Application re succession to the ECHR claiming the UK government are illegally discriminating against women and illegitimate children in succession

Robert Brown was referred to by the then Department of Constitutional
Affairs as “Princess Margaret’s putative illeigitimate (sic) son” as
disclosed in a data protection application to the DCA (see document
here)

Loading Image...

.

"Robert Brown, who lives on the island of Jersey, has applied to the
ECHR claiming that the British government is interpreting and applying
its own laws illegally, discriminating against women and illegitimate
children in their rights to Royal succession. (See Here)

http://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/releases/c992969/Princess-Margaret%2...

He has notified leading government officials, the UK Attorney
General’s Department of the UK and countries with direct links to the
Crown, as well as the Commonwealth Secretariat, of his case. His
application has been acknowledged by the ECHR. Mr Brown’s action is
part of a long-standing battle to determine his identity.

Royal succession in the UK is governed by the Act of Settlement. The
Act does not discriminate against women or illegitimate children and,
when interpreted in the light of the Human Rights Act, gives women and
illegitimate children equal rights in royal succession. Mr Brown
points out that no alteration to the law is required to remove the
current discrimination: he simply asks that the British government
enforce the current, standing UK legislation.

Mr Brown explains: “Women, and children of both sexes born out of
wedlock, presently do not have the same rights as males born in
wedlock when it comes to royal succession. Yet the law in Britain
allows them equal rights. The British government is closing its eyes
to an inconvenient truth: no change in law is required to the existing
legislation to give women and illegitimate children equal rights in
royal succession. The government simply has to recognise the law as it
stands. The government previously used the Human Rights Act to
legitimise the marriage of Prince Charles to divorcee, Camilla Parker
Bowles, and so it has no legal grounds for not granting women and
illegitimate children the rights they should have in royal succession.

“I have taken this action as one of a number of steps to determine my
identity. The recognition that illegitimate children have a place in
succession will oblige the UK government to disclose the existence of
any ‘secret’ illegitimate child and include it in the order of
succession. Government officials would no longer be able to dismiss
illegitimate children as a ‘private matter’ or claim that disclosure
of an illegitimate child would damage the dignity of the Royal
Family.”

Before applying to the ECHR, Mr Brown spent seven years approaching
various Government departments and ministers. He pointed out that the
government was in breach of the law, and that MPs were in breach of
their parliamentary oaths, but did not receive any response, despite
issuing repeated reminders.

Recently, MP Keith Vaz has brought a UK parliamentary bill to give
women equal rights in succession. The bill was approved in outline
concept and forwarded to a second reading. Mr Vaz has received support
from New Zealand and St Lucia. Significantly, in February 1981, the UK
parliament signed the ECHR convention on the rights of children born
to unmarried parents*.

Robert Brown points out that, while giving individuals their deserved
rights, the recognition of the rights of women and illegitimate
children would have limited effect on the UK’s order of succession.
Furthermore, any change in interpretation of the Act of Settlement
would have no effect on Her Majesty the Queen, as her accession and
those of her predecessors were approved by Parliament. However, the
effect would be crucial if, for example, the first child of a future
King William and Queen Catherine were to be a girl.

The Commonwealth Secretary-General, Mr Kamalesh Sharma, has stated
that "gender equality is crucial to key development goals" and he
mentions women as “enhancing democracy and peace”. The Commonwealth is
emphasising the message that “by investing in women and girls we can
accelerate social, economic and political progress in our member
states”. With this in mind, Mr Brown’s action is of importance to
women’s rights and of constitutional importance to the UK and the
Commonwealth.

Says Mr Brown: “The UK government may be found by ECHR to be in breach
of the wishes of Parliament, its own laws, and wider international
convention obligations when it comes to giving equal rights to women
and illegitimate children in royal succession. Such a finding could
have global and possibly detrimental implications for the UK
government.” "

"Mr Brown has previously taken verbal legal counsel from Blackstone
Chambers, who were of the categorical opinion that there is no legal
bar to the right of illegitimate children in royal succession. He
wishes to have the matter resolved through the recognition by the new
UK government of the law as currently in force, and has resorted to
the European Court of Human Rights as a result of the failure of UK
government departments to acknowledge his correspondence.

Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, who died in February 2002, was
the younger sister of Queen Elizabeth II and daughter of King George
VI. She was married to photographer Antony Armstrong-Jones, who was
created Earl of Snowdon by Elizabeth II, but divorced in 1978. Prior
to her marriage she had a widely publicised love affair with Group
Captain Peter Townsend, her father's equerry, and was later linked
romantically with several men. Contrary to reports, Mr Brown has made
no claim as to his paternity."

Louis Epstein

2011-04-03 17:49:32 UTC

Robert Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:
: Robert Brown was referred to by the then Department of Constitutional
: Affairs as ?Princess Margaret?s putative illeigitimate (sic) son? as
: disclosed in a data protection application to the DCA (see document
: here)
:
: http://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/q991605/images/foi-request-2005.jpg.
:
: "Robert Brown, who lives on the island of Jersey, has applied to the
: ECHR claiming that the British government is interpreting and applying
: its own laws illegally, discriminating against women and illegitimate
: children in their rights to Royal succession. (See Here)
:
: http://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/releases/c992969/Princess-Margaret%2...
:
: He has notified leading government officials, the UK Attorney
: General?s Department of the UK and countries with direct links to the
: Crown, as well as the Commonwealth Secretariat, of his case. His
: application has been acknowledged by the ECHR. Mr Brown?s action is
: part of a long-standing battle to determine his identity.
:
: Royal succession in the UK is governed by the Act of Settlement. The
: Act does not discriminate against women or illegitimate children and,
: when interpreted in the light of the Human Rights Act, gives women and
: illegitimate children equal rights in royal succession.

A powerful argument for immediate repeal of the Human Rights Act!

Unfortunately,Mr. Brown fails to pursue this point and takes his
reasoning completely off the rails.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Robert Brown

2011-04-03 18:25:06 UTC

Post by Louis Epstein
: Robert Brown was referred to by the then Department of Constitutional
: Affairs as ?Princess Margaret?s putative illeigitimate (sic) son? as
: disclosed in a data protection application to the DCA (see document
: here)
:http://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/q991605/images/foi-request-2005.jpg.
: "Robert Brown, who lives on the island of Jersey, has applied to the
: ECHR claiming that the British government is interpreting and applying
: its own laws illegally, discriminating against women and illegitimate
: children in their rights to Royal succession. (See Here)
:http://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/releases/c992969/Princess-Margaret%2...
: He has notified leading government officials, the UK Attorney
: General?s Department of the UK and countries with direct links to the
: Crown, as well as the Commonwealth Secretariat, of his case. His
: application has been acknowledged by the ECHR. Mr Brown?s action is
: part of a long-standing battle to determine his identity.
: Royal succession in the UK is governed by the Act of Settlement. The
: Act does not discriminate against women or illegitimate children and,
: when interpreted in the light of the Human Rights Act, gives women and
: illegitimate children equal rights in royal succession.
A powerful argument for immediate repeal of the Human Rights Act!
Unfortunately,Mr. Brown fails to pursue this point and takes his
reasoning completely off the rails.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

^Thank you for your comment.

If my argument hold good, the repeal of the Human Rights Act would not
derail the case in so far as it relates to the rights of illegitimates
in succession. Parliament is of course at liberty to repeal the Act of
Settlement or withdraw from the Convention on rights of children born
out of wedlock.

This is an a REAL LIVE ACTUAL CURRENT case in process at the ECHR
rather than me musing the subject.

Robert Brown

2011-04-03 18:32:04 UTC

^Thank you for your comment.

If my arguments hold good, the repeal of the Human Rights Act would
not derail the case in so far as it relates to the rights of
illegitimates in succession.

Parliament is of course at liberty to repeal the Act of Settlement or
withdraw from the Convention of the rights of children born
out of wedlock.

This is an a REAL LIVE ACTUAL CURRENT case in process at the ECHR
rather than me musing the subject.

CJ Buyers

2011-04-04 00:04:20 UTC

Post by Robert Brown
Parliament is of course at liberty to repeal the Act of Settlement or
withdraw from the Convention of the rights of children born
out of wedlock.

As far as section 9 (and 10) is concerned, the UK (and one or two
other countries) ratified with specific declaration of exemption for
crown and peerage succession. You should check the actual documents
signed and ratified specifically by the UK. No point looking at the
general document and extrapolating from there.

The answer given by the Minister to a question on this whole subject
was as follows:

"Succession to the Crown is governed by the common law rules of
descent for hereditary titles, including legitimacy, as well as the
Act of Settlement. Although the Legitimacy Act 1976 made it possible
for persons born outside wedlock to be legitimised, for most purposes,
by the subsequent marriage of their parents, succession to the Crown
and to any peerage is specifically exempted. The Act of Settlement and
the common law together form the basis on which the UK's
interpretative declaration in respect of articles 9 and 10 of the
European Convention on the Legal Status of Children Born out of
Wedlock was made and remains valid."

Michael Wills, the then Minister of State in the Ministry of Justice
(MP for North Swindon, Labour)
Hansard: HC Deb, 25 January 2010, c703W

Robert Brown

2011-04-05 09:20:56 UTC

Post by Robert Brown
Parliament is of course at liberty to repeal the Act of Settlement or
withdraw from the Convention of the rights of children born
out of wedlock.

As far as section 9 (and 10) is concerned, the UK (and one or two
other countries) ratified with specific declaration of exemption for
crown and peerage succession. You should check the actual documents
signed and ratified specifically by the UK. No point looking at the
general document and extrapolating from there.
The answer given by the Minister to a question on this whole subject
"Succession to the Crown is governed by the common law rules of
descent for hereditary titles, including legitimacy, as well as the
Act of Settlement. Although the Legitimacy Act 1976 made it possible
for persons born outside wedlock to be legitimised, for most purposes,
by the subsequent marriage of their parents, succession to the Crown
and to any peerage is specifically exempted. The Act of Settlement and
the common law together form the basis on which the UK's
interpretative declaration in respect of articles 9 and 10 of the
European Convention on the Legal Status of Children Born out of
Wedlock was made and remains valid."
Michael Wills, the then Minister of State in the Ministry of Justice
(MP for North Swindon, Labour)
Hansard: HC Deb, 25 January 2010, c703W

Thank you for your comment, and the copy of the response to a question
I had not seen.

I have copies of the original document, an interpretative declaration.
Obtaining them took considerable effort. An FOI application disclosed
the UK had lost the relevant file. The Council of Europe happily
eventually located their copy.

The Act of Settlement does not exclude illegitimates and arguably
provides for them in that it includes "Heirs of the Body of His
Majesty", and there is no requirement His Majesty be married. I have
taken verbal counsel.

CJ Buyers

2011-04-05 11:19:30 UTC

Post by Robert Brown
Parliament is of course at liberty to repeal the Act of Settlement or
withdraw from the Convention of the rights of children born
out of wedlock.

As far as section 9 (and 10) is concerned, the UK (and one or two
other countries) ratified with specific declaration of exemption for
crown and peerage succession. You should check the actual documents
signed and ratified specifically by the UK. No point looking at the
general document and extrapolating from there.
The answer given by the Minister to a question on this whole subject
"Succession to the Crown is governed by the common law rules of
descent for hereditary titles, including legitimacy, as well as the
Act of Settlement. Although the Legitimacy Act 1976 made it possible
for persons born outside wedlock to be legitimised, for most purposes,
by the subsequent marriage of their parents, succession to the Crown
and to any peerage is specifically exempted. The Act of Settlement and
the common law together form the basis on which the UK's
interpretative declaration in respect of articles 9 and 10 of the
European Convention on the Legal Status of Children Born out of
Wedlock was made and remains valid."
Michael Wills, the then Minister of State in the Ministry of Justice
(MP for North Swindon, Labour)
Hansard: HC Deb, 25 January 2010, c703W

Thank you for your comment, and the copy of the response to a question
I had not seen.
I have copies of the original document, an interpretative declaration.
Obtaining them took considerable effort. An FOI application disclosed
the UK had lost the relevant file. The Council of Europe happily
eventually located their copy.
The Act of Settlement does not exclude illegitimates and arguably
provides for them in that it includes "Heirs of the Body of His
Majesty", and there is no requirement His Majesty be married. I have
taken verbal counsel.- Hide quoted text -

Yes it does. You are missunderstanding the meaning of the term.

You can only be an "Heir of the Body" by proving that you are "of the
body" in law, i.e. that your parents are married.

You are not "of the body" in the law of the time, and there was no way
of demonstrating that you were, unless your parents were married.

Modern concepts of DNA links and the rest are all meaningless to the
law. Indeed, the term does not even necessarily imply or require any
actual genetic between the child and the legal father. The biological
father may well be another person, but so long as the husband of the
lady concerned says or does nothing, the child born within that
marriage is HIS "heir of the body".

Robert Brown

2011-04-05 19:56:26 UTC

Post by Robert Brown
Parliament is of course at liberty to repeal the Act of Settlement or
withdraw from the Convention of the rights of children born
out of wedlock.

As far as section 9 (and 10) is concerned, the UK (and one or two
other countries) ratified with specific declaration of exemption for
crown and peerage succession. You should check the actual documents
signed and ratified specifically by the UK. No point looking at the
general document and extrapolating from there.
The answer given by the Minister to a question on this whole subject
"Succession to the Crown is governed by the common law rules of
descent for hereditary titles, including legitimacy, as well as the
Act of Settlement. Although the Legitimacy Act 1976 made it possible
for persons born outside wedlock to be legitimised, for most purposes,
by the subsequent marriage of their parents, succession to the Crown
and to any peerage is specifically exempted. The Act of Settlement and
the common law together form the basis on which the UK's
interpretative declaration in respect of articles 9 and 10 of the
European Convention on the Legal Status of Children Born out of
Wedlock was made and remains valid."
Michael Wills, the then Minister of State in the Ministry of Justice
(MP for North Swindon, Labour)
Hansard: HC Deb, 25 January 2010, c703W

Thank you for your comment, and the copy of the response to a question
I had not seen.
I have copies of the original document, an interpretative declaration.
Obtaining them took considerable effort. An FOI application disclosed
the UK had lost the relevant file. The Council of Europe happily
eventually located their copy.
The Act of Settlement does not exclude illegitimates and arguably
provides for them in that it includes "Heirs of the Body of His
Majesty", and there is no requirement His Majesty be married. I have
taken verbal counsel.- Hide quoted text -

Yes it does. You are missunderstanding the meaning of the term.
You can only be an "Heir of the Body" by proving that you are "of the
body" in law, i.e. that your parents are married.
You are not "of the body" in the law of the time, and there was no way
of demonstrating that you were, unless your parents were married.
Modern concepts of DNA links and the rest are all meaningless to the
law. Indeed, the term does not even necessarily imply or require any
actual genetic between the child and the legal father. The biological
father may well be another person, but so long as the husband of the
lady concerned says or does nothing, the child born within that
marriage is HIS "heir of the body".

Thank you for that interesting thought which I respectfully would
differ with. I suspect children born out of wedlock would be most
concerned by the idea they do not exist at law.

CJ Buyers

2011-04-05 22:03:59 UTC

Post by Robert Brown
Parliament is of course at liberty to repeal the Act of Settlement or
withdraw from the Convention of the rights of children born
out of wedlock.

As far as section 9 (and 10) is concerned, the UK (and one or two
other countries) ratified with specific declaration of exemption for
crown and peerage succession. You should check the actual documents
signed and ratified specifically by the UK. No point looking at the
general document and extrapolating from there.
The answer given by the Minister to a question on this whole subject
"Succession to the Crown is governed by the common law rules of
descent for hereditary titles, including legitimacy, as well as the
Act of Settlement. Although the Legitimacy Act 1976 made it possible
for persons born outside wedlock to be legitimised, for most purposes,
by the subsequent marriage of their parents, succession to the Crown
and to any peerage is specifically exempted. The Act of Settlement and
the common law together form the basis on which the UK's
interpretative declaration in respect of articles 9 and 10 of the
European Convention on the Legal Status of Children Born out of
Wedlock was made and remains valid."
Michael Wills, the then Minister of State in the Ministry of Justice
(MP for North Swindon, Labour)
Hansard: HC Deb, 25 January 2010, c703W

Thank you for your comment, and the copy of the response to a question
I had not seen.
I have copies of the original document, an interpretative declaration.
Obtaining them took considerable effort. An FOI application disclosed
the UK had lost the relevant file. The Council of Europe happily
eventually located their copy.
The Act of Settlement does not exclude illegitimates and arguably
provides for them in that it includes "Heirs of the Body of His
Majesty", and there is no requirement His Majesty be married. I have
taken verbal counsel.- Hide quoted text -

Yes it does. You are missunderstanding the meaning of the term.
You can only be an "Heir of the Body" by proving that you are "of the
body" in law, i.e. that your parents are married.
You are not "of the body" in the law of the time, and there was no way
of demonstrating that you were, unless your parents were married.
Modern concepts of DNA links and the rest are all meaningless to the
law. Indeed, the term does not even necessarily imply or require any
actual genetic between the child and the legal father. The biological
father may well be another person, but so long as the husband of the
lady concerned says or does nothing, the child born within that
marriage is HIS "heir of the body".

Thank you for that interesting thought which I respectfully would
differ with. I suspect children born out of wedlock would be most
concerned by the idea they do not exist at law.- Hide quoted text -

Whether they are concerned or not is entirely immaterial to the issue
of what "heir of the body" means in law. It is a legal definition, not
a biological one.

But, I suppose nothing that any one of us says here is going to deter
you from pursuing this forlorn hope. So it is best to bow out and wish
your lawyers the best of British in filling up their coffers at your
expense.

Robert Brown

2011-04-05 23:28:59 UTC

Post by Robert Brown
Parliament is of course at liberty to repeal the Act of Settlement or
withdraw from the Convention of the rights of children born
out of wedlock.

As far as section 9 (and 10) is concerned, the UK (and one or two
other countries) ratified with specific declaration of exemption for
crown and peerage succession. You should check the actual documents
signed and ratified specifically by the UK. No point looking at the
general document and extrapolating from there.
The answer given by the Minister to a question on this whole subject
"Succession to the Crown is governed by the common law rules of
descent for hereditary titles, including legitimacy, as well as the
Act of Settlement. Although the Legitimacy Act 1976 made it possible
for persons born outside wedlock to be legitimised, for most purposes,
by the subsequent marriage of their parents, succession to the Crown
and to any peerage is specifically exempted. The Act of Settlement and
the common law together form the basis on which the UK's
interpretative declaration in respect of articles 9 and 10 of the
European Convention on the Legal Status of Children Born out of
Wedlock was made and remains valid."
Michael Wills, the then Minister of State in the Ministry of Justice
(MP for North Swindon, Labour)
Hansard: HC Deb, 25 January 2010, c703W

Thank you for your comment, and the copy of the response to a question
I had not seen.
I have copies of the original document, an interpretative declaration.
Obtaining them took considerable effort. An FOI application disclosed
the UK had lost the relevant file. The Council of Europe happily
eventually located their copy.
The Act of Settlement does not exclude illegitimates and arguably
provides for them in that it includes "Heirs of the Body of His
Majesty", and there is no requirement His Majesty be married. I have
taken verbal counsel.- Hide quoted text -

Yes it does. You are missunderstanding the meaning of the term.
You can only be an "Heir of the Body" by proving that you are "of the
body" in law, i.e. that your parents are married.
You are not "of the body" in the law of the time, and there was no way
of demonstrating that you were, unless your parents were married.
Modern concepts of DNA links and the rest are all meaningless to the
law. Indeed, the term does not even necessarily imply or require any
actual genetic between the child and the legal father. The biological
father may well be another person, but so long as the husband of the
lady concerned says or does nothing, the child born within that
marriage is HIS "heir of the body".

Thank you for that interesting thought which I respectfully would
differ with. I suspect children born out of wedlock would be most
concerned by the idea they do not exist at law.- Hide quoted text -

Whether they are concerned or not is entirely immaterial to the issue
of what "heir of the body" means in law. It is a legal definition, not
a biological one.
But, I suppose nothing that any one of us says here is going to deter
you from pursuing this forlorn hope. So it is best to bow out and wish
your lawyers the best of British in filling up their coffers at your
expense.

Thank you for your though provoking views.

I am a litigant in person. Much of the work is done. The case is in
process. I am on balance hopeful of winning the case at least, other
wise I would not be pursuing this avenue; time will tell.

Thanks you for your concern.

Louis Epstein

2011-04-05 23:33:01 UTC

Robert Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:
: On Apr 5, 11:03?pm, CJ Buyers <***@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
:> On Apr 6, 5:56?am, Robert Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:>
:> > On Apr 5, 12:19?pm, CJ Buyers <***@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
:>
:> > > On Apr 5, 7:20?pm, Robert Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> > > > On Apr 4, 1:04?am, CJ Buyers <***@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
:>
:> > > > > On Apr 4, 4:32?am, Robert Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> > > > > > Parliament is of course at liberty to repeal the Act of Settlement
:> > > > > > or withdraw from the Convention of the rights of children born
:> > > > > > out of wedlock.
:>
:> > > > > As far as section 9 (and 10) is concerned, the UK (and one or two
:> > > > > other countries) ratified with specific declaration of exemption for
:> > > > > crown and peerage succession. You should check the actual documents
:> > > > > signed and ratified specifically by the UK. No point looking at the
:> > > > > general document and extrapolating from there.
:>
:> > > > > The answer given by the Minister to a question on this whole subject
:> > > > > was as follows:
:>
:> > > > > "Succession to the Crown is governed by the common law rules of
:> > > > > descent for hereditary titles, including legitimacy, as well as the
:> > > > > Act of Settlement. Although the Legitimacy Act 1976 made it possible
:> > > > > for persons born outside wedlock to be legitimised, for most purposes,
:> > > > > by the subsequent marriage of their parents, succession to the Crown
:> > > > > and to any peerage is specifically exempted. The Act of Settlement
:> > > > > and the common law together form the basis on which the UK's
:> > > > > interpretative declaration in respect of articles 9 and 10 of the
:> > > > > European Convention on the Legal Status of Children Born out of
:> > > > > Wedlock was made and remains valid."
:>
:> > > > > Michael Wills, the then Minister of State in the Ministry of Justice
:> > > > > (MP for North Swindon, Labour)
:> > > > > Hansard: HC Deb, 25 January 2010, c703W
:>
:> > > > Thank you for your comment, and the copy of the response to a question
:> > > > I had not seen.
:>
:> > > > I have copies of the original document, an interpretative declaration.
:> > > > Obtaining them took considerable effort. An FOI application disclosed
:> > > > the UK had lost the relevant file. The Council of Europe happily
:> > > > eventually located their copy.
:>
:> > > > The Act of Settlement does not exclude illegitimates and arguably
:> > > > provides for them in that it includes "Heirs of the Body of His
:> > > > Majesty", and there is no requirement His Majesty be married. I have
:> > > > taken verbal counsel.
:>
:> > > Yes it does. You are missunderstanding the meaning of the term.
:>
:> > > You can only be an "Heir of the Body" by proving that you are "of the
:> > > body" in law, i.e. that your parents are married.
:>
:> > > You are not "of the body" in the law of the time, and there was no way
:> > > of demonstrating that you were, unless your parents were married.
:>
:> > > Modern concepts of DNA links and the rest are all meaningless to the
:> > > law. Indeed, the term does not even necessarily imply or require any
:> > > actual genetic between the child and the legal father. The biological
:> > > father may well be another person, but so long as the husband of the
:> > > lady concerned says or does nothing, the child born within that
:> > > marriage is HIS "heir of the body".
:>
:> > Thank you for that interesting thought which I respectfully would
:> > differ with. I suspect children born out of wedlock would be most
:> > concerned by the idea they do not exist at law.- Hide quoted text -
:>
:> Whether they are concerned or not is entirely immaterial to the issue
:> of what "heir of the body" means in law. It is a legal definition, not
:> a biological one.
:>
:> But, I suppose nothing that any one of us says here is going to deter
:> you from pursuing this forlorn hope. So it is best to bow out and wish
:> your lawyers the best of British in filling up their coffers at your
:> expense.
:
: Thank you for your though provoking views.
:
: I am a litigant in person. Much of the work is done. The case is in
: process. I am on balance hopeful of winning the case at least, other
: wise I would not be pursuing this avenue; time will tell.

Your success would cause horrible damage to institutions deeply
cherished,and I hope your hope is misplaced.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Robert Brown

2011-04-05 09:45:31 UTC

Post by Robert Brown
Parliament is of course at liberty to repeal the Act of Settlement or
withdraw from the Convention of the rights of children born
out of wedlock.

As far as section 9 (and 10) is concerned, the UK (and one or two
other countries) ratified with specific declaration of exemption for
crown and peerage succession. You should check the actual documents
signed and ratified specifically by the UK. No point looking at the
general document and extrapolating from there.
The answer given by the Minister to a question on this whole subject
"Succession to the Crown is governed by the common law rules of
descent for hereditary titles, including legitimacy, as well as the
Act of Settlement. Although the Legitimacy Act 1976 made it possible
for persons born outside wedlock to be legitimised, for most purposes,
by the subsequent marriage of their parents, succession to the Crown
and to any peerage is specifically exempted. The Act of Settlement and
the common law together form the basis on which the UK's
interpretative declaration in respect of articles 9 and 10 of the
European Convention on the Legal Status of Children Born out of
Wedlock was made and remains valid."
Michael Wills, the then Minister of State in the Ministry of Justice
(MP for North Swindon, Labour)
Hansard: HC Deb, 25 January 2010, c703W

^ Thank you again for your response.

The Legitimacy Act 1976 has NO effect on the law of succession Sch 1
par 5 "It is hereby declared that nothing in this Act affects the
Succession to the Throne.", which is not what is being implied above.

My limited experience of PQ's that are of interest to me, is that they
are often economic with the facts, and presented in an ambiguous
manner that can be easily be misconstrued as supporting an untenable
government claim.

n***@gmail.com

2011-04-04 10:45:40 UTC

^Thank you for your comment.
If my arguments hold good, the repeal of the Human Rights Act would
not derail the case in so far as it relates to the rights of
illegitimates in succession.
Parliament is of course at liberty to repeal the Act of Settlement or
withdraw from the Convention of the rights of children born
out of wedlock.
This is an a REAL LIVE ACTUAL CURRENT case in process at the ECHR
rather than me musing the subject.

It's unlikely the case will succeed. The Act of Settlement requires
religious discrimination against Catholics and those married to
Catholics. If the ECHR, or any modern document of rights, applied to
it that would no longer be the case.

Nick

Robert Brown

2011-04-05 09:23:37 UTC

^Thank you for your comment.
If my arguments hold good, the repeal of the Human Rights Act would
not derail the case in so far as it relates to the rights of
illegitimates in succession.
Parliament is of course at liberty to repeal the Act of Settlement or
withdraw from the Convention of the rights of children born
out of wedlock.
This is an a REAL LIVE ACTUAL CURRENT case in process at the ECHR
rather than me musing the subject.

Thank you for your comment.

The Act is silent on the rights of illegitimates and women and
arguably provides for illegitimates, which is why a challenge can be
mounted in this way. Had the Act made specific provision then it would
not have been open to challenge.

Louis Epstein

2011-04-05 23:35:31 UTC

Robert Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:
: On Apr 4, 11:45?am, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com>
: wrote:
:> On Apr 3, 2:32?pm, Robert Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:>
:>
:> > On Apr 3, 6:49?pm, Louis Epstein <***@main.put.com> wrote:
:>
:> > > Robert Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> > > : Robert Brown was referred to by the then Department of Constitutional
:> > > : Affairs as ?Princess Margaret?s putative illeigitimate (sic) son? as
:> > > : disclosed in a data protection application to the DCA (see ?document
:> > > : here)
:> > > :
:> > > :http://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/q991605/images/foi-request-2005.jpg.
:> > > :
:> > > : "Robert Brown, who lives on the island of Jersey, has applied to the
:> > > : ECHR claiming that the British government is interpreting and applying
:> > > : its own laws illegally, discriminating against women and illegitimate
:> > > : children in their rights to Royal succession. (See Here)
:> > > :
:> > > :http://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/releases/c992969/Princess-Margaret%2...
:> > > :
:> > > : He has notified leading government officials, the UK Attorney
:> > > : General?s Department of the UK and countries with direct links to the
:> > > : Crown, as well as the Commonwealth Secretariat, of his case. His
:> > > : application has been acknowledged by the ECHR. Mr Brown?s action is
:> > > : part of a long-standing battle to determine his identity.
:> > > :
:> > > : Royal succession in the UK is governed by the Act of Settlement. The
:> > > : Act does not discriminate against women or illegitimate children and,
:> > > : when interpreted in the light of the Human Rights Act, gives women and
:> > > : illegitimate children equal rights in royal succession.
:>
:> > > A powerful argument for immediate repeal of the Human Rights Act!
:>
:> > > Unfortunately,Mr. Brown fails to pursue this point and takes his
:> > > reasoning completely off the rails.
:>
:>
:> > ^Thank you for your comment.
:>
:> > If my arguments hold good, the repeal of the Human Rights Act would
:> > not derail the case in so far as it relates to the rights of
:> > illegitimates in succession.
:>
:> > Parliament is of course at liberty to repeal the Act of Settlement or
:> > withdraw from the Convention of the rights of children born
:> > out of wedlock.
:>
:> > This is an a REAL LIVE ACTUAL CURRENT case in process at the ECHR
:> > rather than me musing the subject.
:>
:> It's unlikely the case will succeed. The Act of Settlement requires
:> religious discrimination against Catholics and those married to
:> Catholics. If the ECHR, or any modern document of rights, applied to
:> it that would no longer be the case.
:>
:> Nick
:
: Thank you for your comment.
:
: The Act is silent on the rights of illegitimates and women and
: arguably provides for illegitimates, which is why a challenge can be
: mounted in this way. Had the Act made specific provision then it would
: not have been open to challenge.

It leaves precious little significance to marriage
if it can not be required to provide succession.
Even "heirs male whomsoever" is construed to bar
those descended illegitimately,or the Erskine
Baronets of Cambo would be Earls of Kellie.

:> > > -=-=-
:> > > The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
:> > > at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Robert Brown

2011-04-06 12:26:02 UTC

Post by Louis Epstein
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:> > > : Robert Brown was referred to by the then Department of Constitutional
:> > > : Affairs as ?Princess Margaret?s putative illeigitimate (sic) son? as
:> > > : disclosed in a data protection application to the DCA (see ?document
:> > > : here)
:> > > :http://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/q991605/images/foi-request-2005.jpg.
:> > > : "Robert Brown, who lives on the island of Jersey, has applied to the
:> > > : ECHR claiming that the British government is interpreting and applying
:> > > : its own laws illegally, discriminating against women and illegitimate
:> > > : children in their rights to Royal succession. (See Here)
:> > > :http://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/releases/c992969/Princess-Margaret%2...
:> > > : He has notified leading government officials, the UK Attorney
:> > > : General?s Department of the UK and countries with direct links to the
:> > > : Crown, as well as the Commonwealth Secretariat, of his case. His
:> > > : application has been acknowledged by the ECHR. Mr Brown?s action is
:> > > : part of a long-standing battle to determine his identity.
:> > > : Royal succession in the UK is governed by the Act of Settlement. The
:> > > : Act does not discriminate against women or illegitimate children and,
:> > > : when interpreted in the light of the Human Rights Act, gives women and
:> > > : illegitimate children equal rights in royal succession.
:>
:> > > A powerful argument for immediate repeal of the Human Rights Act!
:>
:> > > Unfortunately,Mr. Brown fails to pursue this point and takes his
:> > > reasoning completely off the rails.
:>
:>
:> > ^Thank you for your comment.
:>
:> > If my arguments hold good, the repeal of the Human Rights Act would
:> > not derail the case in so far as it relates to the rights of
:> > illegitimates in succession.
:>
:> > Parliament is of course at liberty to repeal the Act of Settlement or
:> > withdraw from the Convention of the rights of children born
:> > out of wedlock.
:>
:> > This is an a REAL LIVE ACTUAL CURRENT case in process at the ECHR
:> > rather than me musing the subject.
:>
:> It's unlikely the case will succeed. The Act of Settlement requires
:> religious discrimination against Catholics and those married to
:> Catholics. If the ECHR, or any modern document of rights, applied to
:> it that would no longer be the case.
:>
:> Nick
: Thank you for your comment.
: The Act is silent on the rights of illegitimates and women and
: arguably provides for illegitimates, which is why a challenge can be
: mounted in this way. Had the Act made specific provision then it would
: not have been open to challenge.
It leaves precious little significance to marriage
if it can not be required to provide succession.
Even "heirs male whomsoever" is construed to bar
those descended illegitimately,or the Erskine
Baronets of Cambo would be Earls of Kellie.
:> > > -=-=-
:> > > The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
:> > > at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Thank you for your comment.

You make an interesting point.

I would argue the significance of marriage is not affected, and would
still be relevant to the order of royal succession. The interpretation
of the Act of Settlement in it's natural meaning, I would argue, would
place the illegitimate progeny of Royal Males at the end of the line
of succession, so maintaining the relevance of marriage.

The illegitimate progeny of Royal Women would take their normal place
in the line of succession.

Royals are now openly living for significant time frames in the same
accommodation outside marriage. Should an act of congress take place,
and should any such act result in the conception of a child, that
child would currently (illegally I would argue) be barred from
succession. What position would you take of any such issue being
barring from succession ?

Louis Epstein

2011-04-07 18:27:42 UTC

Robert Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:
: On Apr 6, 12:35?am, Louis Epstein <***@main.put.com> wrote:
:> Robert Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> : On Apr 4, 11:45?am, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com>: wrote:
:>
:> :> On Apr 3, 2:32?pm, Robert Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:
:> :>
:> :>
:> :>
:> :> > On Apr 3, 6:49?pm, Louis Epstein <***@main.put.com> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> > > Robert Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> > > : Robert Brown was referred to by the then Department of Constitutional
:> :> > > : Affairs as ?Princess Margaret?s putative illeigitimate (sic) son? as
:> :> > > : disclosed in a data protection application to the DCA (see ?document
:> :> > > : here)
:> :> > > :
:> :> > > :http://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/q991605/images/foi-request-2005.jpg.
:> :> > > :
:> :> > > : "Robert Brown, who lives on the island of Jersey, has applied to the
:> :> > > : ECHR claiming that the British government is interpreting and applying
:> :> > > : its own laws illegally, discriminating against women and illegitimate
:> :> > > : children in their rights to Royal succession. (See Here)
:> :> > > :
:> :> > > :http://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/releases/c992969/Princess-Margaret%2...
:> :> > > :
:> :> > > : He has notified leading government officials, the UK Attorney
:> :> > > : General?s Department of the UK and countries with direct links to the
:> :> > > : Crown, as well as the Commonwealth Secretariat, of his case. His
:> :> > > : application has been acknowledged by the ECHR. Mr Brown?s action is
:> :> > > : part of a long-standing battle to determine his identity.
:> :> > > :
:> :> > > : Royal succession in the UK is governed by the Act of Settlement. The
:> :> > > : Act does not discriminate against women or illegitimate children and,
:> :> > > : when interpreted in the light of the Human Rights Act, gives women and
:> :> > > : illegitimate children equal rights in royal succession.
:> :>
:> :> > > A powerful argument for immediate repeal of the Human Rights Act!
:> :>
:> :> > > Unfortunately,Mr. Brown fails to pursue this point and takes his
:> :> > > reasoning completely off the rails.
:> :>
:> :>
:> :> > ^Thank you for your comment.
:> :>
:> :> > If my arguments hold good, the repeal of the Human Rights Act would
:> :> > not derail the case in so far as it relates to the rights of
:> :> > illegitimates in succession.
:> :>
:> :> > Parliament is of course at liberty to repeal the Act of Settlement or
:> :> > withdraw from the Convention of the rights of children born
:> :> > out of wedlock.
:> :>
:> :> > This is an a REAL LIVE ACTUAL CURRENT case in process at the ECHR
:> :> > rather than me musing the subject.
:> :>
:> :> It's unlikely the case will succeed. The Act of Settlement requires
:> :> religious discrimination against Catholics and those married to
:> :> Catholics. If the ECHR, or any modern document of rights, applied to
:> :> it that would no longer be the case.
:> :>
:> :> Nick
:> :
:> : Thank you for your comment.
:> :
:> : The Act is silent on the rights of illegitimates and women and
:> : arguably provides for illegitimates, which is why a challenge can be
:> : mounted in this way. Had the Act made specific provision then it would
:> : not have been open to challenge.
:>
:> It leaves precious little significance to marriage
:> if it can not be required to provide succession.
:> Even "heirs male whomsoever" is construed to bar
:> those descended illegitimately,or the Erskine
:> Baronets of Cambo would be Earls of Kellie.
:>
:
: Thank you for your comment.
:
: You make an interesting point.
:
: I would argue the significance of marriage is not affected, and would
: still be relevant to the order of royal succession. The interpretation
: of the Act of Settlement in it's natural meaning, I would argue, would
: place the illegitimate progeny of Royal Males at the end of the line
: of succession, so maintaining the relevance of marriage.
:
: The illegitimate progeny of Royal Women would take their normal place
: in the line of succession.
:
: Royals are now openly living for significant time frames in the same
: accommodation outside marriage. Should an act of congress take place,
: and should any such act result in the conception of a child, that
: child would currently (illegally I would argue) be barred from
: succession. What position would you take of any such issue being
: barring from succession ?

Their declining to legitimate the issue by marriage before birth
would speak for itself (whether by the parties themselves or the
refusal of consent to marriage under the Royal Marriages Act where
applicable).

:> :> > > -=-=-
:> :> > > The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
:> :> > > at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Robert Brown

2011-04-07 20:54:32 UTC

Post by Louis Epstein
:>
:>
:> :>
:> :>
:> :>
:> :>
:> :>
:> :> > > : Robert Brown was referred to by the then Department of Constitutional
:> :> > > : Affairs as ?Princess Margaret?s putative illeigitimate (sic) son? as
:> :> > > : disclosed in a data protection application to the DCA (see ?document
:> :> > > : here)
:> :> > > :http://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/q991605/images/foi-request-2005.jpg.
:> :> > > : "Robert Brown, who lives on the island of Jersey, has applied to the
:> :> > > : ECHR claiming that the British government is interpreting and applying
:> :> > > : its own laws illegally, discriminating against women and illegitimate
:> :> > > : children in their rights to Royal succession. (See Here)
:> :> > > :http://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/releases/c992969/Princess-Margaret%2...
:> :> > > : He has notified leading government officials, the UK Attorney
:> :> > > : General?s Department of the UK and countries with direct links to the
:> :> > > : Crown, as well as the Commonwealth Secretariat, of his case. His
:> :> > > : application has been acknowledged by the ECHR. Mr Brown?s action is
:> :> > > : part of a long-standing battle to determine his identity.
:> :> > > : Royal succession in the UK is governed by the Act of Settlement. The
:> :> > > : Act does not discriminate against women or illegitimate children and,
:> :> > > : when interpreted in the light of the Human Rights Act, gives women and
:> :> > > : illegitimate children equal rights in royal succession.
:> :>
:> :> > > A powerful argument for immediate repeal of the Human Rights Act!
:> :>
:> :> > > Unfortunately,Mr. Brown fails to pursue this point and takes his
:> :> > > reasoning completely off the rails.
:> :>
:> :>
:> :> > ^Thank you for your comment.
:> :>
:> :> > If my arguments hold good, the repeal of the Human Rights Act would
:> :> > not derail the case in so far as it relates to the rights of
:> :> > illegitimates in succession.
:> :>
:> :> > Parliament is of course at liberty to repeal the Act of Settlement or
:> :> > withdraw from the Convention of the rights of children born
:> :> > out of wedlock.
:> :>
:> :> > This is an a REAL LIVE ACTUAL CURRENT case in process at the ECHR
:> :> > rather than me musing the subject.
:> :>
:> :> It's unlikely the case will succeed. The Act of Settlement requires
:> :> religious discrimination against Catholics and those married to
:> :> Catholics. If the ECHR, or any modern document of rights, applied to
:> :> it that would no longer be the case.
:> :>
:> :> Nick
:> : Thank you for your comment.
:> : The Act is silent on the rights of illegitimates and women and
:> : arguably provides for illegitimates, which is why a challenge can be
:> : mounted in this way. Had the Act made specific provision then it would
:> : not have been open to challenge.
:>
:> It leaves precious little significance to marriage
:> if it can not be required to provide succession.
:> Even "heirs male whomsoever" is construed to bar
:> those descended illegitimately,or the Erskine
:> Baronets of Cambo would be Earls of Kellie.
:>
: Thank you for your comment.
: You make an interesting point.
: I would argue the significance of marriage is not affected, and would
: still be relevant to the order of royal succession. The interpretation
: of the Act of Settlement in it's natural meaning, I would argue, would
: place the illegitimate progeny of Royal Males at the end of the line
: of succession, so maintaining the relevance of marriage.
: The illegitimate progeny of Royal Women would take their normal place
: in the line of succession.
: Royals are now openly living for significant time frames in the same
: accommodation outside marriage. Should an act of congress take place,
: and should any such act result in the conception of a child, that
: child would currently (illegally I would argue) be barred from
: succession. What position would you take of any such issue being
: barring from succession ?
Their declining to legitimate the issue by marriage before birth
would speak for itself (whether by the parties themselves or the
refusal of consent to marriage under the Royal Marriages Act where
applicable).
:> :> > > -=-=-
:> :> > > The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
:> :> > > at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

I do not argue with the importance of marriage, but would respectfully
make the point that when illegitimacy is made the subject of shame,
as it historically was, it is the children who have no say about the
manner of their conception who suffer the most. I am sure pressured
separation brought a life time of sadness to some mothers too.

The negative effects of illegitimacy on illegitimate children put out
to adoption, and particularly those with identity issues, can in some
instances last a life time, and may affect the next generation. One
sees this in such children of the 50s and 60s.

The Chief

2011-04-08 02:06:08 UTC

I do not argue with the importance of marriage, but would respectfully
make the point that when illegitimacy is made the subject of shame,
as it historically was, it is the children who have no say about the
manner of their conception who suffer the most. I am sure pressured
separation brought a life time of sadness to some mothers too.
The negative effects of illegitimacy on illegitimate children put out
to adoption, and particularly those with identity issues, can in some
instances last a life time, and may affect the next generation. One
sees this in such children of the 50s and 60s.

I am confused. Surely Betty and her brood are all bast*rds ex offcio?

Regards,
The Chief

Chief correspondent in alt.talk.royalty for
IRN - Irish Republican News

Louis Epstein

2011-04-15 00:53:36 UTC

The Chief <***@ymail.com> wrote:
: On Apr 7, 1:54?pm, Robert Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:
:> On Apr 7, 7:27?pm, Louis Epstein <***@main.put.com> wrote:
:>
:>
:> > Robert Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> > : On Apr 6, 12:35?am, Louis Epstein <***@main.put.com> wrote:
:> > :> Robert Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:
:> > :>
:> > :> : On Apr 4, 11:45?am, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com>: wrote:
:> > :>
:> > :> :> On Apr 3, 2:32?pm, Robert Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:
:> > :> :>
:> > :> :>
:> > :> :>
:> > :> :> > On Apr 3, 6:49?pm, Louis Epstein <***@main.put.com> wrote:
:> > :> :>
:> > :> :> > > Robert Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:
:> > :> :>
:> > :> :> > > : Robert Brown was referred to by the then Department of Constitutional
:> > :> :> > > : Affairs as ?Princess Margaret?s putative illeigitimate (sic) son? as
:> > :> :> > > : disclosed in a data protection application to the DCA (see ?document
:> > :> :> > > : here)
:> > :> :> > > :
:> > :> :> > > :http://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/q991605/images/foi-request-2005.jpg.
:> > :> :> > > :
:> > :> :> > > : "Robert Brown, who lives on the island of Jersey, has applied to the
:> > :> :> > > : ECHR claiming that the British government is interpreting and applying
:> > :> :> > > : its own laws illegally, discriminating against women and illegitimate
:> > :> :> > > : children in their rights to Royal succession. (See Here)
:> > :> :> > > :
:> > :> :> > > :http://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/releases/c992969/Princess-Margaret%2...
:> > :> :> > > :
:> > :> :> > > : He has notified leading government officials, the UK Attorney
:> > :> :> > > : General?s Department of the UK and countries with direct links to the
:> > :> :> > > : Crown, as well as the Commonwealth Secretariat, of his case. His
:> > :> :> > > : application has been acknowledged by the ECHR. Mr Brown?s action is
:> > :> :> > > : part of a long-standing battle to determine his identity.
:> > :> :> > > :
:> > :> :> > > : Royal succession in the UK is governed by the Act of Settlement. The
:> > :> :> > > : Act does not discriminate against women or illegitimate children and,
:> > :> :> > > : when interpreted in the light of the Human Rights Act, gives women and
:> > :> :> > > : illegitimate children equal rights in royal succession.
:> > :> :>
:> > :> :> > > A powerful argument for immediate repeal of the Human Rights Act!
:> > :> :>
:> > :> :> > > Unfortunately,Mr. Brown fails to pursue this point and takes his
:> > :> :> > > reasoning completely off the rails.
:> > :> :>
:> > :> :>
:> > :> :> > ^Thank you for your comment.
:> > :> :>
:> > :> :> > If my arguments hold good, the repeal of the Human Rights Act would
:> > :> :> > not derail the case in so far as it relates to the rights of
:> > :> :> > illegitimates in succession.
:> > :> :>
:> > :> :> > Parliament is of course at liberty to repeal the Act of Settlement or
:> > :> :> > withdraw from the Convention of the rights of children born
:> > :> :> > out of wedlock.
:> > :> :>
:> > :> :> > This is an a REAL LIVE ACTUAL CURRENT case in process at the ECHR
:> > :> :> > rather than me musing the subject.
:> > :> :>
:> > :> :> It's unlikely the case will succeed. The Act of Settlement requires
:> > :> :> religious discrimination against Catholics and those married to
:> > :> :> Catholics. If the ECHR, or any modern document of rights, applied to
:> > :> :> it that would no longer be the case.
:> > :> :>
:> > :> :> Nick
:> > :> :
:> > :> : Thank you for your comment.
:> > :> :
:> > :> : The Act is silent on the rights of illegitimates and women and
:> > :> : arguably provides for illegitimates, which is why a challenge can be
:> > :> : mounted in this way. Had the Act made specific provision then it would
:> > :> : not have been open to challenge.
:> > :>
:> > :> It leaves precious little significance to marriage
:> > :> if it can not be required to provide succession.
:> > :> Even "heirs male whomsoever" is construed to bar
:> > :> those descended illegitimately,or the Erskine
:> > :> Baronets of Cambo would be Earls of Kellie.
:> > :>
:> > :
:> > : Thank you for your comment.
:> > :
:> > : You make an interesting point.
:> > :
:> > : I would argue the significance of marriage is not affected, and would
:> > : still be relevant to the order of royal succession. The interpretation
:> > : of the Act of Settlement in it's natural meaning, I would argue, would
:> > : place the illegitimate progeny of Royal Males at the end of the line
:> > : of succession, so maintaining the relevance of marriage.
:> > :
:> > : The illegitimate progeny of Royal Women would take their normal place
:> > : in the line of succession.
:> > :
:> > : Royals are now openly living for significant time frames in the same
:> > : accommodation outside marriage. Should an act of congress take place,
:> > : and should any such act result in the conception of a child, that
:> > : child would currently (illegally I would argue) be barred from
:> > : succession. What position would you take of any such issue being
:> > : barring from succession ?
:>
:> > Their declining to legitimate the issue by marriage before birth
:> > would speak for itself (whether by the parties themselves or the
:> > refusal of consent to marriage under the Royal Marriages Act where
:> > applicable).
:>
:>
:> I do not argue with the importance of marriage, but would respectfully
:> make the point that when illegitimacy is made ?the subject of shame,
:> as it historically was, it is the children who have no say about the
:> manner of their conception who suffer the most. I am sure pressured
:> separation brought a life time of sadness to some mothers too.
:>
:> The negative effects of illegitimacy on illegitimate children put out
:> to adoption, and particularly those with identity issues, can in some
:> instances last a life time, and may affect the next generation. One
:> sees this in such children of the 50s and 60s.
:
: I am confused.

As always!

: Surely Betty and her brood are all bast*rds ex offcio?

The sacred person of Her Majesty the Queen is the source of all
legitimacy!

: Regards,
: The Chief
:
: Chief correspondent in alt.talk.royalty for
: IRN - Irish Republican News

The least legitimate strain of thought in Ireland!

:> > :> :> > > -=-=-
:> > :> :> > > The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
:> > :> :> > > at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

n***@gmail.com

2011-04-06 01:34:30 UTC

^Thank you for your comment.
If my arguments hold good, the repeal of the Human Rights Act would
not derail the case in so far as it relates to the rights of
illegitimates in succession.
Parliament is of course at liberty to repeal the Act of Settlement or
withdraw from the Convention of the rights of children born
out of wedlock.
This is an a REAL LIVE ACTUAL CURRENT case in process at the ECHR
rather than me musing the subject.

Thank you for your comment.
The Act is silent on the rights of illegitimates and women and
arguably provides for illegitimates, which is why a challenge can be
mounted in this way. Had the Act made specific provision then it would
not have been open to challenge.

Unfortunately for you the phrase "Heir of the Body" has a very
specific legal meaning. It means the successor is selected by male
preference primogeniture, and must be legitimate. It's not an obscure
phrase. Almost all peerages are restricted to "heirs of the body," for
example.

For you to win the Courts will have to over-rule all peerage
successions where the peer had an elder sister, and that's just not
happening.
Nick

Robert Brown

2011-04-06 08:20:53 UTC

^Thank you for your comment.
If my arguments hold good, the repeal of the Human Rights Act would
not derail the case in so far as it relates to the rights of
illegitimates in succession.
Parliament is of course at liberty to repeal the Act of Settlement or
withdraw from the Convention of the rights of children born
out of wedlock.
This is an a REAL LIVE ACTUAL CURRENT case in process at the ECHR
rather than me musing the subject.

Thank you for your comment.
The Act is silent on the rights of illegitimates and women and
arguably provides for illegitimates, which is why a challenge can be
mounted in this way. Had the Act made specific provision then it would
not have been open to challenge.

Unfortunately for you the phrase "Heir of the Body" has a very
specific legal meaning. It means the successor is selected by male
preference primogeniture, and must be legitimate. It's not an obscure
phrase. Almost all peerages are restricted to "heirs of the body," for
example.
For you to win the Courts will have to over-rule all peerage
successions where the peer had an elder sister, and that's just not
happening.
Nick

Thank you very much for your thoughts. I had not extended my thinking
to peerages, and I wholly understand the concerns you are expressing.
Women may take a different position, and the transmission of heritable
offices is what the Carrion case above was about. It decided HONORARY
heritable offices did NOT fall under human rights.

From my limited knowledge peerages and related titles are purely
honorary offices, of the nature discussed in the Carrion case, cited
and linked above, which can easily be found by a search on the web.
The body of the text takes several reads, but makes it clear that
honorary titles do not fall under human rights, and so the traditional
transmission of purely HONORARY titles are not in any way at risk by
virtue of this case.

Monarchical succession is a very limited and particular example of
heredity ' honorary ' office, which is differentiated by the the fact
the office comes along with real power responsibilities duties,
together with onerous obligations, as well as ownership enjoyment or
custodianship of property goods and chattels.

CJ Buyers

2011-04-06 11:31:18 UTC

^Thank you for your comment.
If my arguments hold good, the repeal of the Human Rights Act would
not derail the case in so far as it relates to the rights of
illegitimates in succession.
Parliament is of course at liberty to repeal the Act of Settlement or
withdraw from the Convention of the rights of children born
out of wedlock.
This is an a REAL LIVE ACTUAL CURRENT case in process at the ECHR
rather than me musing the subject.

Thank you for your comment.
The Act is silent on the rights of illegitimates and women and
arguably provides for illegitimates, which is why a challenge can be
mounted in this way. Had the Act made specific provision then it would
not have been open to challenge.

Unfortunately for you the phrase "Heir of the Body" has a very
specific legal meaning. It means the successor is selected by male
preference primogeniture, and must be legitimate. It's not an obscure
phrase. Almost all peerages are restricted to "heirs of the body," for
example.
For you to win the Courts will have to over-rule all peerage
successions where the peer had an elder sister, and that's just not
happening.
Nick

Thank you very much for your thoughts. I had not extended my thinking
to peerages, and I wholly understand the concerns you are expressing.
Women may take a different position, and the transmission of heritable
offices is what the Carrion case above was about. It decided HONORARY
heritable offices did NOT fall under human rights.
From my limited knowledge peerages and related titles are purely
honorary offices, of the nature discussed in the Carrion case, cited
and linked above, which can easily be found by a search on the web.
The body of the text takes several reads, but makes it clear that
honorary titles do not fall under human rights, and so the traditional
transmission of purely HONORARY titles are not in any way at risk by
virtue of this case.
Monarchical succession is a very limited and particular example of
heredity ' honorary ' office, which is differentiated by the the fact
the office comes along with real power responsibilities duties,
together with onerous obligations, as well as ownership enjoyment or
custodianship of property goods and chattels.- Hide quoted text -

I would have thought that succession to a peerage entitled one, at
least until very recently, to be a member of the legislature and to
make laws. Sounds very much like real power, responsibility and duty
to me.

Robert Brown

2011-04-06 12:06:56 UTC

^Thank you for your comment.
If my arguments hold good, the repeal of the Human Rights Act would
not derail the case in so far as it relates to the rights of
illegitimates in succession.
Parliament is of course at liberty to repeal the Act of Settlement or
withdraw from the Convention of the rights of children born
out of wedlock.
This is an a REAL LIVE ACTUAL CURRENT case in process at the ECHR
rather than me musing the subject.

Thank you for your comment.
The Act is silent on the rights of illegitimates and women and
arguably provides for illegitimates, which is why a challenge can be
mounted in this way. Had the Act made specific provision then it would
not have been open to challenge.

Unfortunately for you the phrase "Heir of the Body" has a very
specific legal meaning. It means the successor is selected by male
preference primogeniture, and must be legitimate. It's not an obscure
phrase. Almost all peerages are restricted to "heirs of the body," for
example.
For you to win the Courts will have to over-rule all peerage
successions where the peer had an elder sister, and that's just not
happening.
Nick

Thank you very much for your thoughts. I had not extended my thinking
to peerages, and I wholly understand the concerns you are expressing.
Women may take a different position, and the transmission of heritable
offices is what the Carrion case above was about. It decided HONORARY
heritable offices did NOT fall under human rights.
From my limited knowledge peerages and related titles are purely
honorary offices, of the nature discussed in the Carrion case, cited
and linked above, which can easily be found by a search on the web.
The body of the text takes several reads, but makes it clear that
honorary titles do not fall under human rights, and so the traditional
transmission of purely HONORARY titles are not in any way at risk by
virtue of this case.
Monarchical succession is a very limited and particular example of
heredity ' honorary ' office, which is differentiated by the the fact
the office comes along with real power responsibilities duties,
together with onerous obligations, as well as ownership enjoyment or
custodianship of property goods and chattels.- Hide quoted text -

Thank you for your comment.

The point you make is an excellent one, but as you also astutely
observed the automatic right to sit in the House of Lords has recently
been substantially removed.

I apologise for the duplicate response above, I thought the first item
had failed to post.

Many thanks for your thought provoking point.

Robert Brown

2011-04-06 12:01:26 UTC

^Thank you for your comment.
If my arguments hold good, the repeal of the Human Rights Act would
not derail the case in so far as it relates to the rights of
illegitimates in succession.
Parliament is of course at liberty to repeal the Act of Settlement or
withdraw from the Convention of the rights of children born
out of wedlock.
This is an a REAL LIVE ACTUAL CURRENT case in process at the ECHR
rather than me musing the subject.

Thank you for your comment.
The Act is silent on the rights of illegitimates and women and
arguably provides for illegitimates, which is why a challenge can be
mounted in this way. Had the Act made specific provision then it would
not have been open to challenge.

Unfortunately for you the phrase "Heir of the Body" has a very
specific legal meaning. It means the successor is selected by male
preference primogeniture, and must be legitimate. It's not an obscure
phrase. Almost all peerages are restricted to "heirs of the body," for
example.
For you to win the Courts will have to over-rule all peerage
successions where the peer had an elder sister, and that's just not
happening.
Nick

Thank you for your comment.

The Carrion case cited above, which can be found on the web, decided
that Hereditary Tiles of Honour that are substantially devoid of
material content, so do not fall under human rights. As a result any
decision in this case looking at inter-alia human rights would not,
based on the above case, in any way affect the traditional rules of
the transmission of Heredity Peerages, because they are not subject to
human rights.

Succession to Monarchy is differentiated from such titles as it
involves real power, and authority, with corresponding obligations and
duties, as well as entitlement to the enjoyment, ownership, or
custody, of lands goods and chattels, and so arguably is subject to
Human Rights.

Joseph McMillan

2011-04-07 02:29:11 UTC

Post by Robert Brown
The Carrion case cited above, which can be found on the web, decided
that Hereditary Tiles of Honour that are substantially devoid of
material content, so do not fall under human rights.

You really do need to learn how to read. The UNHRC's refusal to
entertain Carrion's petition was not decided on any such basis. It
was based on the conclusion that hereditary titles of honor are by
their nature fundamentally inconsistent with the principles of
equality on which human rights legislation is based.

Post by Robert Brown
Succession to Monarchy is differentiated from such titles as it
involves real power, and authority, with corresponding obligations and
duties, as well as entitlement to the enjoyment, ownership, or
custody, of lands goods and chattels, and so arguably is subject to
Human Rights

So Ruth Wedgewood might have ruled, had she been in the majority. She
wasn't.

This was the point of my first post in this thread. If you were to
succeed against all odds in persuading any court with a shadow of
jurisdiction to apply the principles of international human rights law
to the question of succession to the British throne, the only logical
outcome would be to overturn the hereditary principle of succession
altogether.

That's why this entire exercise is so irretrievably silly.

Joseph McMillan

Robert Brown

2011-04-07 06:15:32 UTC

So Ruth Wedgewood might have ruled, had she been in the majority. She
wasn't.
This was the point of my first post in this thread. If you were to
succeed against all odds in persuading any court with a shadow of
jurisdiction to apply the principles of international human rights law
to the question of succession to the British throne, the only logical
outcome would be to overturn the hereditary principle of succession
altogether.
That's why this entire exercise is so irretrievably silly.
Joseph McMillan

Thank you for your comment.

Re your first point

This is one abstract of the body of the judgement.
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/undocs/html/1019-2001.html

I leave others to draw their own conclusions.

"4.8 The State party asserts that the Spanish Constitution allows the
continued use of titles of nobility, but only because it views them as
a symbol, devoid of legal or material content, and cites the
Constitutional Court to the effect that if use of a title of nobility
meant "a legal difference in material content, then necessarily the
social and legal values of the Constitution would need to be applied
to the institution of the nobility", and argues that, admitting the
continued existence of a historical institution, discriminatory but
lacking material content, there is no cause to update it by applying
constitutional principles."

Re your second point

It is surely a matter of law.

The existence of Monarchy is essentially enshrined in law, primarily
The Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement. As I understand it, I would
suggest that whilst those laws stand and remain unaltered, subject to
the extent they are amenable to be reinterpreted to be human rights
compliant, the question you raise does not arise.

Were the Act of Settlement and Bill of Rights to be revisited with a
view to rewriting them, or material amending laws proposed, then the
question which you raise, as to whether the existence of Monarchies
are consistent with the principle of human rights, would logically
come under consideration, and I suspect the arguments over the human
rights implications of this rightly cherished institution would be far
ranging complex and multifaceted.

Robert Brown

2011-04-06 22:13:49 UTC

^Thank you for your comment.
If my arguments hold good, the repeal of the Human Rights Act would
not derail the case in so far as it relates to the rights of
illegitimates in succession.
Parliament is of course at liberty to repeal the Act of Settlement or
withdraw from the Convention of the rights of children born
out of wedlock.
This is an a REAL LIVE ACTUAL CURRENT case in process at the ECHR
rather than me musing the subject.

Thank you for your comment.
The Act is silent on the rights of illegitimates and women and
arguably provides for illegitimates, which is why a challenge can be
mounted in this way. Had the Act made specific provision then it would
not have been open to challenge.

Unfortunately for you the phrase "Heir of the Body" has a very
specific legal meaning. It means the successor is selected by male
preference primogeniture, and must be legitimate. It's not an obscure
phrase. Almost all peerages are restricted to "heirs of the body," for
example.
For you to win the Courts will have to over-rule all peerage
successions where the peer had an elder sister, and that's just not
happening.
Nick

Thank you for your comment.

Royal Succession does not follow the same rules as hereditary peerages
etc in that succession of hereditary peerages appears to be defined by
heirs of the male body, whereas Royal Succession is defined primarily
by heirs of the Female body by virtue of marriage or Royal lineage,
and the biological fact of observable birth, with heirs of the male
body as a remainder person, all being subject to the approval of a
Parliament with a pragmatic need to ensure security of the realm,
which I would suggest makes any interpretation of the Act of
Settlement in respect of succession a good deal more complex and
nuanced in comparison to the rules as to the succession of Peers to
Heritable Titles.

Hovite

2011-04-07 12:34:59 UTC

Post by Robert Brown
etc in that succession of hereditary peerages appears to be defined by
heirs of the male body

The default succession is to heirs general of the body, and that rule
applies if no other is specified in the original grant. For more
recent peerages, it became customary to specify heirs male of the body.

Louis Epstein

2011-04-07 18:33:37 UTC

Robert Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:
: On Apr 6, 2:34?am, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com>
: wrote:
:> On Apr 5, 5:23?am, Robert Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:>
:> > On Apr 4, 11:45?am, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com>
:> > wrote:
:>
:> > > On Apr 3, 2:32?pm, Robert Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> > > > On Apr 3, 6:49?pm, Louis Epstein <***@main.put.com> wrote:
:>
:> > > > > Robert Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> > > > > : Robert Brown was referred to by the then Department of Constitutional
:> > > > > : Affairs as ?Princess Margaret?s putative illeigitimate (sic) son? as
:> > > > > : disclosed in a data protection application to the DCA (see ?document
:> > > > > : here)
:> > > > > :
:> > > > > :http://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/q991605/images/foi-request-2005.jpg.
:> > > > > :
:> > > > > : "Robert Brown, who lives on the island of Jersey, has applied to the
:> > > > > : ECHR claiming that the British government is interpreting and applying
:> > > > > : its own laws illegally, discriminating against women and illegitimate
:> > > > > : children in their rights to Royal succession. (See Here)
:> > > > > :
:> > > > > :http://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/releases/c992969/Princess-Margaret%2...
:> > > > > :
:> > > > > : He has notified leading government officials, the UK Attorney
:> > > > > : General?s Department of the UK and countries with direct links to the
:> > > > > : Crown, as well as the Commonwealth Secretariat, of his case. His
:> > > > > : application has been acknowledged by the ECHR. Mr Brown?s action is
:> > > > > : part of a long-standing battle to determine his identity.
:> > > > > :
:> > > > > : Royal succession in the UK is governed by the Act of Settlement. The
:> > > > > : Act does not discriminate against women or illegitimate children and,
:> > > > > : when interpreted in the light of the Human Rights Act, gives women and
:> > > > > : illegitimate children equal rights in royal succession.
:>
:> > > > > A powerful argument for immediate repeal of the Human Rights Act!
:>
:> > > > > Unfortunately,Mr. Brown fails to pursue this point and takes his
:> > > > > reasoning completely off the rails.
:>
:>
:> > > > ^Thank you for your comment.
:>
:> > > > If my arguments hold good, the repeal of the Human Rights Act would
:> > > > not derail the case in so far as it relates to the rights of
:> > > > illegitimates in succession.
:>
:> > > > Parliament is of course at liberty to repeal the Act of Settlement or
:> > > > withdraw from the Convention of the rights of children born
:> > > > out of wedlock.
:>
:> > > > This is an a REAL LIVE ACTUAL CURRENT case in process at the ECHR
:> > > > rather than me musing the subject.
:>
:> > > It's unlikely the case will succeed. The Act of Settlement requires
:> > > religious discrimination against Catholics and those married to
:> > > Catholics. If the ECHR, or any modern document of rights, applied to
:> > > it that would no longer be the case.
:>
:> > > Nick
:>
:> > Thank you for your comment.
:>
:> > The Act is silent on the rights of illegitimates and women and
:> > arguably provides for illegitimates, which is why a challenge can be
:> > mounted in this way. Had the Act made specific provision then it would
:> > not have been open to challenge.
:>
:> Unfortunately for you the phrase "Heir of the Body" has a very
:> specific legal meaning. It means the successor is selected by male
:> preference primogeniture, and must be legitimate. It's not an obscure
:> phrase. Almost all peerages are restricted to "heirs of the body," for
:> example.
:>
:> For you to win the Courts will have to over-rule all peerage
:> successions where the peer had an elder sister, and that's just not
:> happening.
:> Nick
:
: Thank you for your comment.
:
: Royal Succession does not follow the same rules as hereditary peerages
: etc in that succession of hereditary peerages appears to be defined by
: heirs of the male body, whereas Royal Succession is defined primarily
: by heirs of the Female body by virtue of marriage or Royal lineage,
: and the biological fact of observable birth, with heirs of the male
: body as a remainder person, all being subject to the approval of a
: Parliament with a pragmatic need to ensure security of the realm,
: which I would suggest makes any interpretation of the Act of
: Settlement in respect of succession a good deal more complex and
: nuanced in comparison to the rules as to the succession of Peers to
: Heritable Titles.

The form of succession followed by the Crown is known as "heirs
general without division",which is among those used for peerages
though "heirs male of the body lawfully begotten" is by far the
most common.Letters Patent,where present,determine the succession
to a particular peerage,while litigation results in cases where
the rules are in dispute or the application thereof requires a
ruling.

:> > > > > -=-=-
:> > > > > The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
:> > > > > at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

CJ Buyers

2011-04-03 23:49:42 UTC

On Apr 4, 1:40 am, Robert Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:

Seems to me the only possible section of the ECHR that could be used
is Article 14 – Prohibition of discrimination

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention
shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex,
race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national
or social origin, association with a national minority, property,
birth or other status.

The "rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention" are as follows:
Article 2 – Right to life
Article 3 – Prohibition of torture
Article 4 – Prohibition of slavery and forced labour
Article 5 – Right to liberty and security
Article 6 – Right to a fair trial
Article 7 – No punishment without law
Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Article 10 – Freedom of expression
Article 11 – Freedom of assembly and association
Article 12 – Right to marry
Article 13 – Right to an effective remedy

Sadly for Mr Brown, succession to the throne isn't among any of these.

Joseph McMillan

2011-04-04 03:25:48 UTC

Post by CJ Buyers
Seems to me the only possible section of the ECHR that could be used
is Article 14 – Prohibition of discrimination
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention
shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex,
race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national
or social origin, association with a national minority, property,
birth or other status.
Article 2 – Right to life
Article 3 – Prohibition of torture
Article 4 – Prohibition of slavery and forced labour
Article 5 – Right to liberty and security
Article 6 – Right to a fair trial
Article 7 – No punishment without law
Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Article 10 – Freedom of expression
Article 11 – Freedom of assembly and association
Article 12 – Right to marry
Article 13 – Right to an effective remedy
Sadly for Mr Brown, succession to the throne isn't among any of these.

And if it were, surely restricting the throne to the descendants of
one particular person would also be illegal as a form of
discrimination based on "birth or other status," so his claim to the
throne wouldn't be any better than that of any other random person
chosen off the street.

Joseph McMillan

Robert Brown

2011-04-05 09:12:10 UTC

Thanks for the response.

This issue has already been peripherally examined by the Human Rights
Committee in Mercedes Carrion Barcaiztegui v Spain.

CJ Buyers

2011-04-05 10:38:29 UTC

Thanks for the response.
This issue has already been peripherally examined by the Human Rights
Committee in Mercedes Carrion Barcaiztegui v Spain.- Hide quoted text -

Which particular throne is Ms Carrion claiming?

Robert Brown

2011-04-05 11:20:40 UTC

Thanks for the response.
This issue has already been peripherally examined by the Human Rights
Committee in Mercedes Carrion Barcaiztegui v Spain.- Hide quoted text -

Which particular throne is Ms Carrion claiming?

The case is reported here

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/undocs/html/1019-2001.html

Joseph McMillan

2011-04-05 13:28:39 UTC

Post by Robert Brown
This issue has already been peripherally examined by the Human Rights
Committee in Mercedes Carrion Barcaiztegui v Spain.-

Which particular throne is Ms Carrion claiming?

The case is reported here
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/undocs/html/1019-2001.html- Hide quoted text -

The operative passage of which is:

"However, the Committee considers that article 26 cannot be invoked in
support of claiming a hereditary title of nobility, an institution
that, due to its indivisible and exclusive nature, lies outside the
underlying values behind the principles of equality before the law and
non-discrimination protected by article 26. It therefore concludes
that the author's communication is incompatible ratione materiae with
the provisions of the Covenant, and thus inadmissible pursuant to
article 3 of the Optional Protocol."

The synopsis of this would be, "UN Human Rights Commission declines
jurisdiction over nobiliary claims." How could that possibly help him
in pursuing a similar claim with the ECHR?

Joseph McMillan

Robert Brown

2011-04-05 19:24:33 UTC

Post by Joseph McMillan

Post by Robert Brown
This issue has already been peripherally examined by the Human Rights
Committee in Mercedes Carrion Barcaiztegui v Spain.-

Which particular throne is Ms Carrion claiming?

The case is reported here
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/undocs/html/1019-2001.html-Hide quoted text -

"However, the Committee considers that article 26 cannot be invoked in
support of claiming a hereditary title of nobility, an institution
that, due to its indivisible and exclusive nature, lies outside the
underlying values behind the principles of equality before the law and
non-discrimination protected by article 26. It therefore concludes
that the author's communication is incompatible ratione materiae with
the provisions of the Covenant, and thus inadmissible pursuant to
article 3 of the Optional Protocol."
The synopsis of this would be, "UN Human Rights Commission declines
jurisdiction over nobiliary claims." How could that possibly help him
in pursuing a similar claim with the ECHR?
Joseph McMillan

^ Thank you for your comment

The judgement goes on to say at the very end

"The hereditary title in question here has been represented by the
state party as "devoid of any material or legal content" and purely
nomen honoris (see paragraphs 4.4 and 4.8 supra). * Thus, it is
important to note the limits of the Committee's instant decision. The
Committee's views should not be taken as sheltering any discriminatory
rules of inheritance where real or chattel property is at stake. In
addition, these views do not protect discrimination concerning
traditional heritable offices that may, in some societies, still carry
significant powers of political or judicial decision-making. We sit as
a monitoring committee for an international covenant, and cannot
settle broad rules in disregard of these local facts."

I do not propose to argue the case here. I only seek to point out
there is a case to be argued that can be advanced on a number of legs.

Joseph McMillan

2011-04-05 20:22:41 UTC

Post by Joseph McMillan

Post by Robert Brown
This issue has already been peripherally examined by the Human Rights
Committee in Mercedes Carrion Barcaiztegui v Spain.-

Which particular throne is Ms Carrion claiming?

The case is reported here
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/undocs/html/1019-2001.html-Hidequoted text -

^ Thank you for your comment
The judgement goes on to say at the very end
"The hereditary title in question here has been represented by the
state party as "devoid of any material or legal content" and purely
nomen honoris (see paragraphs 4.4 and 4.8 supra). * Thus, it is
important to note the limits of the Committee's instant decision. The
Committee's views should not be taken as sheltering any discriminatory
rules of inheritance where real or chattel property is at stake. In
addition, these views do not protect discrimination concerning
traditional heritable offices that may, in some societies, still carry
significant powers of political or judicial decision-making. We sit as
a monitoring committee for an international covenant, and cannot
settle broad rules in disregard of these local facts."

This is not part of the judgment. It is Judge Ruth Wedgewood's
dissenting opinion. Interesting, but by definition a minority view.

Joseph McMillan

Robert Brown

2011-04-05 22:33:31 UTC

Post by Joseph McMillan

Post by Robert Brown
This issue has already been peripherally examined by the Human Rights
Committee in Mercedes Carrion Barcaiztegui v Spain.-

Which particular throne is Ms Carrion claiming?

The case is reported here
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/undocs/html/1019-2001.html-Hidequotedtext -

^ Thank you for your comment
The judgement goes on to say at the very end
"The hereditary title in question here has been represented by the
state party as "devoid of any material or legal content" and purely
nomen honoris (see paragraphs 4.4 and 4.8 supra). * Thus, it is
important to note the limits of the Committee's instant decision. The
Committee's views should not be taken as sheltering any discriminatory
rules of inheritance where real or chattel property is at stake. In
addition, these views do not protect discrimination concerning
traditional heritable offices that may, in some societies, still carry
significant powers of political or judicial decision-making. We sit as
a monitoring committee for an international covenant, and cannot
settle broad rules in disregard of these local facts."

This is not part of the judgment. It is Judge Ruth Wedgewood's
dissenting opinion. Interesting, but by definition a minority view.
Joseph McMillan

Is the comment not a clarification and reiteration of the the view of
the committee as expressed in the main body of the text, as against a
dissenting view - I leave that to you. Thank you for the clarification
that a dissenting opinion does not technically form part of the
judgement.

Louis Epstein

2011-04-05 23:48:40 UTC