The Succession to the Crown Act 2013: Modernising the Monarchy
| Published date | 01 November 2013 |
| Author | Neil Parpworth |
| Date | 01 November 2013 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12048 |
LEGISLATION
The Succession to the Crown Act 2013: Modernising
the Monarchy
Neil Parpworth*
Constitutional reform has occupied a relatively high position on the legislative agendas of
successive UK governments in recent decades. Yet little of it has impinged directly upon the
monarchy. The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 is therefore a significant and uncommon
enactment. This article commences by sketching out a little of the background to the Act,
including the need for a common position across the Commonwealth Realms which recognise
the Queen as their Head of State. It then proceeds to consider the Act’s three central provisions.
These will ensure gender equality in the royal succession, abolish the prohibition on a royal heir
marrying a Roman Catholic, and recast the law on consent to Royal Marriages. As such, they are
non-controversial. Controversy remains, however, in an issue which the 2013 Act deliberately
does not address; the bar on a Roman Catholic succeeding to the throne.
INTRODUCTION
Writing in 2007, Professor Brazier drew attention to the fact that during the
course of the present Queen’s long reign, few if any of the statutes passed by
Parliament had related directly to the role and position of the monarch in the
UK’s constitutional settlement. A number of reasons were offered to explain this
state of inertia. These included the ‘doctrine of unripe time’, whereby ministers
respond to arguments for change by contending that the time is not yet quite
right to make them. This argument may be advanced even where there is a good
measure of public support in favour of the change. As Professor Brazier also
notes, however, Parliament’s legislative silence over the monarchy can be swiftly
ended if circumstances demand it, such as when a monarch wishes to abdicate,1
or there is a need to make clearer provisions for a regency.2
Prior to the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 (the 2013 Act), various
unsuccessful attempts were made by backbench MPs and peers to address issues
*Principal Lecturer in Law, Leicester De Montfort Law School. I would like to express my gratitude
to the two anonymous reviewers. Their suggestions and comments in relation to a previous version of
this article were very helpful indeed. Any errors or inaccuracies remain my own.
1 In speaking against the programme motion passed in respect of the Succession to the Crown Bill,
Jacob Rees-Mogg MP noted that His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 had,
‘completed its passage in the House of Commons in under a minute’, and that it was, ‘not a happy
precedent’: see HC Deb vol 557 col 189 22 January 2013.
2 See R. Brazier, ‘Legislating about the Monarchy’ [2007] CLJ 86, 93–95. At the new King’s
request, the Regency Act 1937 was passed a mere two weeks after George VI commenced his
reign: see R. Brazier, ‘Royal Incapacity and Constitutional Continuity’ [2005] CLJ 352, 357–358.
Bonney and Morris also note that when a government wishes to legislate on the succession, the
obstacles in its way can usually be overcome: see N. Bonney and B. Morris, ‘Tuvalu and You: The
Monarch, the United Kingdom and the Realms’ (2012) 83 The Political Quarterly 368, 369.
bs_bs_banner
© 2013 The Author. The Modern Law Review © 2013 The Modern Law Review Limited. (2013) 76(6) MLR1070–1093
Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
which the new law covers.3The most recent of these was a ten-minute Rule Bill
introduced by Keith Vaz MP,4which merely sought to ensure that henceforth,
no account would be taken of gender in determining the line of accession to the
throne.
Of all the private Members’ Bills introduced since 1979, only three ever
reached the Second Reading stage.5Of these, that which most closely resembled
the 2013 Act was the Royal Marriages and Succession to the Crown (Prevention
of Discrimination) Bill,6introduced by Dr Evan Harris MP.7Like the 2013 Act,
it would have ensured gender equality in the succession to the throne, removed
the disqualification on marrying a Roman Catholic, and repealed the Royal
Marriages Act 1772. However, unlike the 2013 Act, it made no provision for an
amended version of the consent to marry requirement. Significantly, neither Dr
Harris’s Bill nor the 2013 Act address the controversial issue of the bar on a
Roman Catholic becoming monarch.
DRAFTING AND COMMENCEMENT
The preamble to the Statute of Westminster 1931 states, amongst other things:
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.
The presence of this provision in the preamble rather than the text of the 1931
Act ensures that it is, ‘in the nature of a constitutional convention’.8Since the
1931 Act was passed, the status of several of the original Dominions has changed
with the result that only the UK, Australia and Canada remain subject to the
Act’s preamble. There is an arguable case, however, that the scope of the
convention may have subsequently expanded to include all the Commonwealth
Realms.9Such an interpretation is supported by the events surrounding the
enactment of the 2013 Act.
3 Thus Mary Macleod MP, a former employee of the Royal Household, noted that: ‘There have
been many attempts to amend Crown succession over the years – one parliamentary paper lists 12
private Members’ Bills, from members in all parts of the House, that have attempted to do so since
1979’: see HC Deb vol 557 col 226 22 January 2013. The paper to which she referred is entitled
‘Attempts to Amend Crown Succession since 1979’ SN/PC/04663 (19 January 2011).
4 HC Deb vol 521 col 704 18 January 2011.
5 See A. Twomey, ‘Changing the Rules of Succession to the Throne’ [2011] PL 378, 379.
6 Bill 29, 2008–09 session.
7 The second reading debate on the Bill was held on 27 March 2009: see HC Deb vol 490 col 556.
8 See the view of Professor Blackburn published in Rules of Royal Succession,11
th report HC 1615
(2010–12) Ev 18. See also R. Brazier, ‘Skipping a Generation in the Line of Succession’ [2000]
PL 568, 572, and Twomey, n 5 above, 383–389.
9 This possibility is raised by Twomey, ibid, 388.
Neil Parpworth
© 2013 The Author. The Modern Law Review © 2013 The Modern Law Review Limited. 1071
(2013) 76(6) MLR 1070–1093
To continue reading
Request your trial