Succession to the Crown Act 2013

In December 2011 the Statement of Friday 28 October 2011 issued at Perth was published in a House of Commons committee report. It stated that the prime ministers of the sixteen Commonwealth nations "of whom Her Majesty the Queen is Head of State" had "agreed in principle to work together towards a common approach to amending the rules on the succession to their respective Crowns", and that they would wish "unanimously to advise The Queen of their views and seek her agreement." The statement continued:

All countries wish to see change in two areas. First, they wish to end the system of male preference primogeniture under which a younger son can displace an elder daughter in the line of succession. Second, they wish to remove the legal provision that anyone who marries a Roman Catholic shall be ineligible to succeed to the Crown. There are no other restrictions in the rules about the religion of the spouse of a person in the line of succession and the Prime Ministers felt that this unique barrier could no longer be justified. The Prime Ministers have agreed that they will each work within their respective administrations to bring forward the necessary measures to enable all the realms to give effect to these changes simultaneously.[8][9]

In a letter to the other realms' heads of government, prior to the Perth Agreement, British Prime Minister David Cameron had additionally proposed to limit the requirement to obtain the monarch's permission to marry to the first six people in line to the throne.[10]

On 4 December 2012, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg announced:

[T]he Government has received final consent from all the Commonwealth realms to press ahead with a landmark bill to end the centuries-old discrimination against women in line to the British throne at the soonest possible opportunity. This confirmation means that the Government will seek to introduce the Succession to the Crown Bill in the House of Commons at the earliest opportunity allowed by the parliamentary timetable.[11]

The bill was published on 13 December 2012, and after passing both Houses of Parliament it received royal assent on 25 April 2013, immediately before the prorogation of Parliament that day.[12][13]

The purpose of the Succession to the Crown Act is to give effect in the United Kingdom to the Perth agreement. The British government announced that the Act's provisions were not intended to come into force before the appropriate domestic arrangements were in place in the other Commonwealth realms.[14]

Males born after 28 October 2011 no longer precede their elder sisters in the line of succession.[7][15] There has not yet been a monarch's succession affected by the new rule. The first people in the line of succession to be affected by the changes on the date they came into force were the children of Lady Davina Lewis, her son Tāne (born 2012) and her daughter Senna (born 2010), who were reversed in the order of succession, becoming 29th and 28th in line respectively.[16] The current first affected successor in line is Princess Charlotte of Wales, who would otherwise be preceded by Prince Louis of Wales.

Princess Anne, however, would succeed after her younger brothers because she was born before the commencement of the Succession Act. This makes even the youngest of British Royal children in front of her in the line of succession.

When the Act came into force in May 2013, the Duchess of Cambridge was expecting her first child, and its provisions would have had significant effect had the child been a girl, with media commentary focusing on the potential for the birth to make history.[17] In the event it was a boy (as it was, Prince George of Wales) the Act would have no practical effect. However, it has since taken on significance for his younger siblings. Princess Charlotte of Wales was from her birth on 2 May 2015 fourth in line to the Throne, after Prince George and ahead of Prince Harry, just as she would have been had the Act not been passed. However, due to the provisions of the Act, she has retained her place in the succession ahead of her younger brother Prince Louis of Wales, who was born on 23 April 2018.

Marrying a Roman Catholic no longer disqualifies a person from succeeding to the Crown.[18][19] The explanation published when the bill was introduced mentioned that those who had lost their places in the line of succession by marrying a Roman Catholic would regain their places, but that those "with a realistic prospect of succeeding to the Throne" would not be affected. The first person in the new line of succession to be affected by this change when it came into effect was George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews, who had married a Roman Catholic in 1988 and was restored to the line of succession in 34th place, after his father Prince Edward, Duke of Kent.[16] The provision of the Act of Settlement prohibiting the monarch from being a Roman Catholic continues.[20] Some have raised concerns about this portion of the act,[21] given that the Canon Law of the Catholic Church, says that Catholics who marry baptized non-Catholics, before getting permission to marry the non-Catholic must "make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic faith".[22] In a case where a Catholic's child was in the succession line to the throne, this would bring up clashes with the current ban on Roman Catholics reigning on the throne.

The Royal Marriages Act 1772 is repealed.[19][23] Instead, only the first six persons in line to the throne require the Sovereign's approval to marry.[24] For these six, marriage without the Sovereign's consent would disqualify the person and the person's descendants from succeeding to the Crown.[25] However, the marriage would still be legally valid.

Marriages legally void under the Royal Marriages Act 1772 will be treated as never having been void, except for purposes relating to the succession to the Crown, provided all the following conditions are met:[26]

1. Neither party to the marriage was one of the six persons next in the line of succession to the Crown at the time of the marriage.
2. No consent was sought under section 1 of that Act, or notice given under section 2 of that Act,[note 1] in respect of the marriage.
3. 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.
4. No person acted before the coming into force of the 2013 Act on the basis that the marriage was void.[note 2]

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,[27] several sections in the Bill of Rights 1689[note 3][note 4] and the Act of Settlement 1701[note 5][note 6][note 7] involving marriages with "papists" (Catholics) were repealed.[28] Any references to provisions relating to "the succession to, or possession of, the Crown" also include, by reference, the provisions of this act.[29]

However, the sections that ban Catholic succession were not repealed. Catholics are still officially termed as being "naturally dead and deemed to be dead" in terms of succession. This distinction was first legislated in the Bill of Rights 1689.[30] Jacob Rees-Mogg (Con) also confirmed "the Act of Settlement deems somebody who has been a Catholic for a minute to be 'dead' in terms of the succession, and it passes over them 'as if they were dead'. It is an absolute. If at any moment in their whole life they were in communion with Rome, they are excluded from the throne, deemed to be dead." Mark Durkan (SDLP) made a comparison of this with McCarthyism, "In effect, it is the McCarthyite question: 'Are you now or have you ever been a Catholic?'”. He then went on with a summary of the proviso saying, "For anybody who has ever been a Catholic in any shape or form, that is it, they are out; they count as dead for these purposes."[31] The ban continues. A person who has never been a Catholic but who is not Protestant is permitted to succeed if they convert to a Protestant communion, since a Protestant monarch is required by the Acts of Union 1707.

As the monarch's eldest son will no longer automatically be heir apparent, the Treason Act 1351 was also amended, so that encompassing the death of the monarch's eldest son is now extended to murdering the heir apparent, whatever the sex. Another amendment to the Treason Act is that, whereas it had been treason to "violate" the monarch's eldest son's wife, it is now only treason if the eldest son is also the eldest child.

The Regency Act 1937 was amended to require the regent to be a person who had not been disqualified from the succession by marrying without the monarch's permission under the 2013 Act.[28]

None of the provisions of the act altering the law, including those which will or may affect any direct or collateral line of succession to the British throne, were to come into force until a day appointed for it by a commencement order made by the Lord President of the Council.[32][note 8] When publishing the bill the government had announced that it was expecting to bring the provisions into force at the same time as the other realms would be bringing into force any changes to their legislation or other changes necessary for them to implement the Perth Agreement.[33] This was done on 26 March 2015.[3][34][35][1]

On 21 January 2013, the Church of England published a briefing endorsing the bill's provisions and stating, "The use of fast-tracking procedures [for the bill] is acceptable."[37] The same day, the Telegraph reported that the Church of England had written to MPs to express its official backing for the proposed changes.[38]

A report on the rules of royal succession was prepared by the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee of the House of Commons, chaired by Graham Allen, and was published in December 2011. The report welcomed the proposals, but drew attention to "connected issues that may be raised when the proposals are debated, depending on the scope of the bill, especially the future role of the Crown in the Church of England, and the continued ineligibility of women to succeed to the majority of hereditary peerages, which remains a matter of public interest for as long as it has an impact on gender balance in the House of Lords".[39]

On 9 September 2012, the British government published a response to the report, reiterating that it intended to implement the Perth Agreement but had no plans to change the laws of succession to peerages or the established status of the Church of England.[40]

On 21 January 2013, the House of Lords Constitution Committee published a report opposing the Government's plan to fast-track the bill, citing the legislation's "constitutional significance" and "possible unintended consequences".[41]

In response, the Government expanded the time allocated for the bill's debate in the House of Commons from one day to two days,[42] and it decided not to fast-track the bill in the House of Lords, where the normal time limits were observed.[43]