header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
08 May 2015 / Neil Parpworth
Issue: 7651 / Categories: Opinion , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Game of thrones

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_may_8_princess

Neil Parpworth examines the impact of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013

Although the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 received Royal Assent on 25 April 2013, its key provisions did not enter into force until 26 March 2015: see the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 (Commencement) Order 2015 (SI 2015/894). It is a constitutionally important measure since it addresses several pieces of discrimination relating to the monarchy.

Succession

Hitherto, succession to the Crown has been determined by applying the common law principle of male preference primogeniture. On the death of a monarch, the throne has normally passed to their eldest and nearest male relative (usually a son), and the line of succession has been constructed accordingly.

Under s 1 of the 2013 Act, succession to the Crown is no longer dependent on gender. In the case of persons born after 28 October 2011, their place in the line of succession depends solely on when they were born. In practice, of course, the new succession arrangements are unlikely to have much effect

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
NLJ this week: Family law urged to ditch adversarial instincts
Family law must shift from conflict-driven litigation to child-centred problem-solving, according to a major new report. Writing in NLJ this week, Caroline Bowden of Anthony Gold outlines findings showing overwhelming support for reform, with 92% agreeing lawyers owe duties to children as well as clients
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll