Talk:Succession to the Crown Act 2013

Links
Link to bill (properly titled "Succession to the Crown Bill 2012-13" - article name change?) is here http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/successiontothecrown.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.231.229.98 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 13 December 2012‎
 * The link for "If the current text of the bill passes" may need fixing. Is the bill being introduced in Commons or Lords? Editors' enthusiasm for updating the article may result in some unintended edit conflict, and tidying up may be needed later. Qexigator (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Title
Have put 2012-13 here and at Succession to the Crown Bill. Support changing title of this article to "Succession to the Crown Bill 2012-13". Qexigator (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we know that it is officially titled that way? I thought (I'm quite prepared to be told I'm wrong) that the Bill was dated at the time when it was introduced, and the Act at the time when it was enacted.  So, the same legislation could go from being "....Bill, 2012" to "....Act, 2013" - with no mention in its title, at any point, of a period 2012-13.  Am I right or wrong on that?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: Ahh... I see, you're right and I'm wrong.  Fair enough!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That link isn't actually proof of anything. The pages for bills introduced in the 2012–13 session are all listed with "2012–13" appended. Even acts that have received the Royal Assent are so treated. See European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Act 2012-13. Clearly that is the European Union...Act 2012, so we can put that naming system right out of our minds. Normal practice would be to call this Succession to the Crown Bill 2012 until it passes or to call it that until the end of the year, then Succession to the Crown Bill 2013 until it passes. See, for example House of Lords Reform Bill 2012, which is listed by Parliament thusly. So I support dropping the punctuation from the current title, but otherwise leaving it alone. -Rrius (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Rrius: 1_Them-- Yes, the website reports the progress of the bill with 2012-13 as part of the reference name, and this will remain the label there even after passing into law on royal assent. The bill as displayed has no year (pdf version), but the Act when printed will be cited in the usual way with the year of enactment, 2013 per s.5(4) in the bill. 2_Us-- For our present article title something is needed to distinguish it from previous bills. This could be left as (2012) or changed to (2012-13) to check with the linked website. It's a question of ease of reference and use, of editors and readers, for this and related articles. Qexigator (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite obviously given what I said above, I understand all that. My point is that what you are saying would "check with the linked website" isn't what you think. The "2012–13" refers only to the session, and is not in anyway something we should follow. For example, the Finance Act that carried over from the last session has a page headed "Finance Act 2010–12; 2012–13", so we should just put this whole "2012–13" thing out of our heads. What I am also saying (and I thought I was plain about it) is that this article should be moved to Succession to the Crown Bill 2012 now because that is what we have done in the past. Whether it moves to Succession to the Crown Bill 2013 at the new year is a matter of no import to me as we have done it both ways in the past. Are we on the same page now? -Rrius (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Even on re-reading, it was/is not clear that the information was obvious to you, nor that you were proposing a move. Glad to know you are catching up, and if others agree let the title stay as it is. Qexigator (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you ignore the sentence "Normal practice would be to call this Succession to the Crown Bill 2012 until it passes or to call it that until the end of the year, then Succession to the Crown Bill 2013 until it passes."? And the sentence "So I support dropping the punctuation from the current title, but otherwise leaving it alone."? And by the way, your comment about the "reference name" remaining the same isn't quite true. "Finance Bill 2010–12; 2012–13" became "Finance Act 2010–12; 2012–13" as the name at the top of that bill/act's page. Hence my point that we should ignore what it says at the top of the bill page for this bill at Parliament's site. -Rrius (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK by me, Cheers. Qexigator (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Typo in bill
Treason Act 1351
 * 1. The Treason Act 1351 (declaration of offences to be adjudged treason) has effect as if—
 * (a) the first reference to eldest son and heir were a reference to eldest child and heir;
 * (b) the second reference to eldest son and heir were a reference to eldest son if the heir.

The highlighted text makes no sense as it stands. --  Jack of Oz   [Talk]  02:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure it does. It means that rather than the provision applying to rape of the wife of the king's "son and heir", it applies to rape of the wife of the king's eldest son if the son is the heir. If the eldest son is not the heir, i.e. is not the eldest child, then it does not apply. -Rrius (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The clauses in question are items in a list of acts that are considered high treason. As Rrius have correctly pointed out, the amendment would cause the clause to not apply to rape of the wife of the king's eldest son that is not heir apparent. This is a distinction between high treason and "mere" rape, mind you. -- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  22:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

"Marriages legally void under the Royal Marriages Act 1772 would be treated as never having been void"
"Marriages legally void under the Royal Marriages Act 1772 would be treated as never having been void, except for purposes relating to the succession to the crown, provided that certain conditions are met." I find this rather implausible. That would mean that Commander George FitzGeorge, who died childless in 1960, would suddenly become de jure 4th Duke of Cambridge and perhaps even a prince of the United Kingdom. His father, George FitzGeorge, would similarly become 3rd Duke of Cambridge and a prince of the United Kingdom. There must be a catch. Surtsicna (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's clearly not in the mind of the drafters. That savings clause "except for purposes relating to the succession to the crown" was only provided for "the validity of the descent of the Crown from King George II down to the present day is not to be affected by the changes" (Explanatory notes Para. 33). However, since those conditions include "in all the circumstances it was reasonable for the person concerned not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to it, " (Clause 3(5)(c)), it should not apply to the FitzGeorges. -- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  22:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the article state so, then? Anyway, which marriages would become valid? How could anyone not know that the act applies to them? Being in line to a throne and the legal consequences of it are hardly something a person could be unaware of. Besides, how would they establish whether or not the person was aware or not? Surtsicna (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually put those conditions when I edited Royal Marriages Act 1772 and it's completely fine to put it here. As for "anyone not know that the act applies to them", I would just quote from that article:
 * "But Britain's is unusual because it has not been modified since originally adopted, so that its ambit has grown rather wide, affecting not only Britain's immediate Royal Family, but more distant relatives of the monarch. Moreover, its purview is growing: Whereas in the past British princesses usually married into foreign dynasties, thereby exempting their descendants from the Act, most now marry fellow Britons so that their children become subject in turn to the Act's restrictions, as do their Protestant descendants who marry Britons, and so on potentially without limit. Nor is the law's application confined to those that bear the official style of "princess". For purposes of the Act, that term is deemed to include any legitimate female descendant of George III, since each inherits a claim on the British crown, unless excluded by the Act itself."


 * -- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  23:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Prince George, Duke of Cambridge the 2nd Duke, went through a form of marriage in January 1847. His son George FitzGeorge had been born in 1843.  So even if the 2nd Duke's marriage is retrospectively validated, George Fitzgeorge will not be posthumously ennobled.  That distinction would (if it were not for the provision about non-awareness) fall to the 2nd Duke's 3rd son Augustus Fitzgeorge (born June 1847).  Likewise, Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex went through a form of marriage in 1793.  His son Augustus d'Este was born in 1794.  If it were not for the provision about non-awareness, he would be posthumously ennobled. Alekksandr (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that Prince Augustus was actually 6th in line for the crown in 1793 - 1) The Prince of Wales; 2) The Duke of York; 3) The Duke of Clarence; 4) Prince Edward; 5) Prince Ernest; 6) Prince Augustus. So he would not be excluded.  Prince George of Cambridge, on the other hand, was only 9th in line in 1847 - but, nonetheless, it was completely reasonable for him to have known that he was bound by the RMA, and everyone acted on the basis that the marriage was void, as seen from the fact that his youngest son did not succeed to the Dukedom and that Mrs. Fitzgeorge was never recognized as Duchess of Cambridge. john k (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

New Documents
The Parliament website uploaded more documents on this bill:

Enjoy.-- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  22:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Paul Flynn proposed an amendment  to remove the 28 November 2011 date; and
 * 2) Commons Library issued a 27-page research paper  on this bill.


 * I've added the Flynn amendment to the discussion of s. 1 (which it amends), with a link to one of his blogposts explaining his line of thinking. (The research paper will likely require more work.)  Frankly, however, Flynn's amendment may do more harm than good (though this is too close to original research to put in the article):  Though he clearly intended to remove male preference currently (i.e., Anne and her family moves ahead of younger brothers Andrew & Edward), since s. 1 effectively changes the Act of Settlement 1701 and the "born after Perth" language is the only limit on s. 1's retroactivity, his amendment would impose gender-agnostic primogeniture on the entire line of succession back to Sophia of Hanover.  No, it would NOT have made "Kaiser Bill" king as some have claimed--but only because the new line veers from the old after Frederick, Prince of Wales (King George III's father) instead of Queen Victoria.  (Might have been good here in America in 1776, but not today.)  The new heir apparent--assuming he's not Catholic, of course--would be Prince Alexander of Wied (b. 1960), older brother of Carl, Prince of Wied (b. 1961); though unmarried, childless Alexander gave up the title of Prince of Wied to Carl in 2000 (when their father Friedrich Wilhelm died), that of course would not affect the British crown unless he abdicated in the manner of Edward VIII, died, or is Catholic.  (Some might even argue that it would cause an immediate demise of the Crown, but I doubt any court would read s. 1 that way.)  --RBBrittain (talk) 05:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I added a short version of the foregoing to the article. To avoid "original research" claims, I couched it as "potential" and only mentioned that the new line would veer from the old after Frederick.  --RBBrittain (talk) 05:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Paul Flynn's second amendment-- why would he think there'd not be anyone to inherit the throne after the next demise of the crown (which triggers a republican referendum)...?-- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  16:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

A question about Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement
S. 4(2) of this bill effectively amends Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement. But why why didn't the bill directly amend the text of those two acts (like what they did in s. 4 (3)), but just requires this bill to be incorporated by reference at any time those acts were used? Now I'm not sure if those two acts will be amended because of this clause at the time this bill obtained royal assent...-- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  20:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand the research paper gave "ensures that no confusion or conflict with the present Bill can arise as a result of cross-references to those earlier statutes" as the reason, but I still don't quite understand.-- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  20:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Meshing with the Statute of Westminster
I'm thinking this Bill will not become law in the UK immediately it gains Royal Assent. The Statute of Westminster requires that all Commonwealth Realms have the same rules at all times about the succession to the throne. Most of the other Realms will also need to change their laws to make this change happen in their jurisdictions, and then all the Realms will adopt the new world order on the same day, when they are all ready to do so. Do we need to say something about this? --  Jack of Oz   [Talk]  22:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note section 5 (2) and Research paper by the House of Commons Library There will be more as bill progresses through Parliament. Qexigator (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm aware of all that background.  We do say all 16 realms have agreed in principle to the changes, and we do say that this bill gives effect in the UK to the agreed changes.  But we don't say explicitly that it won't be able to be implemented until all 16 realms are ready to proceed simultaneously.  Maybe we should.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  23:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you were aware of all that you will know that there is nothing more to say on the subject at this stage, unless you have some reliable source worth citing, which is anyway unlikely to be anything but the writer's conjectural elaboration. Qexigator (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Plus there is the fact that it isn't true. One paragraph of the Statute of Westminster's preamble deals with succession. It says,
 * "And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom"
 * Preambles are not operative, and even if they were, this one still wouldn't be. It merely says that only changing the rules of succession or royal styles would be in accord with the "established constitutional position" of the dominions. That doesn't bind anything. What does matter is that an act resulting from the bill, as currently written, will come into effect on an order by the Lord President of the Council. -Rrius (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And such an order would only be made if it did not put the UK temporarily out of step, succession-laws-wise, with the other realms? --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  02:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Presumably, but we'd need a ref. -Rrius (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Jack: There may be now or later some official source in other Commonwealth realms (Australia, Canada, NZ...) which could be sourced, but the better place for that would be Perth Agreement, since each of them has (per Statute of W.) responsibility for its own legislation, not for the UK bill. Qexigator (talk) 09:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The point I'm trying to get across is that this Bill does not exist in isolation from or independent of other legislative action in 15 other countries.  I appreciate that the UK Parliament is sovereign and it alone decides what business it considers and what bills it passes.  But there's a bigger picture when it comes to matters affecting the succession to the crown.  All I'm saying is that we might let our readers know about that bigger picture, of which this bill is but one element.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  11:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, Jack, if you feel there are readers who would like that information, and you have a source, put it in the right place: Perth Agreement, or Statute of Westminster. Then a "see also link" could be added to this article. Qexigator (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Amendments fielded 17 January
I have updated the government amendment fielded 16 Jan which is likely to be carried, but I am unsure whether I should also include the other amendments which seems unlikely to be carried: I can understand why the Labour left-wingers are fielding these amendments, but what is Jacob doing here?-- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  04:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Paul Flynn (again) and Kelvin Hopkins: In the event of the heir to throne contracting a civil partnership any progeny of that partnership by adoption or artificial insemination should qualify to inherit the throne. (again a logic hole here: does a progeny of a marriage "by adoption or artificial insemination" qualify?)
 * A flurry of Catholic equality amendments.
 * Jacob Rees-Mogg:
 * Clarifying in c.1 "In determining the succession to the Crown, the rule of primogeniture shall apply equally to females and males."
 * Clarifying in c. 2(2) "the person concerned" by inserting "who married a person of the Roman Catholic faith" after "person."
 * In c. 2(2), children of such marriages cannot be disqualified "by virtue of being of the Roman Catholic faith."
 * In case of a person above is succeeded to the throne, the titles of Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England falls to a "qualifying Regent."
 * John McDonnell and Katy Clark
 * Repeal all Catholic prohibitions from Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement.
 * Amendments to c.2(1) that has practically the same effect to Rees-Mogg's third amendment.
 * I'm not sure how I feel about including proposed amendments beyond a mere note about who proposed it and a general statement of its purpose. -Rrius (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry. The link is here.-- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  18:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

All that is needed is a link to the appropriate website giving the information. Maybe in due course list amendents as passed. Proposed are of no lasting import and little better than trivia here.Qexigator (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't realisticly think any of them will be carried, maybe with the exception of the first two of Rees-Mogg's amendments which are mere clarifications.-- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  18:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Kingdom of Scotland
User talk:AlexTiefling: Please explain why you deem yourself correct in removing my factual addition to the article for "WP:OR"  and "poor constitutional law". Qexigator (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You wrote "The Explanatory Note fails to mention this constitutional anomaly or how it is proposed to repeal or alter that part of it." The idea that this even is a constitutional anomaly is original research, and is not in any of the cited sources. I personally consider it's probably poor constitutional law, since I'm not sure what parliament other than Westminster would be able to amend provisions of the abolished Scottish Parliament with regard to reserved matters (ie, those not devolved back to the new Holyrood parliament). If you can find a reliable secondary source identifying and discussing any actual problem here - assuming there is one - please feel free to write it up appropriately for this article. Oh, and it would be better to use templates rather than just embedding links. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that. No need to argue the constitutional point here, though pretty obvious anyhow per linked article and sources. It is however valid and notable that what is an anomaly in the bill, whether said or not, is not mentioned or explained. Qexigator (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm puzzled by a number of anomalies myself. But unless we can find reliable secondary sources that specifically identify our concerns as anomalies, then there's nothing we can reasonably say about them in the article. The Bill doesn't explain all sorts of things, but unless there's a good prima facie reason for it to do so, the fact that it doesn't has no place in an encyclopedia. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Art XVIII of Acts of Union gave Westminster the power to legislate for issues related to "publick Right, Policy and Civil Government", which I take to also include Constitutional issues. Since the issue of the Crown is clearly a reserved matter, I think Westminster have the right to legislate for all of the UK, including amending Acts of Union.-- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  21:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Could be: Art XVIII "..the Laws which concern publick Right, Policy, and Civil Government, maybe made the same throughout the whole United Kingdom; but that no Alteration be made in Laws which concern private Right, except for evident Utility of the Subjects within Scotland." But at least a moot point, like most of the law, customs, theory and practice of UK (and other) constitutions. It could be argued that post signing up to the EU all bets are off on questions of or pertaining to sovereignty, especially at the present time when HM is advised by the ministry presently responsible, according to traditional theory. It is, of course, common knowledge that the union of 1706/7 was achieved largely by financial inducements. How times have changed, especially in connection with the Treaty of Rome as amended. As Alex cautions below, we must be careful what we say and how we say it. Qexigator (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Qexigator, can you distinguish between notes and references better, please? It looks like you're writing citations, but you're actually editorialising in footnotes. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Alex: What is your problem? If you would specify which bits you prefer where let the tweaking be done. Personally, I think it looks and reads better the way it is. Qexigator (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be a good start if you just changed your annotations from 'ref' tags to 'note' tags, to match the other notes. But please also be very careful of introducing your own opinions or research, or those of other writers such as bloggers whose work does not constitute reliable sources. As I say, notes are not for editorialising. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Good point. Done. Qexigator (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and note revised. Qexigator (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

More Amendments right before Second Reading
Cabinet Office issued an final amendment paper before Second Reading, which included the amendments I have mentioned before, plus a few more involving Catholics.


 * Ian Paisley proposed to amend c. 2(1) requiring while marriage with a Roman Catholic alone does not disqualify, that person must still be "in communion with the Church of England in accordance with section 3 of the Act of Settlement."


 * Jacob Rees-Mogg proposed further consequential amendments to the effect of his earlier amendments; I'm not going to list them all.

-- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  22:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * First, the Cabinet Office doesn't issue the lists of amendments. That list you link to comes from Parliament, not the Government. More importantly, we don't need a running commentary on proposed amendments. -Rrius (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Links 2
While doing the general cleanup that editor seems to have overdone it. The redundancy of "grossly" may reveal an overly hasty or emotive edit, resulting in a failure to grasp the relevance of the part removed in 1_clarifying the otherwise concealed ambiguity of 1706 and the sequence of the acts of union in the two kingdoms, and 2_the interest in the topic for editors and readers hailing from Commonwealth realms, especially the dominions of the erstwhile British Empire. The article would be improved if the informative note and its links were restored. Qexigator (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Abbreviated note done, one link sufficing.Qexigator (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, your text is overwritten and irrelevant. All that matters is that the Acts of Union are being amended. The particulars of which act came first and when the year began in England is totally irrelevant to the point that the succession rules are specifically being made subject to this act. Frankly, that point itself is not especially important, so belabouring it is beyond unnecessary. Incidentally, I am curious to hear why you think the word "grossly" is "redundant". Is it that you don't know what "redundant" means? -Rrius (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The edit which has removed the annotation is based on that editor's mistaken opinion: "None of that matters here. All that matters is that these acts would be amended. Which act came first is irrelevant". Qexigator (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate why is that a "mistaken opinion" so that I can judge the matter.-- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  02:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sam: Thank you for troubling to inquire. Mistaken in failing to grasp as mentioned in the first paragraph of this section. The detail of the origin of the two acts of union, and in particular clarifying the oddity of the years of the short titles, is obviously pertinent to the bill which is proposing their amendment. Perceptive observers will see in the words "subject to provisions of" that something is being left as yet unexplained which, for the time being, is as hidden from view as the unborn child of the Duke of Cambridge, and may yet cause some concern before the proposals of the Perth Agreement are accomplished. The discourteousy of the removing editor's needless bluster is noted. I do not intend to force the issue, but I have no doubt that the article would be the better for including the information. Let it be left at that. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, adding side detail is not obvious. Your decision to whine about what you say is bluster rather than to actually provide a coherent rationale is telling. I'm sorry you feel it is a discourtesy to challenge your unwarranted assumption that everyone will just agree with you that an obvious addition to the article would be a discussion of the order in which the Acts of Union were passed and when the calendar year began in England in the early 18th century. To most people, there is nothing obvious about that connection, so your lengthy passage about it was in fact grossly overdone. -Rrius (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Specifically, please explain why this so called ambiguity, the sequence of passage, or the beginning of the year in England has anything to do with the only thing that makes the Acts of Union relevant: i.e. that the provisions of those acts are made subject to this one. Any such connection should be readily apparent from your proposed text, yet it is not. That is a huge problem and, if any such connection actually exists, the reason you have been reverted. -Rrius (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That clause was merely for clarification, in my opinion. While the Scottish act's Art II is very long, the first clause was merely a recitation of Act of Settlement and the second a recitation of Bill of Rights. The Irish Act pretty much just said the Crown of the post-Union UK has the same succession rules as previous. Probably because these are the only UK Constitutional acts that touches on succession, c. 4 (3) was added to clarify the position even it can simply dealt with c. 4(2).-- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  03:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sam: you may be right, of course. Like much else affecting the constitution, the presentation is opaque and inscrutable, some would say muddled and ill-advised, as the heir apparent is reported to have made known. A comparison could be made with the marriage service in church, when any who know of cause or just impediment are called upon "to speak now or forever hold their peace". If the bill receives a smooth passage in this respect, that may be the end of the matter regardless of any unspoken doubts that could have been voiced. The first version of my proposed note was admittedly clumsy, and upon its removal I took the opportunity to do better. Qexigator (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Canada's legislation
As you may have been noticed on Perth Agreement, Canada tabled a bill called Succession to the Throne Act, 2013.

The main legislation text is simple as it merely included this bill by reference: "The alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne set out in the bill laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom and entitled A Bill to Make succession to the Crown not depend on gender; to make provision about Royal Marriages; and for connected purposes is assented to."

"Assentiment est donné aux modifications apportées à la loi concernant la succession au trône, énoncées dans le projet de loi déposé devant le Parlement du Royaume-Uni et intitulé A Bill to Make succession to the Crown not depend on gender; to make provision about Royal Marriages; and for connected purposes."

I believe it should be mentioned in this article, but I don't know how to say it--especially it does not by itself make the Westminster act's territorial extent to extend to Canada, right?-- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  14:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Noteworthy certainly, but would it not be better to let mention of the legislation in other realms be left to adding here a "See also" link to the section in Perth Agreement, and/or that realm's article? Qexigator (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that Perth Agreement should serve as the central location. I also think the Canadian and Australian bills need separate articles because of the controversy involved. With regard to Canada, that involves whether a federal bill is sufficient or a constitutional amendment subject to unanimous approval of the provinces is needed. Or something in between. It may be necessary to address whether assenting to a UK act is good enough when the Act of Settlement is a part of Canadian law. There is an Ontario case that touches on these issue. Australia has an issue with allowing the federal Parliament to legislate. Queensland is being difficult. We probably need an article for the Canadian bill, but Australia's hasn't been introduced yet. And that raises another issue. We may at some point need to disambiguate some of these as (United Kingdom) or the like, depending on how different countries name their legislation. There is also the issue of similar sounding names even if they aren't exactly the same. -Rrius (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you both--but I wonder if a simply line to the effect of "(list of Realms) also incorporate this Bill/Act by reference"?


 * Also: Rrius, I agree the Canadian and Australian discussions on Perth Agreement is long enough to split.-- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  18:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Canadian legislation split to Succession to the Throne Act, 2013.-- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  19:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Gender
My understanding of the original proposal was that gender discrimination was to be only ended for descendants of either the Prince of Wales or the Duke of Cambridge, and that everyone beyond that would still be governed by the old rules. Has that been changed in the final legislation? john k (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Richard75 (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That is, in the bill as introduced gender discrimination would end for those born after 28 October 2011 (the date of the Perth Agreement), regardless of wheter they are descendants of the Prince of Wales or not. Gabbe (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Will a royal sue?
This is completely out of curiosity.

Para. 55 of the Explanatory Notes to the Commons and Lords states, "[i]t should, of course, be noted that the likelihood of a member of the Royal Family bringing a claim in relation to any provision of the Bill must be extremely remote" when discussing Art 3(1).

Clearly, every British citizen can sue claiming Art. 1 or 2 violates the Convention, if they can think of a reason to--it relates to how a head of state is selected. I can't think of, however, a situation where a member of the royal family sues on Art 3(1). Can anyone think of any...? -- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  21:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Coming into force
A question about coming into force was raised elsewhere. Only section 5 is in force, but the provisions for altering the law will only be brought into force by commencement order. Qexigator (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone been affected?
Has anyone been affected by the SCA's repeal of the Royal Marriages Act 1772? Clearly Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex and Prince George, Duke of Cambridge do not meet the SCA's conditions, so their marriages remain invalid under the RMA. Has anyone else ever been the subject of litigation regarding the RMA (the SCA's condition #4)? If not, why was that provision inserted?

And what about the children of Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha? None of his children sought consent to their marriages under the RMA, as they were German citizens hostile to the British monarchy, and this makes it unclear whether they still retain the right to petition for the restoration of the Albany titles. In order to qualify for the SCA's exemption, one would have to argue that "it was reasonable for the person concerned not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to it." It's not clear to me whether this could or would be successfully argued.

If any reliable source has made any comment whatsoever on any of these questions, we should include such information in the article. Does anyone know of any? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well the Act is not in force yet, so no one is affected by it. And it's not Wikipedia's place to speculate about what people may or may not choose to do in the future. Richard75 (talk) 08:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, of course not. But the Act has been made law, and if any WP:RS has commented on how it changes the situation for any particular individual, it would be worth reporting. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 11:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is about the Act. Its operative provisions have not been made law, and for all we know, never will be. But when its provisions become operative, one or more of those listed 1-51 in Line of succession to the British throne may be affected and the list will be due for updating. The article for remoter lines of succession is Succession to the British throne, which lists the first 16, and has a section on "Members of European dynasties in remoter lines of succession". That article, too, will be due for updating, particularly the sections on "Current rules" and "Perth Agreement reforms". Meantime, status quo, free from speculation. It is unlikely that remarks about who may be affected would be sufficiently notable and reliably sourced. Qexigator (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you look again at my original question, you will see that I am not actually interested in the line of succession, but in the SCA's effects on marriages whose validity is questionable under the RMA. We have pages on those things, and I have placed this same inquiry on some of those pages as well, but the inquiry also seems germane here.  It does not seem speculative or crystal-ballish to discuss which cases are currently affected by the RMA and whether/how those cases stand to change under the SCA (which has received Royal Assent).  Rather than speculate as to whether any sources on this topic are likely to satisfy WP:RS and WP:N, I am simply asking whether anyone knows of any such sources.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The Act has been made law, and in it it specifically states that except for the section about the commencement and the short title "The other provisions of this Act come into force on such day and at such time as the Lord President of the Council may by order made by statutory instrument appoint." - has the Lord President called any of the other parts of the act into force? Until I see some "proof" that that has happened, then it's only speculation as to what might or might not be in force, and what might or might not happen in the future. --Notwillywanka (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The topic of the article is the origin and content the Act itself, not whether anyone is interested in questionable marriages under the RMA. There would be other articles more suited to letting that be mentioned, when (if) the provisions of the present Act for repealing the RMA take effect. Qexigator (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic?
Although the Act repeals the discrimination against people who marry Catholics, it does not repeal the law which discriminates against Catholics. Also the article is relevant to other articles about anti-Catholic legislation. That is two reasons why it belongs in Category:Anti-Catholicism. Richard75 (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that it might belong in Category:Anti-Catholicism even if it did nothing but repeal discrimination against Catholics. Inclusion in the category does not mean that the act is anti-Catholic, does it?  It only means that it is relevant to the topic of anti-Catholicism, which I would say it obviously is.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * For the reason given by another the act is obviously the reverse of anti-catholic, and it would be incongruous to describe it as such, or to label it as if it were. That fact is not altered by the creation of the Wp Category:Anti-Catholicism merely because at some time the followinbg rubric was put at the top: "This is a category for theories, books, etc. which have a notable connection to Anti-Catholicism. The category also contains subjects that have documented or opposed anti-Catholicism. It does not necessarily imply that the subjects of any articles in the category are anti-Catholic." What useful purpose is served by putting that label and category to it? As long ago as December 2006, it was pointed out that the category was open to abuse by those with a POV agenda. Adding the category to the article tends to mislead readers who are not aware of the overuse and abuse of Wp invented "categories", but are more likely to be induced to suppose that the act is part and parcel of the content of the articles Anti-Catholicism - hostility towards, or opposition to Catholicism, and especially against the Catholic Church - and Anti-Catholicism in the United Kingdom.  --Qexigator (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no other articles about Catholic emancipation laws in the anti-Catholic category; rightly so, since they are not anti-Catholic. DrKay (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Turning to a different but related matter, isn't the new sentence in the article "This Act is not anti-Catholic" a bit odd? I suspect that it was probably added as a reaction to the category, but now (1) we don't really need it, (2) it is debatable, since this Act does not remove all anti-Catholic discrimination, only part of it, so is POV, and (3) it is jarring. Richard75 (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Qexigator keeps adding it, but it's neither necessary nor sourced, nor does it constitute encyclopedic writing. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Not "anti-catholic"
An editor has twice in a few hours overhastily removed a minor explanatory sentence making clear that the act is not "anti-Catholic": reasons given are mistaken or inadequate and address the wrong point in the above discussion. It may be that the article could express so simple and undisputed a point in some better way, but blank reverting of that kind is unhelpful. Qexigator (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

...and can now add that edit removing intruded category is acceptable to... Qexigator (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not necessary. The quotes around the words anti-Catholic imply that the Act has been accused of being anti-Catholic by someone, which it has not except on Wikipedia (as far as I know; and if someone outside Wikipedia has said so then to deny it is POV). It is not the sort of sentence one would expect to read in an encyclopaedia. Why is it there? It is opinion and not informative. It was only written in the first place because of the above discussion. Richard75 (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Quite so: we are now, it seems, at status quo ante this edit, as resolved by DrK. Qexigator (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Not fully in force or Not yet in force.
I'd argue the latter, as consent by all 16 commonwealth realms is required. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not really about consent at all. It's about commencement. The act clearly states the act will "come into force on such day and at such time as the Lord President of the Council may by order made by statutory instrument appoint." That day and time hasn't yet been set. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Okay, the section that states the act will "come into force on such day and at such time as the Lord President of the Council may by order made by statutory instrument appoint" does also say it is itself in force. Is that what's being used to deem the act partly in force? It seems to be bordering on the pedantic, but... -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's about the act itself not personal opinion or editorial preference. "5(1)This section comes into force on the day on which this [UK] Act is passed. (2)The other provisions of this Act come into force on such day and at such time as the Lord President of the Council may by order made by statutory instrument appoint." Ignorance is no excuse. Leave it as it had been from November 2013, and avoid overreacting now. Acts passed in other realms are expressed to depend upon this one becoming fully operative, an event that we can now see just could be a few weeks away. Strange to see accuracy on such a point being regarded as bordering on "pedantic". The fact is, on every word in the UK act and in the other realms, we can surmise that the highly expert legal draftsmen have been at greater pains than many Wikipedia editors to get it right. Why spoil it? Qexigator (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Act will not come into force, until the 15 other realms have 'royal ascent' for their respective Acts. This is all going to be mute in a few days anyway, as the Australian monarch (via royal ascent) is about to bring the amendments to the succession of all 16 monarchies into effect. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The coming into force of the act is not dependent upon the legislation in the other realms. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The way I understood the Perth Agreement, male-preference would continue in all 16 realms until all 16 realms received 'royal ascent' for their amending the succession to eldest child-preference. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, what part of this Act has been in force this last 2 years? GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Section 5, it seems. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've read over Section 5 & TBH, it makes absolutely no sense. It doesn't specify what part of the Act is in force. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It makes perfect sense to anyone used to drafting, reading, enacting or applying parliamentary legislation, and to law students adequately instructed, and most others who are habitually involved in such things. There is also the Canadian and Australian and New Zealand legislation to consider, all drafted in the Common Law tradition. How it looks in the French version of the Canadian act I do not feel able to comment. Actually, it's not what in fairly modern parlance is a "big deal" . Qexigator (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My correction was reverted, therefore it must've been a big deal. Anyway 'again', this will all be moot in a few days, when Elizabeth II ascents to Australia's 2015 succession act. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * After Royal Assent (sic, note caps) in Australia, we may expect that back in UK Lord President Clegg will be ble to do what is required before he loses office as a result of the parliamentary general election due in May, the documentation required already standing in draft, probably as soon as the Canadian act had passed, or before. Then, of course, the article will need some skilful updating. I see the French version, readily accessible, is : "Loi d’assentiment aux modifications apportées à la loi concernant la succession au trône [Sanctionnée le 27 mars 2013] Attendu :...3. La présente loi entre en vigueur à la date fixée par décret." Now what would that mean, in plain English? Qexigator (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. The legality (and thus the effect) of the Canadian law is still in question. The Quebec Superior Court isn't expected to even hear the case until June or July this year. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * TBH, the 2013 Canadian succession act is unconstitutional. But that's out of my hands. ;) GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Mies.: I daresay many outside and inside Canada view that "challenge" with more than a little scepticism. But it may help to revive some interest which had rather faded when the one who was born was a boy prince not a girl princess. Does he count as one of the "Canadian Royal Family"? Qexigator (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If I'm correct, the Quebec case is due to the fact that the Act bars Catholics from the Canadian throne. Also, the act was passed without participation or consent from the provinces. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Correct or not, the Governor General will, we may surmise, bring the Canadian act into force at such time as the Canadian Prime Minister advises, but whether the UK Lord President (whoever that may be when the time comes) will defer bringing into force the operative parts of the UK act while the outcome of the legal proceedings in the Canadian courts is awaited, is not within the scope of the present article to determine, and editors will be relieved of a need to engage in discussion of fixed ideas or fence-sitting. At least everyone knows, it was a boy, which was unknown when the UK act was passed. Qexigator (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, there may be skeptics, but, there are plenty who see the flaw in the government's argument, too. Which brings me to realise: if the realms all proclaim their laws to be in force before the dispute over the Canadian law is settled, we're going to have a hell of a time writing explanation of the succession laws in Canada. Is it absolute primogeniture? Or, is it still male-preference primogeniture? But, we'll have to wait and see if we ever must cross that bridge. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but in that interesting event, our only problem will be to find a source or two to give us a text. Ater all, it will only be Wikipedia's job to report not to explain, beyond saying something like: before the alteration the position was so-and-so (as is), if the Canadian government's position is eventually upheld by judicial ruling, the position is such-and-such, but in the meantime, it makes no practical difference to the succession in respect of Charles, his son,William, and his son George. If there turns out to be notable turmoil about it in Canada, that too would need to be reported in an article somewhere. Qexigator (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Where is the commencement order?
For discussion, see Talk:Perth Agreement, Implementation in all 16 countries. -- Qexigator (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Resolved. --Qexigator (talk) 08:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

history note

 * From the time of Queen Anne (died 1714), male preference primogeniture has operated only twice to displace a living female descendant by a younger brother …

The qualifier "living" is unnecessary; that is, not only has no other living elder sister been passed over, but the succession has never (during that time) skipped the issue of a deceased elder sister. How about this: ''operated ... in favor of a younger brother or his issue, over an elder sister or her issue.'' —Tamfang (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok. And let’s list the two times it happened, both for clarification, and as practical examples of how this works. 2A00:23C7:E287:1901:814E:3E53:985F:96F3 (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Gallery of first 6-in-line as of 26 March 2015 (Commencement date)
I'd like to propose that, alongside the current gallery that includes the current first six in the line of succession to the British monarchy, there should be a gallery of those who were the first six in line for the throne on the date of Commencement: 26 March 2015. This is obviously before the birth of Princess Charlotte, even though she was already on the way. I believe this should be done because it will show the difference between the line of succession on Commencement date (AKA the first 6 people affected by the Act) & the current line of succession (which wasn't affected by the Act on Commencement date). Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucejoel99 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That would be undue, in respect of repetition of images, and in respect of the information in the text of this article and linked at Succession to the British throne, where the Tree list shows that Beatrice, who was 6th, is now 7th. Her place as one of the statutory 6 lasted no more than a few weeks, and was on the way out then, nor has there been any likelihood that she was in those few weeks biding her time before going ahead with a marriage free from the need to have statutory permission. Would it even be worth mentioning in her own article? Qexigator (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

"Expecting" Princess Charlotte
Going to add a dispute tag for this line When the Act came into force, the Duchess of Cambridge was expecting Princess Charlotte, if the bill received Royal Assent on 25 April 2013, but Charlotte wasn't born until 2 May 2015 then that's not a factual comment. Mfb72 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The Act came into force in 26 March 2015, five weeks before the birth. It didn't come into force on the day royal assent was granted; there was a delay to allow all the other realms to complete any necessary legislation. See the "Commencement" section. DrKay (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Clarification
With the death of Elizabeth II, some papers have been publishing lines of succession showing Elizabeth, the Princess Royal and her line as being next in succession over her younger brothers and their lines, in case Charles’ line fails (unlikely). They seem to think the Act apples to everyone, not just new additions. The article should be amended to make it clear that all living at the time the Act took effect stay in their current position, unaltered, 2A00:23C7:E287:1901:814E:3E53:985F:96F3 (talk) 13:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


 * (I assume you mean Anne) —Tamfang (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not “at the time the Act took effect": at the time of the Perth Agreement, 28 October 2011. So it is retroactive for a few years. —Tamfang (talk) 06:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Consequential amendments

 * Provisions in the Acts of Union 1707, between England and Scotland, and in the Acts of Union 1800, between Great Britain and Ireland, that involve the Crown are "subject to provisions of" the Act, several sections in the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701 involving marriages with "papists" (Catholics) were repealed.

Something is wrong with this sentence's structure. —Tamfang (talk) 06:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)