Badge of the Supreme Court of Canada Last Thursday the Supreme Court
of Canada upheld a ruling by the
Quebec Court of Appeal on the 2013
Succession to the Throne Act. The
decision upholds the act as being
constitutional. Without getting too
far into the legal arguments the
point of contention was whether
changes to royal succession require
an act of the federal parliament or
the consent of every province in Canada. This ruling upheld
the first interpretation. Monarchists were divided over this
question with the Monarchist League of Canada supporting
the ruling and the Canadian Royal Heritage Trust joining the
challenge to the act. While there were valid concerns on
both sides, today I'm more interested in what this means for
the future.
of Canada upheld a ruling by the
Quebec Court of Appeal on the 2013
Succession to the Throne Act. The
decision upholds the act as being
constitutional. Without getting too
far into the legal arguments the
point of contention was whether
changes to royal succession require
an act of the federal parliament or
the consent of every province in Canada. This ruling upheld
the first interpretation. Monarchists were divided over this
question with the Monarchist League of Canada supporting
the ruling and the Canadian Royal Heritage Trust joining the
challenge to the act. While there were valid concerns on
both sides, today I'm more interested in what this means for
the future.
The Queen and her heirs The good news is that no matter which
way the courts had ruled the succession
would not be affected in the near future.
The bad news, in the view of some
monarchists, is that changes to the
succession potentially don't need the
consent of the provinces and may only
need the federal parliament to pass the
necessary acts. This situation ultimately
came about because Canada doesn't
have a succession law and from the way
in which the Canadian Crown split off
from the British Crown. In place of a
succession law we have a 'principle of symmetry' where the
monarch of Britain is also the monarch of Canada. This of
course raises the question of what happens if Britain abolishes
their monarchy? I have mentioned before that similar laziness
resulted in Canada not having a regency act.
Some monarchists are uncomfortable with the possibility the
federal parliament could change the succession on its own.
This is because while republicans taking over the House of
Commons is, in practice, difficult but republicans taking every
parliament and legislature is, in practice, impossible. And
when it comes to protecting the monarchy making it
impossible to attack is preferable for many monarchists to
making it difficult to attack.
But I'd argue this is a tad unhistorical. Ever since the Glorious Revolution the principle in the UK has been that parliament
ultimately decides who the monarch is. This was a rejection of
the idea that the succession was divinely immutable. Canada
meanwhile has come to a place where succession to the throne
is no longer constitutionally immutable. It is a tad
uncomfortable but it does present a potential course of action
that can be taken now that could not before. The ruling seems
to suggest that the Canadian Parliament could pass both a
succession law and a regency act on its own. Both would be
welcome laws to have. We can only put off passing key laws
in this country for so long before we end up in a crisis and
being a bit more proactive would be a good thing.
Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour
way the courts had ruled the succession
would not be affected in the near future.
The bad news, in the view of some
monarchists, is that changes to the
succession potentially don't need the
consent of the provinces and may only
need the federal parliament to pass the
necessary acts. This situation ultimately
came about because Canada doesn't
have a succession law and from the way
in which the Canadian Crown split off
from the British Crown. In place of a
succession law we have a 'principle of symmetry' where the
monarch of Britain is also the monarch of Canada. This of
course raises the question of what happens if Britain abolishes
their monarchy? I have mentioned before that similar laziness
resulted in Canada not having a regency act.
Some monarchists are uncomfortable with the possibility the
federal parliament could change the succession on its own.
This is because while republicans taking over the House of
Commons is, in practice, difficult but republicans taking every
parliament and legislature is, in practice, impossible. And
when it comes to protecting the monarchy making it
impossible to attack is preferable for many monarchists to
making it difficult to attack.
But I'd argue this is a tad unhistorical. Ever since the Glorious Revolution the principle in the UK has been that parliament
ultimately decides who the monarch is. This was a rejection of
the idea that the succession was divinely immutable. Canada
meanwhile has come to a place where succession to the throne
is no longer constitutionally immutable. It is a tad
uncomfortable but it does present a potential course of action
that can be taken now that could not before. The ruling seems
to suggest that the Canadian Parliament could pass both a
succession law and a regency act on its own. Both would be
welcome laws to have. We can only put off passing key laws
in this country for so long before we end up in a crisis and
being a bit more proactive would be a good thing.
Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour
RSS Feed
