Seven Times Queen of the South

I have received the following email:

Whilst the Bill to amend the Act of Settlement, proposed by British Liberal Democrat MP, Evan Harris, has now lapsed, the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, now proposes to seek the opinions of Commonwealth countries on this matter at the Commonwealth Summit in the Caribbean in November 2009.

At issue is the principle of male primogeniture and allowing non-Protestants, such as Muslims, Hindus and Roman Catholics to accede to the throne. Those affected will be all those nations which have The Queen as their Sovereign.

It is regrettable that the subject of the Act of Settlement has become such an emotive issue with differences aired between Anglicans and Roman Catholics and monarchists and republicans whereas change should always be only to ensure that it will better the constitutional stability of those nations affected.

Many say the Act must be changed because it is discriminatory. Certainly it does not meet the requirements of the European Human Rights, but then nor do any of the European Catholic Monarchies, including the Vatican. The main religions and Christian denominations would also be found, under the Human Rights Act, to be discriminatory against women.

However, whatever the reason may be, amending the Act of Settlement will never be easy and those who say it is simple (Guardian 27/3/09), are, I am afraid, grossly mistaken.

Numerous Acts of the British Parliament, as well as several in the Realms, would require amendment, i.e.: the Bill of Rights (1688), the Coronation Oath Act (1688), the Union with Scotland Act (1707), the Union with England Act (1707), the Princess Sophia's Precedence Act (1711), the Royal Marriages Act (1772), the Union with Ireland Act (1800), the Accession Declaration Act (1910), and the Regency Act (1937).

The Preamble to the Statute of Westminster of 1931 specifies: '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.”

Whilst proponents of change dismiss the preamble and quote Professor Robert Blackburn that as: 'these words are included in the preamble to the Act, rather than the Act itself, they have no legal basis.' (Guardian 27/3/09).

However in his King and Country: Monarchy and the Future King Charles III, 2006, what Professor Blackburn actually said was: “In British law, the nature of this obligation is moral or one of honour only, because the need for these assents is stipulated in the preamble rather than the actual text of the 1931 statute. But nonetheless, this obligation is a powerful political convention. Indeed, in international terms across those Commonwealth countries affected, it is equivalent to a treaty. Absence of consultation by the UK government before it brought forward legislation to reform the succession laws would be regarded as high handed and arrogant.” In any event the legal significance of the intent of preambles is always arguable.

Furthermore, a precedent was established in 1936 when the British Government required those nations then under The Crown to consent to the 'Declaration of Abdication Act 1936'.

Australia is different from the other fifteen nations of which The Queen is Sovereign as The Queen is also separately Queen of our six States as well as of the Commonwealth of Australia. It is therefore considered that the provision for consent as stipulated in the Statute of Westminster 1931, adopted by Australia in 1942, should also apply to the six States even though their Parliaments did not independently adopt the Statute.

The Statute does not specify to which parliaments the provision is applicable, only: 'the parliaments of all the Dominions'. Realms have taken the place of the old 'Dominions' and according to the Oxford English Dictionary, a realm is: 'a kingdom'. The Federation of Australia comprises seven kingdoms.

The Australian Commonwealth Constitution specifies that: '2. The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.' Any alteration to this would require a referendum of the people.

At the appropriate time, the League will seek legal advice on this matter and particularly whether change to the Succession to the Throne would require not simply a vote of the Australian Commonwealth Parliament, but also one in each of the six Australian States as well as a referendum of the people as specified in Section 128 of the Australian Constitution.

Philip Benwell MBE
National Chairman
Australian Monarchist League

And then there is the situation in Canada, where changes to the monarchy have to be approved by all the provinces. If even one says no, then no it is. Among other forces, that of old-school Scottish Protestantism has never gone away in parts of Canada. Canadian Catholics would pay the price if those forces were roused.

As Peter Hitchens put it yesterday, leave the Throne alone.