Princess Margaret's ‘Illegitimate Son’ takes UK Government t

Princess Margaret's ‘Illegitimate Son’ takes UK Government to Court over Royal Succession Laws

2011-04-02

http://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/releases/c992969/Princess-Margaret%27s-%E2%80%98Illegitimate-Son%E2%80%99-takes-UK-Government-to-Court-over-Royal-S.php

A man said to be the illegitimate son of Princess Margaret is taking the British government to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on the grounds that it is illegally discriminating against women and illegitimate children in the process of royal succession to the throne.

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. 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.”

ENDS