretation of the preamble to the Statute of Westminster 1931, which appears to say that they all have to agree. However a minister in one of the debates of the UK's Succession to the Crown Act said that it's just a preamble and not legally binding. It will be in Hansard but I'm afraid I can't remember which minister, which reading or even which House! Sorry. Richard75 (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it is still the interpretation that is most widely recognised and considered to be de facto in force. Our article Statute of Westminster 1931, at Implications for succession to the throne, says, inter alia:
 * This means, for example, that any change to the Act of Settlement's provisions barring Roman Catholics from the throne or giving male heirs precedence over females would require the unanimous consent of the parliaments or governments (depending on the wording of each's constitution) of all the other Commonwealth realms if the unity of the Crown is to be retained . The preamble does not itself contain enforceable provisions, it merely expresses a constitutional convention, albeit one fundamental to the basis of the relationship between the Commonwealth realms. (As sovereign nations, each is free to withdraw from the arrangement, using their respective process for constitutional amendment, and no longer be united through common allegiance to the Crown.) This has raised some logistical concerns, as it would mean multiple parliaments and governments would all have to approve any future changes to the lines of succession, as with the Perth Agreement's proposals to abolish male-preference primogeniture. (my underlining)
 * Consequently, I have to disagree with your initial answer. It may in fact work out that way in the long run in a real-life case, but I expect there would be a great deal of argy-bargy before that solution was ever considered, and that would include inviting the recalcitrant realm to consider its position in relation to the Crown (i.e. asking it to become a republic) if it was not going to honour its agreement in principle given at Perth.  Going ahead without that realm's agreement certainly would not be the first solution that springs to mind.  Probably the last, and to that extent your answer is somewhat misleading.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  22:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you are being argumentative. I basically said the same thing you just have, and the chunk of text you just quoted doesn't even contradict what I said. Richard75 (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, here is the source you asked for: 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)
 * Australia won't finish the process until all of its states do. So South Australia can hold the whole thing up. Richard75 (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Monarchies in Europe
Editors may wish to note that an update mentioning Perth Agreement has been made to "Succession laws" section of Monarchies in Europe. --Qexigator (talk) 08:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I presume you meant this edit. Richard75 (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes - thanks for correction. Qexigator (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

inline citations tag
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)
 * There are templates for citations. There are a number of references on here that don't use those (this, for a recent example). Hence, the 'References' section shows a mish-mash of different citations styles, many with insufficient information. I've corrected some of these in the past. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Noted, and the recent removal of refs from lead is welcome, but maybe need not occasion carping about one or two instances of ref. formatting. The ref. mentioned above is helpful as it stands, irrespective of conformity with a proposed single format style, which may loose the informative value. Qexigator (talk) 18:31, 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)
 * It's a lot more work to get and fill the template (the requisite info isn't there in the article, you'll note) than it is to place the maintenance tag. And you miss the point: editors should be formatting their cites properly when they add them, not dump them in and say "meh, someone else can fix it up". There are editors who regularly contribute to this page but just dump in bare urls (which aren't allowed) or utterly minimal cites, blatantly ignoring the maintenance tags reminding them to get their work up to Wikipedia standards. Also, it seems a little hypocritical to use time that could've been put toward fixing the cites to complain that someone who's tagging the cites as incomplete could use that time to fix the cites. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  01:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Noted that the above comment puts one editor's desire to control the input of others above the need to avoid littering the article from the readers' pov. It's a matter of checks and balances, which is the Wikipedia way, given the varying aptitudes, skills and inclinations of bona fide editors whose intent is to contribute not dump. Qexigator (talk) 07:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think "adhering to Wikipedia guidelines" equals "controlling the input of others", you should take your beef to User talk:Jimbo Wales. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Saint Kitts and Nevis?
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)
 * Their parliament's website doesn't say whether it has had royal assent or not. Don't know where else to look. Richard75 (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What about the other realms? 101090ABC (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Is Jersey listable here?
An editor has inserted Jersey in the Timetable. 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 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 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: "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)


 * I have personally read |the Jersey legislation and wondered where should it be listed. The effect of the legislation is neither Canada's (consenting the Westminster statute) nor NZ's (a local legislation that is effectively the same as Westminster's)--it is just a law declaring Jersey's sovereign is the one in the UK. Sec. 2(1) stated "[t]he death of the Sovereign shall have the effect of transferring all [...] belonging to the Crown to the Sovereign’s successor as determined in accordance with the Act of Settlement 1700 of the United Kingdom and any other law of the United Kingdom relating to succession to the Crown." While the preamble did mention the Perth Agreement, its effect is more pervasive than the net effects of UK, Canadian or NZ acts. It don't really belong to SCA 2013--but where?-- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  03:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Royal Assent (Australian Federal Government)
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, or any other assented bill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:5D80:8205:68F6:B86F:8F14:CA4B (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Federal Parliament's website now clearly shows that Assent has been given. 101090ABC (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Implementation in all 16 countries
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)


 * The problem is that so far, the source is not the instrument required, but a mere written say-so statement in UK parliament. Qexigator (talk) 09:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not a problem, because the source does not have to be a primary source. Indeed, secondary sources are preferred. Richard75 (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is the best source we have, and until the instrument is published for all to see, we have nothing better. But the problem is, why has it not been published? If it has not been made, that is a notable piece of information, because without it, the UK act has not been brought into effect, so what credence has Mr Clegg's written statement? Qexigator (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well give them time. Until then, Verifiability, not truth. Richard75 (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * They have had more than enough time, whether measured in years from enactment of the first of the acts, or weeks from Australia's tail ender. There may be a story behind this, if any external source can be bothered to investigate and report. Clerical error? Computer glitch? Canny politics? It's no longer the big popular story it was when it started, but are we still left with the challenge in Quebec? Qexigator (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant time to publish the commencement orders, which were only made yesterday. In the UK they have just had to put up 21 new Acts of Parliament on the legislation website, so secondary legislation will be low priority for them at the moment. In the meantime, the source we gave is sufficient. Richard75 (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no need for anyone here to excuse either their delay, or our use of the only sources so far available in UK and Canada. The time was prearranged at least a week ago. The Lord President's draft order should have been ready from day one (say day after UK royal assent), in proof not less than a few days ago, and in print and online immediately after Clegg's statement on 26 March. The numerous SIs listed here does not suggest input time for this one was lacking. Qexigator (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with what you say, but their tardiness is not a reason not to use the source available. Richard75 (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, and when the required instruments have come online it will still be citable. Qexigator (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Resolved.. --Qexigator (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Quebec lawsuit
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)

"Fully in force" column
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)
 * Agreed. AnonAnnu (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Simultaneous implementation
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)
 * "Just accept it" isn't an argument and you don't command others. There's nothing disputing the assertion the acts came into force on the same day, since, well, that's a reliably sourced fact. There is, however, no source saying they were all timed to come into force according to "UK time". The only commencement order that mentions "UK time" is Australia's. (In fact, New Zealand's very clearly says "New Zealand daylight time".) -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1 pm New Zealand daylight time is midnight UK time. They were all to come into effect simultaneously. Why is that hard to understand? Richard75 (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is one source: explanatory note for UK's act (see paragraph 42). Richard75 (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The New Zealand commencement order doesn't say "UK time", as you asserted it did. None do (so far as we now know) except for Australia's. The claim everything was coordinated to UK time is thus a fabrication; WP:OR at best. It was coordinated so they all came into effect on 26 March. That's affirmed and good enough. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it said "UK time," but 1pm New Zealand time is the same thing. You are just splitting hairs to suit your insane agenda because you have nothing of substance to back up what you are saying. And are you seriously trying to suggest that the UK parliament fabricated an agreement which never existed? The source I just cited above is a government document which accompanied the UK bill: I suggest you read it (para. 42). Richard75 (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're just inventing agendas to deflect from your inability to provide a source that says the timing of all commencement orders was coordinated to UK time. Your "government document" still fails to support the claim. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well how much more do you need?! That document says that they had all agreed to do it at the same time, the Australian and New Zealand commencement orders brought in the changes at the same exact time as the UK did, but you want to assume that the other countries suddenly went their own way and brought in their own changes out of sync? Why? Richard75 (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "All agree to do it at the same time" is not the same as "All agreed to do it at a designated UK time". (1pm NZ time is 1am UK time; by your theory, then, all realms would've made their commencement orders for 1am UK time. But, that's 8pm on the 25th in Canada, and the Canadian PM said the Canadian act came into effect on the 26th. So, even your unsourced contemplating doesn't work out.)
 * The article already says the agreement was to implement the laws on the same day and they all did so. Why you're still arguing is beyond me. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't even understand what you are saying any more. I showed you a source that says they all agreed to do it at the same time -- not just the same day, but the same hour -- and three commencement orders that implement the changes at the same hour of the same day. I don't know why you are so hung up over this. Richard75 (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I just showed you how "the same hour", even as a theory, doesn't work. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No you didn't! You just retrospectively added that in this edit which you did after I replied to you! But to answer your argument: New Zealand daylight time is 13 hours ahead of Greenwich Meantime, so their 1pm is the UK's midnight: Time in New Zealand. Richard75 (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it was done while you were replying to me. When it was done is irrelevant. Your "answer" (even if correct) doesn't save your theory from my point; in fact, it only strengthens it: 12am on the 26th UK time is 7pm on the 25th in Canada (Central Time). -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Mies.'s edit is undoubtedly correct. The normal rule in law is that a day is the whole day, and in this case the timing was obviously from the first time zone after the date line to the last. None of those involved in the timing can be supposed to have thought otherwise. The timing of Clegg's statement at midday UK time, doubtless pre-arranged, would be the practical way of doing it. His commencement order, we can now see, is dated, as usual, by the day, and no mention is made of the hour.  Simple enough, isn't it? There can be no need to specify the hour here, let alone UK time, even if that were correct according to sources. Qexigator (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the commencement orders for Australia and New Zealand? Richard75 (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. That may be a notable minor detail for a NZ or Oz article but not here, where it would be less than trivial. Qexigator (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Australian order refers to "...the beginning of 26 March 2015 by United Kingdom time as the time and day on which Parts 2, 3 and 4 of, and Schedule 1 to, that Act commence." And the NZ order says "Parts 1 and 2 of the Royal Succession Act 2013 come into force at 1 pm on 26 March 2015 (New Zealand daylight time)," which is when 26 March begins in the UK. I don't agree it's trivial: it would be misleading to the reader to allow the article to suggest that the changes were phased in over a 24 hour period as each time zone reached midnight, when it had been agreed that the rules in each country would stay the same, and the legislation in each country was drafted to achieve that. Richard75 (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Please re-read more carefully my comment, and you will see that there is nothing in the NZ or Oz instruments which make any difference to my point, and the present version is not misleading to a reader. If you wish to try this on a NZ or Oz article, go ahead (but in my view it would be better not, because it is likely to mislead readers in the way that you may be adrift), but please do not persist with it here. I have seen somewhere that there is a WP about a dead horse. Qexigator (talk) 19:39, 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)


 * Given the content of the article, it is self-evident that the governments responsible for the legislation applying in the various time zones of realms around the globe, faithful to the PE, contrived to let commencement run from the same day local time, allowing for the earth/sun 24 hour (approx.) rotation, and in the knowledge that, of the legislating realms, NZ was nearest the date line, Oz next (with its multiple time zones) and so on. There is an old adage about the sun never setting... (sc. Commonwealth realms). Had there been a gap of an hour or two from one day to the next, or even 24 hours or more, it would in reality make no difference to the succession, in the event of a demise of the crown in that time. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No they didn't! If they had, then NZ would have had it's order take effect from the beginning of the day, NZ time. They started at 1 pm NZ time. Why are you having do much trouble understanding that? Richard75 (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Again: If it were 1am or 12am on the 26th UK time that all the commencements were coordinated to, that would be 7 or 8pm on the 25th in Canada (Central Time). The Canadian Prime Minister said the Canadian act came into force on the 26th, not the 25th. How do you explain that? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I see your point about Canada. I'll wait until they publish their commencement order and we'll see what it says then. Richard75 (talk) 00:02, 31 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)
 * The Prime Minister of Canada said the Canadian act was brought into force on the 26th. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, clearly it wasn't. Not from a Canadian point of view. When it came into force, it was the 25th in Canada, n'est ce pas? --Pete (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You'll have to take it up with Stephen Harper. His contact details are here. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a simple question. No high-level interpretation needed. What was the actual date in Canada? --Pete (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no question. The Prime Minister of Canada issued on 26 March 2015 "the following statement on the coming into force of the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013: 'I am delighted today that Canada is joining the Realms of the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand... in bringing legislation into force that gives assent to changes to the rules governing the line of succession." -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  03:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Mies. You look to be in the wrong on this. The agreement was implemented in a number of nations around the world. Giving the time in UTC is standard practice, supported by WP:MOSTIME. --Pete (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You look to be ignoring sources that contradict your theory and to by trying to insert your personal theory into Wikipedia. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry? Do we have some other convention apart from that described in the Manual of Style? This is no personal theory. It is what we do. It is the way we form our articles so that all editors use a common style. --Pete (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Richard75: I surmise that most readers and editors are able to understand that there is a distinction between a day as a single unit, bounded by midnight to midnight, as it traverses the surface of the globe, and the 24 hourly units into which each of those days is conventionally divided, and subject to local time determined by legislation and international treaty. There is no need for this discussion to continue, as nothing you have been asserting or proposing contributes to improving the article, unlike some other edits which you have been making. Qexigator (talk) 22:40, 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)

UTC unsourced
No source supports The changes came fully into force throughout the Commonwealth realms simultaneously on 26 March 2015 (UTC). 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)
 * UK, named no specific hour of 26 March, UTC or other.
 * Australia, fixed the beginning of 26 March UK time.
 * NZ, named specific hour: 1 pm on 26 March (New Zealand daylight time)
 * (Harper, Canada, as of 26 March Canada time, named no specific hour of 26 March, UTC or other).


 * Herewith an extract from WP:MOSTIME:
 * Give dates and times appropriate to the time zone where an event took place. For example, the date of the attack on Pearl Harbor should be December7, 1941 (Hawaii time/ date). Give priority to the place at which the event had its most significant effects; for example, if a hacker based in Japan attacked a Pentagon computer in the US, use the time zone for the Pentagon, where the attack had its effect. In some cases the best solution may be to add the date and time in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). For example:
 * &bull;  8p.m. Eastern Standard Time on January15, 2001 (01:00UTC, January16)


 * Alternatively, include just the UTC offset:
 * &bull; 21:00British Summer Time (UTC+1) on 27July 2012


 * I'm quite sure that with a bit of digging, we can uncover the exact times for each, as well as sources noting that the agreement was implemented simultaneously. However, I don't think that sourcing is the real problem here. I think that the difficulty might be something that only Mies can explain, and without touching upon the nub of the matter, we are just creating stress and misunderstanding for all editors involved, and that is not a good thing for coöperative editing. This should be a straightforward matter. Why is it something for debate, edit-warring and hard words on user pages?


 * Here is the New Zealand implementation. Do we really need to uncover sixteen different sources, one for each Realm, to discover that surprise, surprise, surprise, they all work out to the exact same UTC time? --Pete (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As I expected, sources confirming the simultaneity of the implementation were not difficult to find. Anne Twomey, professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Sydney, says, "Since 2011, a mammoth effort has been undertaken to ensure the rules of succession will be the same in each of these realms, so that in future the Crown remains held by the same monarch. Australia was the last realm to complete its legislation. As a consequence, on March 26 the changes to succession to the Crown across all the realms came into effect simultaneously at 11am Australian Eastern Daylight Time."


 * This works out to midnight UK time. Do we want to state the exact time of commencement for each Realm in the article or do we want to use one time? The fact that the legislation was implemented simultaneously across several Realms is notable, for two reasons. First, it ensured that should some catastrophe arise, the various Realms did not have different sovereigns. Second, it was the joyful conclusion to a long and delicate process. As for other, more commonplace examples of simultaneity. --Pete (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 12:00am on the 26th UK time is 7:00pm on the 25th Central Time. The source from Canada says the Canadian commencement order was issued on the 26th. Not only are your claims original research, they rely on ignoring verified facts. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing it. Could you quote the exact wording, please? If we have a contradiction with other sources, such as Professor Twomey above, it would be useful to find where the truth lies. --Pete (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Given to you already at 03:31, 31 March 2015. Please pay attention to the responses people take their time to give you. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but no, I'm still not able to find it. Do you have a diff? Perhaps someone else can help? --Pete (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this diff is what you were referring to, but in anticipation of my little joke above, Harper's comment only gives a date ("today") for his delight: I am delighted today that Canada is joining the Realms of the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Barbados, St. Kitts and Nevis and St. Vincent and the Grenadines in bringing legislation into force that gives assent to changes to the rules governing the line of succession. I'm not sure that we can build up such a personal sensation into an actual constitutional fact. --Pete (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Canada is joining the [other] Realms... in bringing legislation into force." -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course. That's what he says. But we're talking about the exact time, and Harper is silent on that point. He says, "I am delighted today…" We see similar uses of this formula in other statements. For example he states that I was saddened today to hear of the death of Singapore’s former Prime Minister and founding father, Lee Kuan Yew. The article is dated 22 March 2015, but in fact Lee Kuan Yew did not die on that date. Harper's use of "today" has no effect other than to datestamp his personal emotion. I can find other examples if you wish. It is a common practice. --Pete (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Straw man. "I am delighted today [26 March] that Canada is [emphasis mine] joining the [other] realms... in bringing legislation into force that gives assent to changes to the rules governing the line of succession." It takes a deliberate twisting of English syntax to read "is" as past tense, which is how one would have to read it to conclude Harper was saying Canada's legislation came into force on the day before he made his statement. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not following your contorted logic here. I'm not saying that at all. Sorry if you misunderstood - I thought I made myself plain. Stephen Harper's reference to time ("I am delighted today…") refers to his delight. His personal emotion is here and now, though the event to which he refers will necessarily have happened some time in the past. If he was referring to the time of implementation, rather than his reaction to it, he would have used a different construction. "'I am delighted that Canada is today joining the Realms of the United Kingdom…", perhaps. The example of his statement on the death of Lee Kuan Yew has a similar wording. We could not take his public statement of personal sadness as a reference for the actual time of LKY's demise. That would be nonsensical, and likewise we cannot take Harper's expression of delight as some sort of timestamping of the event to which he refers. Not unless he makes some explicit statement.
 * I'm not sure you understand this point. He could use exactly the same words today or at any point in the future, and they would be correct. His delight is here and now, but the event is in the past. If I say, "I am delighted today to be married to my wife", that is an acknowledgement of my current satisfaction with an event now long in the past, the exact date which is occasionally lost in the mists of time. --Pete (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "I am delighted today [26 March] that Canada is [emphasis mine] joining the [other] realms... in bringing legislation into force that gives assent to changes to the rules governing the line of succession." It takes a deliberate twisting of English syntax to read "is" as past tense, which is how one would have to read it to conclude Harper was saying Canada's legislation came into force on the day before he made his statement. It takes another deliberate contortion to read "delight" as the subject of the sentence. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not what I am saying, Mies. How many times do I have to deny your interpretation of my comment? Once should be sufficient. Harper's delight is what "today" references, just as he uses similar wordings to describe his emotions at other events, clearly in the past. "I was saddened today," he says when - talking about the death] of Knowlton Nash, which had actually occurred the previous day. We cannot take Harper's "today" as a reliable darestamp for anything but the date of his statement. Yet you are attempting to give it some sort of official gazette significance. --Pete (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, once was sufficient to show you're misreading a source (a common problem for you). -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Whether I'm misreading a source or not isn't the question. We can discuss and find harmonious agreement there, I am sure. It is your interpretation of my comment that is the point. I know what i said and I know what I meant. Your interpretation is wrong. I reject it. Simple as that. --Pete (talk) 20:52, 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)
 * If that wording, with UTC, is flawed, then let it be rectified by using Clegg's words to say 'The changes had come into effect across the Commonwealth realms on 26 March 2015'. That suffices, and looks like the best we can do based on current sources. Qexigator (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's essentially what Harper said, as well, and the date alone does suffice. The original research reliant on misreading certain sources does not. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:45, 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)
 * Good point! But this could be an irony free zone, and is by definition a copyright free one. Qexigator (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Mostly resolved
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)
 * It appears some still don't see the matter as resolved, continuing to insist their weak synthesis is fact. (Or just continuing to edit war and argue obscurely because they're bored.) -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Noted. At this stage, we should all be sticking as closely as possible to such sources as we have, and not be attempting to reconcile or construct clarity where sources seemingly conflict. If it turns out that Canada's commencement is on the face of it irreconcileable with any of the others, or with Harper's statement, then it may be necessary to make some npov remark or annotation in the article, but not SYNthetically. Qexigator (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Harper's announcement on the 26th does not give any specific time for the implementation, only that he "is pleased today". He could have used more specific wording. I'm still not seeing a source for the exact timing. The latest Gazette doesn't mention this, and the online text of the Act says "*[Note: Act not in force.]". Given that Australia and New Zealand took pains to ensure that their Acts came into force at the beginning of the 26th (UK time) - a most unusual step, and in the case of Australia explicitly stated - I would be astonished if Canada was not part of the arrangement. That's my educated guess, which of course we can't state as fact, but we have Professor Twomey saying: Since 2011, a mammoth effort has been undertaken to ensure the rules of succession will be the same in each of these realms, so that in future the Crown remains held by the same monarch. Australia was the last realm to complete its legislation. As a consequence, on March 26 the changes to succession to the Crown across all the realms came into effect simultaneously at 11am Australian Eastern Daylight Time.


 * It is reasonable to accept that "all the realms" includes Canada. The fact that at least three Realms ensured that the Act came into effect simultaneously is in itself unusual and therefore notable. Canada could be the odd man/person out, and while we can't rule out this unprecedented possibility, neither can we just make stuff up. --Pete (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is simply a rehash of already defeated arguments and synthesis. The tense of Harper's statement is clear: present; "Canada is [present tense] joining the [other] Realms... in bringing legislation into force that gives assent to changes to the rules governing the line of succession." The present on 26 March was 26 March. Because that doesn't fit into your personal theory about coordination to an exact hour doesn't mean you can either disregard it or pretend it says something else. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to be persuaded by facts, Mies, but Harper's statement is not exact. If I may just pedantically correct you, Harper is not using the present tense, as you claim. In saying "Canada is joining the other Realms…" he is using the Present continuous tense to describe an ongoing action. One might argue, as you appear to do, that this is something happening at the exact moment of Harper's announcement, but I think this is coming it a little high. I think we can accept that it is an event which is on a longer timescale than seconds or minutes. Not my "personal theory", Mies. Professor Twomey says that it was simultaneous across the Realms, so is she incorrect in saying this and Canada actually waited twelve hours or so after the UK, Australia and New Zealand had implemented the legislation, do you think? --Pete (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're adding your synthesis to the article. That's not allowed. That's what primarily matters.
 * Secondarily, your synthesis would be sound only if Harper used the past tense on the 26th--has joined--rather than the present tense he uses on the 26th--"is joining". -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Pete's remarks get us no further, and no attempt to force the issue by pre-emptive edits is acceptable. Any one or more of the so far verified sources may be mistaken, including Twomey. The Canada Government website says 'Act, current to 2015-03-24', and if the Gazette is dilatory, we must yet wait awhile, as we all waited for Australia, whose federal government may have been especially spurred to use best endeavours to be as exact as they thought they could. Qexigator (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC) 21:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course we must wait for exact details. Your claim that the Act was implemented on 26 March is unsourced. You rail against synthesis, but here you are doing it yourself! Do you not see this as ironic? --Pete (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ottawa, Ontario - 26 March 2015: Prime Minister Stephen Harper today issued the following statement on the coming into force of the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013... "today....Canada is joining the Realms of the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Barbados, St. Kitts and Nevis and St. Vincent and the Grenadines in bringing legislation into force that gives assent to changes to the rules governing the line of succession." That does not leave much room for doubt first, that Harper was speaking in Canada about Canada time/s, and secondly, that if the statement is truthful a commencement instrument had been made, on an as yet unkown day, making 26th March the day of commencement in Canada, whatever the day at that time was elsewhere. Qexigator (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's going one step further than what Harper actually said. Consider these possible constructions"
 * I am delighted today that Canada is joining the Realms of the United Kingdom, Australia…
 * I am delighted that today Canada is joining the Realms of the United Kingdom, Australia…
 * I am delighted that Canada is today joining the Realms of the United Kingdom, Australia…
 * Wording 1 is what he actually said, and the word "that" is crucial in its location. All it means is that today he is delighted about something, and that something is what follows after the word "that". Wordings 2 and 3 would retain his delight, but make it quite clear that the event was "today". Again, I refer to other statements by Harper, where he says he is "pleased today" or "saddened today" about events which actually occurred at other times. Are we to assume that for this one statement he has departed from his previous formula to present a different meaning, one which just happens to coincide with whatever barrow Mies is pushing and which goes against our other source of Professor Twomey? Listening to her speak, she strikes me as a person who is interested in the exact meanings of words and phrases, especially in a constitutional context, and isn't being sloppy in her use of the word "simultaneous". --Pete (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * An interesting construction of Harper's emotions, as if his words had been composed poetically and exposed for old-time scrutiny among students in an English literature class. Chop logic can be a distraction, like candyfloss at a funfair, when hot cross buns are in season. Twomey presents her reasoning well enough, but an advocate, responsible for pleading a case, like Portia, will have a feeling when reasoning can be unduly astute and the point at issue lost. The question before us is whether the judges in the final analysis will rule against the federal government? Crystal balling is said to be deprecated here, so the question can be no more than a moot point until the outcome is known. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I was fascinated by Twomey's knowledge of the subject. I particularly like her comment about some of the lesser Realms fudging things. The British crown won't "explode" because the Bermuda parliament didn't get everything quite right, I'm sure, but it was interesting to follow her logic on the Canadian matter. Again, there will be an answer found, and given the situation with those in line, probably no a matter of much urgency.
 * Likewise we will have to wait for the other Canadian question to be resolved definitively. Twomey says it was simultaneous, she's a reliable source, Harper does not rule it out. --Pete (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Link to Twomey lecture
+An informative link to an explanatory lecture on video: ''Professor Anne Twomey - Succession to the Crown: foiled by Canada? (18th Sept 2014)'' (39 min.)( has been added to 'Commonwealth realm'. --Qexigator (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm listening to her speak, and I think her knowledge of and indeed passion for her subject is apparent. She is someone listened to at government level. My one complaint is that she does not have a mellow voice, and if she grates on my antipodean ears, she must be inflicting serious injury on those of more sensitive folk! --Pete (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Campaigning academic's tendentious self-promoting blog
I am somewhat amused to see this description of Professor Anne Twomey and her entry in [https://theconversation.com/power-to-the-princesses-australia-wraps-up-succession-law-changes-39370 "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)

First six in line
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)
 * Younger brothers are often like that. --Pete (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Legislation for St Lucia
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)
 * There's already a source in the timetable. Richard75 (talk) 10:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not see in that 'source' the clarification called for. Qexigator (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've corrected it (and the Bahamas). DrKay (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Commencement order?
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)


 * Agree, let the Timetable be as in revised version, headed '...26 March 2015' and three columns: Realm, Parliamentary progress (includes when passed) and Royal Assent. Qexigator (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Since, to the best of our knowledge, commencement orders specified the 26th as the date that the law went into force, all commencement orders would have been dated either the 24th or the 25th. It really doesn't tell the reader very much to specify which of those dates it was and given that the more important date is the date the law actually went into force, the dates of the commencement order itself is little more than minutia - and hard to find minutia in the case of the small island states that don't publish their orders in council online. 147.194.16.123 (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite so, as agreed above, but let the citations in current version be retained. Qexigator (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The Catholic thing
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:
 * On the question of continued requirements that the sovereign be a Protestant, Cameron added, "Let me be clear, the monarch must be in communion with the Church of England because he or she is the head of that Church.

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)

Listing of Canada
Should Canada even be listed in the template, if its succession is still male-preference? GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do you think it is still male preference? TFD (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If I'm reading the article Monarchy of Canada accurately, its 2015 succession act hasn't gone into effect yet & the act's constitutionality is being challenged. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are not reading the Monarchy of Canada article accurately. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  19:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It has gone into effect. it recognizes the UK law as determining the succession.  The fact that there is a challenge to the law is irrelevant unless it is ultimately successful.  And the position of the Canadian government is that the Canadian law was unnecessary, since the King or Queen of Canada is whoever happens to be the sovereign in the UK.  TFD (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the act is in effect, but the law itself actually doesn't recognise the UK law as determining succession in Canada; there's no provision stating as much, even in the preamble. The government at the time just said the act (which only grants parliament's "assent" to the British bill) was all that's necessary and UK law would do the rest. The question remains as to whether or not the government's claims about the preamble to the Constitution Act 1867 are correct and the Succession to the Throne Act 2013 actually changed anything in regard to Canadian law. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  19:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please take any further discussion of this issue to Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada to keep the discussion in one place. Meters (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Quebec ruling
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&#39;s Hood (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 16 :The text in the article was "Canada was committed to having symmetrical lines to the throne with other Commonwealth realms and that it was sufficient for parliament to assent to the British legislation regarding succession". The implication there is that assent to the British legislation made Canada's succession identical to that of the other Commonwealth realms. In fact, the quote from the ruling is "Canada 'did not have to change its laws nor its Constitution for the British royal succession rules to be amended, and assent to them was enough according to the preamble of the Statute of Westminster (1931) and constitutional convention.'" Those two quotes do not make the same claim. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  01:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the difference but if you prefer we can use your translation rather than my paraphrasing and leave it at that. Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how it's pertinent to this article that Canada's assent to the British laws was enough for the British royal succession rules to be amended. That's more a matter for Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 than here. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  01:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The article goes into some detail regarding the different ways different realms went about enacting the Perth Agreement and related legal issues so it:s relevant to that. What do other editors think? Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We should be careful not to let zeal get the better of editorial judgment.To my mind the current version suffices at this stage, until all concerned, whether as Wikipedia contributors or external RS, have had time for mature consideration. Bear in mind, this is not the place to go too far into the finer and remoter points of legal reasoning with these questions, which are inevitably vexed, and can prove practically insoluble by acknowledged authorities learned in local law, legal history and the jurisprudence of all legal systems. A court of law will usually be cautious in giving anything more than such reasons as are necessary to the decision, such as dismissing an application for a declaration in a provincial court. It is highly unlikely that the judge has pioneered any new doctrine or principle of law: if he has, it will be a sensation in legal circles around the world, and we will be aware of it soon enough; and whatever was decided there is not, as I understand it, formally binding outside the province or in any other jurisdiction of the Commonwealth realms. Qexigator (talk) 09:42, 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Perth Agreement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140306223726/http://www.gov.kn/node/1480 to http://www.gov.kn/node/1480

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Canada 2
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)
 * The Australian and NZ sections begin in much the same way, but each is linked to the article about its own legislation, which should suffice. Given that the opening sentence in the lead links to Succession to the British throne, and that article includes the succession acts in the See also section, and the summary of past history in the Background section, I am inclined to agree that the past history about the line of succession (status quo ante Perth Agreement), common to all the realms, would be better left out from these sections. Qexigator (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed it but notice an editor has restored it with the notation, "restore sourced over personal interpretations." However, the section says later "The position taken by the federal Cabinet was that Canada has no royal succession laws." So the removed text is misleading.  TFD (talk) 02:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It is sourced and relevant material. It cannot be removed because you deem it "misleading". Calling reliably sourced facts "misleading" and implying one currently challenged opinion of a provincial court obliterates all past opinion and facts are exactly the personal interpretations I referred to. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  02:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * How is it relevant if none of the parts of these laws touching on succession were ever part of Canadian law? Also, relevance has not been established by using any sources about the Perth Agreement, hence it is synthesis.  TFD (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The sentence is a series of reliably sourced facts. It puts forward no theory or conclusion. Ergo, it is not synthesis of any kind. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  13:30, 3 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)
 * It may not be the answer you want, but it's demonstrably not disingenuous. The content stands as proof that what I said was true.
 * If you find it personally offensive that some (including the Supreme Court and judges you've quoted yourself on other talk pages) have said certain laws are part of Canada's laws, take it up with the authors of the sources. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  14:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The Supreme Court case used as a source says that parliamentary privilege in the Bill of Rights 1689 is part of the law of Canada. It says nothing about succession although your phrasing implies it does.  Since legal experts have decided that nothing in the Bill of Rights concerning the succession has ever been part of Canadian law, why do you think we should imply it does?  TFD (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The Supreme Court said the Bill of Rights of 1689 is "undoubtedly in force as part of the law of Canada". That's all this article asserts.
 * You cannot chose which legal experts get their opinions included in Wikipedia based upon whether you agree with them or not. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  15:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Then why do you insist on including those sources that say the Royal Marriages Act is a part of the law of Canada, and exclude those that say very explicitly that it isn't? DrKay (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've not removed any sourced material. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  03:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Do the rules have effect in Canada?
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)

pretty pictures
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)

Prince Henry in current line
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:
 * Court Circular, 5 September 2017:
 * 'Prince Henry of Wales, Patron, Rugby Football Union, this morning attended a briefing session at Twickenham Stadium, Whitton Road, Twickenham, Middlesex.'
 * 'The Duke of Cambridge and Prince Henry of Wales this afternoon visited the Support4Grenfell Hub at the Phoenix Brewery...' Qexigator (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * What about the prince formerly known as Harry? I agree since that is the name he uses, although the media prefer "Prince Harry."  TFD (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The point is covered (avoiding UNDUE) by the inline link to Prince Harry that begins Prince Henry of Wales KCVO (Henry Charles Albert David;[fn 2] born 15 September 1984), familiarly known as Prince Harry, with a footnote to Henry (given name), which states in the second paragraph Harry, its English short form, was considered the "spoken form" of Henry in medieval England. The list in the linked Harry includes many whose given name was Harry, such as Harry Andrews, but Harry Belafonte's given name was Harold. Qexigator (talk) 06:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

persons affectable

 * On the day the changes came into effect in March 2015, the first of the persons affected by the headline provision were the children of Lady Davina Windsor, …

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)