Re: House of Lords rejects equality of succession to the throne
- From: cj.buyers@xxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 17 Jan 2006 05:27:03 -0800
Antonio wrote:
> cj.buyers@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > As far as I can see, it means both. Although the only laws of New
> > Zealand that I can think of would be those putting into effect the
> > successions of Edward VII, George VI and Elizabeth II. Also, the titles
> > acts for the latter. They do not actually concern anything to do with
> > regulating the succession. The NZ constitution seems to explicitly
> > state that it is UK law that applies.
> >
> > The clauses about a Regent make this even more certain. Isn't it the
> > case that a regency would require new UK legislation every time?
>
> No, there is no need for new Regency legislation every time now. The
> Regency Act, 1937, and the Acts that amended or supplemented it, known
> as Regency Acts 1937-1953, now establish a permanent procedure for
> instituting a Regency when the necessity occurs, both in the case of
> the monarch being under age, and in the case of incapacity to perform
> the royal functions. Before the advent of the Regency Act, 1937, it was
> necessary to enact new legislation every now and then. But the said act
> now provides a permanent mechanism for declaring the Sovereign´s
> incapacity, and establishes who shall be the regent, and what the
> regent´s powers are.
>
I suspect that now that the Queen has children and grandchildren who
are of age, there is at least a need to specify who the Regent would
be, since the Duke of Edinburgh is no longer the automatic first
choice.
>
> Also, I don´t know what you mean when you say that each Commonwealth
> realm passes an Act after the succession, to accept the new Sovereign.
> It seems to me that no such action is necessary.
At the very least, they need to pass laws on the coinage.
As far as the Australia Act 1986 goes, does it have the power to
override the Constitution of the Commonwealth? I think not. If it
conflicts with the Constitution, then I wonder what its status really
is.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: House of Lords rejects equality of succession to the throne
- From: Stan Brown
- Re: House of Lords rejects equality of succession to the throne
- From: Graham Truesdale
- Re: House of Lords rejects equality of succession to the throne
- From: Stan Brown
- Re: House of Lords rejects equality of succession to the throne
- From: Guy Stair Sainty
- Re: House of Lords rejects equality of succession to the throne
- From: cj . buyers
- Re: House of Lords rejects equality of succession to the throne
- From: Don Aitken
- Re: House of Lords rejects equality of succession to the throne
- From: cj . buyers
- Re: House of Lords rejects equality of succession to the throne
- From: Don Aitken
- Re: House of Lords rejects equality of succession to the throne
- From: Antonio
- Re: House of Lords rejects equality of succession to the throne
- From: cj . buyers
- Re: House of Lords rejects equality of succession to the throne
- From: Antonio
- Re: House of Lords rejects equality of succession to the throne
- Prev by Date: Re: House of Lords rejects equality of succession to the throne
- Next by Date: Re: Princesses of Cambridge
- Previous by thread: Re: House of Lords rejects equality of succession to the throne
- Next by thread: Re: House of Lords rejects equality of succession to the throne
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|