The International Association of Amateur Heralds

Depending on how the bill is worded, it might not matter. If the bill contains language that stipulates and all-or-none passage to take effect, then the crown realms may pass it when they see fit. If even one of the realms does not pass it, then the bill never takes effect in any of them.

Nothing in the Succession to the Crown Bill expressly states that all 16 Realms must agree to the changes, but without reviewing all Acts related to the office of the Crown, I can't say for certain that the requirement is not expressed elsewhere.

Jeremy Kudlick wrote:Nothing in the Succession to the Crown Bill expressly states that all 16 Realms must agree to the changes, but without reviewing all Acts related to the office of the Crown, I can't say for certain that the requirement is not expressed elsewhere.

Section 5(2) appears to be the means for ensuring that everything is synchronized among the realms: "The other provisions of this Act [other than the short title] come into force on such day and at such time as the Lord President of the Council may by order made by statutory instrument appoint." Presumably the Lord President will wait until the other realms are in line before issuing the statutory instrument.

Jeremy Kudlick wrote:Nothing in the Succession to the Crown Bill expressly states that all 16 Realms must agree to the changes, but without reviewing all Acts related to the office of the Crown, I can't say for certain that the requirement is not expressed elsewhere.

As a general principle, the UK Parliament cannot legislate for the realms, unless they individually agree to it. That's one of the provisions of the Statute of Westminster 1931. Hence the need for separate but co-ordinated legislation in each realm.

Here's yet another angle on the whole succession issue:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9743383/Kate-Middletons-daughter-to-be-protected-by-treason-law.html

Typically inaccurate newspaper rubbish. The report headline stupidly misreports what was actually said:

Changing the rules of Royal succession to ensure a first-born daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge becomes Queen will mean rewriting a law made in 1351 and first written in Norman French, ministers have revealed.

Assuming that the rules are changed at all, they will NOT be changed to ensure that the first born daughter becomes Queen!!!
First born child .. yes. Changing the rules to allow preference for a first born daughter would have a very different outcome as it would actually reverse the status quo and allow females to take precedence over males born before them.

Newspapers ... sheesh!

Ryan Shuflin wrote:Interestingly, according to wikipedia Lord Culloden bears his maternal grandfathers arms in pretense as his mother is an heraldic heiress (apparently related to the Booth baronets and Earls of Warrington), but no additional label over his father's arms.

-Unfortunately; that's typical wikipedia unsourced rubbish. Even if his mother is an heraldic heiress; it would be she who would be bearing her father's arms in an in pretence over those of her husband; rather than her son who would quarter them 2 and 4 with the arms of his father 1 and 3.

Unfortunately; that's typical wikipedia unsourced rubbish.

The great thing about Wiki is that if one spots an egregious error such as this, one has the opportunity to rectify it. Wiki is a fantastic tool, but like any complex instrument it requires tweaking to make it run smoothly. Unlike other complex instruments however it does not have a single dedicated mechanic with that responsibility. In my view IAAH members who have the ability to do so have a duty to correct heraldic blunders. If we don't who will?

Jonathan Webster wrote:

Ryan Shuflin wrote:Interestingly, according to wikipedia Lord Culloden bears his maternal grandfathers arms in pretense as his mother is an heraldic heiress (apparently related to the Booth baronets and Earls of Warrington), but no additional label over his father's arms.

-Unfortunately; that's typical wikipedia unsourced rubbish. Even if his mother is an heraldic heiress; it would be she who would be bearing her father's arms in an in pretence over those of her husband; rather than her son who would quarter them 2 and 4 with the arms of his father 1 and 3.

That's what I thought, but if it was true I figured someone here would know.

Jonathan Webster wrote:... rather than her son who would quarter them 2 and 4 with the arms of his father 1 and 3.

Surely that should read, respectively, '2 & 3' and '1 & 4'?