The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession 1: Ending 2022

[Connie Cutmantle]

It seems extraordinarily archaic to me that because one man was sooooo obsessed with begetting a son and had a monumental tantrum and decided to make himself Head of his nation's church and thus brought about a reformation, that nearly half a millenia later and after the issues of 1688, UK legislation still actively excludes Catholics from marriage to heirs to the throne! It's revolting out of date bigotry IMHO! Does the USA exclude Catholics from being eligible to run as President...No it does not!!!! The Uk needs to wake up and move on and stop being so 'stuck in the past!' I am also rather shocked that the Danes insist upon conversion to Lutheranism! Spain is another country that also insist upon conversion does it not? Actually thinking about it, do any extant sovereign nations not insist upon heirs marrying spouses who conform to applicably accepted 'National' religion/creed?

In the first instance such prejudices appear to me terribly negative! It is a non-sensical/divisive and hardly constructive stance to take in this day and age! Especially when we are forced to realize/accept that the world has very few paragons......... one's creed (Anglican/Lutheran/Orthodox/Catholic/Muslim/Buddhist/Sikh/Taoist etc.....) is not what should be important....it should really be about loving and cherishing all mankind and wanting to aim to provide a safer and better world for our children and those who come after.....surely?

I hope that the POW will be brave enough to disassociate the British Monarchy from the COE if and when he succeeds, as his coronation would be rather tricky to stage in the traditional sense as things stand today! The issue of Peers also comes in to the equation here!

I would like to see members of the British RF marrying for love.....pure and simple! Creed(s) should be something that are/is reconciled through love! The same applies IMHO to alll RFs....they would be setting such a wonderfully 'tolerant' and pertinent example then! (Which is what I thought they were supposed to be doing to justify their 'bread and butter' anyway!!!!!!!)Ooooh maybe I have trodden over the line as I note that Religion is a sort of dodgy area to get into here on TRF.....I do not want to offend anyone...so I shall say no more!

 

[wbenson]

NZ supports change to royal-succession rules - Politics - NZ Herald News

Prime Minister John Key says New Zealand will give its support to change royal succession law that bans first-born daughters from ascending the throne and another law that bans Catholics from marrying into the royal family.

 

[branchg]

I know she can't say no outright- but she could advise her opinion to her Prime Minister, and since the Crown is a matter for the Commonwealth I'm sure they would at least listen to what Her Majesty had to say.

When they tried to remove The Queen from postage stamps in the early 1970s she said No firmly but in her ever gracious manner and she's still on the stamps today!

The Queen reigns, but does not rule. She may advise, she may warn, she may consult, but if the Prime Minister tenders formal advice to the Crown, she is compelled to accept it.

If Parliament decides to lift the ban on Catholics and establish the right of first-born daughters succeeding over subsequent male children, there's nothing much she can do about it.

 

[Connie Cutmantle]

NZ supports change to royal-succession rules - Politics - NZ Herald News

Prime Minister John Key says New Zealand will give its support to change royal succession law that bans first-born daughters from ascending the throne and another law that bans Catholics from marrying into the royal family.

Good for John Key.....one of the few sensible things he has done recently IMHO! First borns should come first in the natural pecking order regardless of gender!

 

[Stefan]

It seems extraordinarily archaic to me that because one man was sooooo obsessed with begetting a son and had a monumental tantrum and decided to make himself Head of his nation's church and thus brought about a reformation, that nearly half a millenia later and after the issues of 1688, UK legislation still actively excludes Catholics from marriage to heirs to the throne! It's revolting out of date bigotry IMHO! Does the USA exclude Catholics from being eligible to run as President...No it does not!!!! The Uk needs to wake up and move on and stop being so 'stuck in the past!' I am also rather shocked that the Danes insist upon conversion to Lutheranism! Spain is another country that also insist upon conversion does it not? Actually thinking about it, do any extant sovereign nations not insist upon heirs marrying spouses who conform to applicably accepted 'National' religion/creed?

In Denmark the monarch is also the head of the Church. According to the law the spouse of the King/Queen doesn't have to belong the lutheran Church but so far all have converted. Also in Sweden the succession law states expilcit that these in line of succession have to belng to the swedish lutheran Church. Don't know about Norway but there also the monarch is the Head of the Church.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Spain is another country that also insist upon conversion does it not? Actually thinking about it, do any extant sovereign nations not insist upon heirs marrying spouses who conform to applicably accepted 'National' religion/creed?

I hope that the POW will be brave enough to disassociate the British Monarchy from the COE if and when he succeeds, as his coronation would be rather tricky to stage in the traditional sense as things stand today! The issue of Peers also comes in to the equation here!

As far as I know, nope no reigning monarchy accepts a prince/ss unless they conform.

I doubt very very much that the POW will disassociate himself from the Church of England, he has said he wants to be coronated as
"Defender of Faith" rather than "Defender of the Faith".

But tbqh, he will still attend an anglican church at christmas and easter like he always has done. There is no reason to "move with the times" and stop the King or Queen being head of the church of england.

 

[RoyalistRiley]

While there would surely be no problem in getting the Commonwealth Realms to amend the Act of Settlement, I think it would be hard to restore Catholics to the Succession while the Monarch remains the Church of England's Supreme Governor. There has never been an Anglican Pope, so why should a Catholic be Head of the Church of England?

I am suprised that nothing regarding equal succession for females was discuessed at CHOGM recently, though. It seemed like an ideal place to do so.

 

[Saragli]

I personally see the monarchs role as head of the church coming to an end soon. Simply because the church does not have a place in modern day society like it used to. Plus, the more traditional branch or high church is becoming friendly with the Catholics. The more liberal parts are sorta forming their own body. That leaves the monarch in a funny place down the line. It will be really interesting to see how things unfold in the coming years.

But, it wouldnt be a problem to change the marrying catholics rule. It would be like the Dutch, Prince WA is with the Dutch church while Maxima is a catholic. But their children have been raised in the Dutch religion. It would be the same in britian.

 

[Zonk]

RoyalistRiley...you made a valid point at least IMO, in regards to a Catholic being in Charge of the Anglican Church. How could that be possible.

I am not Catholic so forbid me for speaking out of turn or offending anyone but who do Catholics owe their allegiance to besides God...is it the Pope? If so, than taking into consideration what RoyalistRiley is saying....how can a Catholic leader being charge of the Anglican church? In addition, how does the Catholic faith view the Anglican faith?

But than all of the above begs the question...how does the Catholic faith differ to other religions, i.e. what would makes the act so discriminatory to Catholics that it is not applicable to other faiths i.e. Islam, Hindu, Judiasm, etc? I will admit to being one of those who viewed the Act as discriminatory to Catholics cause to be simple...it just doesn't seem fair. But looking at it from another angle (that brought forth by RoyalistRiley) and knowing the history of Catholicism in England...it kind of makes sense know.

And Princejohnny (not to be mean) but just because something works in the Netherlands doesn't necessarily mean it will work in the United Kingdom.

 

[Zonk]

For the record, I am in totally agreement that the Line of succession should be altered in regard to gender.

I was speaking with Elsepth the other day (we just chat on the phone about royalty...its kind of sad really!), and we somehow started talking about how the history of Britian might have been different if Vicky, The Princess Royal had inheirted the throne instead of Edward, Prince of Wales.

 

[Saragli]

And Princejohnny (not to be mean) but just because something works in the Netherlands doesn't necessarily mean it will work in the United Kingdom.

No meaness taken. But I disagree, it is only the monarchs religion that matters as the head of the church. As long as the monarch is an Anglican, it wouldn't matter for the rest of the royal family. And I don't see britons having a real problem with the heir marrying a non-anglican. Religion, from my experience with britons, seems to not really matter that much.

haha, how is elspeth these days? enjoying her TRF retierment?

 

[Zonk]

Elspeth is Great! Enjoying her retirement.

Yes, the religion of the monarch is important. But here is another question...would a Catholic Queen Consort to Anglican Monarch, allow her children to be raised in the Anglican faith? Would the Catholic Church (not that we are all speaking on behalf of the church) allow such a thing to happen?

 

[Saragli]

Well, traditionally, children are supposed to be raised in the faith of the mother. But precedent has been set amongst royals in the past century regarding religion. To bring up the Dutch again, Maxima is a catholic but her kids are not. So I don't think the church has a real problem with that. Or at least are not and probably can not be vocal about it.

Then there is the Luxembourg royals. A few Grand Dukes/Duchess back, a Grand Duke married a Catholic bride. They decided that all their sons would be protestants and all their daughters would be Catholics. Since they didn't have any sons, their daughters would become Grand Duchess's and hence why the royal family is today Catholic.

But I think they will "officially" remove any stance saying Catholics are not allowed to marry into the RF but they will "unofficially" insist on future brides/grooms converting. Similar to other royal houses. Well, as long as the monarch is head of the church, i think that's how it will be. Also, I think anybody marrying in the royal family and does not want to convert, would have to come to an agreement to allow the children to be raised Anglicans before a marriage could take place.

 

[RoyalistRiley]

I agree about how the monarch does not really have a role in the Church in the 21st Century. When Prince Charles becomes 'Defender of Faith' ( as he plans to) upon his ascension, I think is when a real push will be made for the rules regarding Catholics to be changed.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Charles said that he would like to be 'Defender of Faith' but it isn't up to him as the titlethat was granted by Parliament was 'Defender of the Faith' and that title will automatically become Charles' when he becomes King. To change it will take an Act of Parliament and that raises the entire issue of debating royal titles and just where that might end up.

 

[RoyalistRiley]

I'm all for represenative democracy, but I'm starting to see why some monarchs tried to skip Parliament all together. So much technicalities just to change one or two words in a title!!!!

 

[Iluvbertie]

But that word 'the' has such an incredible meaning in the title as it identifies the fact that their is ONE official faith whereas taking it out implies multiple faiths are acceptable.
Now to you and I that maybe the case but to some people that isn't the case and the RF have to be very careful about what they ask Parliament to legislate on or they could see themselves legislated out of a job.

 

[scooter]

They would have to change the Coronation Oath. The 1689 Coronation Act requires he would have to swear to 'maintain the Protestant reformed religion established by law'. Also, there's the whole are Charles and Camilla in good standing with the CoE, should APB still be alive at the time of QEII's death.

 

[Vicki J]

Do you think the church of england will still be an important part of peoples lives in Britain in 20 or 30 years. Congregations are already in decline, I think any move by the prince to represent all faiths could be incorporated in some way, because there is talk of changing the succession laws to not exclude catholics.

 

[Iluvbertie]

In my opinion Charles and Camilla are in good standing with the CofE since the Archbishop of Canterbury blessed their marriage. I would suggest that without that blessing there might have been a problem but with that blessing - a very public display that the CofE supported the marriage - it would be hard to turn around and raise questions.

Do you think the church of england will still be an important part of peoples lives in Britain in 20 or 30 years. Congregations are already in decline, I think any move by the prince to represent all faiths could be incorporated in some way, because there is talk of changing the succession laws to not exclude catholics.

I think that as long as the CofE is an established Church and that the monarch is the Supreme Governor of that Church, which Charles will be on the day of his accession, it won't be possible to do much with the oath. I understand that the Queen takes very seriously her role as Supreme Governor and her Coronation Oath so it is doubtful if during the rest of her reign she would really support a change in that oath to allow her son to take a different one.

I would like to point out that Charles takes the oath on the day of Accession and repeats it at the Coronation so there is no time for the oath to be changed before he has to take it as it is taken within hours of his accession which means that he would therefore have to push to have it changed from the one he takes on accession day to the one he takes a year or so later on Coronation Day.

I think it more likely that Charles will push to get it changed for William just as Edward VII had it changed for George V.

 

[Vicki J]

Thanks for the explanation. I hope some solution can be found to accommodate the princes wishes, for himself.

 

[Dierna23]

Discrimination has no place in the British state

British laws on succession and royal marriages discriminate against both women and Roman Catholics, and probably breach the European Convention on Human Rights.

Discrimination has no place in the British state - Herald Scotland | Comment | Herald View

 

[Lumutqueen]

Thats completely ridiculous.
I knew before time, that would be brought in.
The reason for this has been around longer than the EU. It should stay this way.

 

[Dierna23]

Only because the reason has been around longer doesn't make it better, IMO. Great Britain had admirable Queens, so why should a male child be preferred? I really think these laws are outdated.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

This poses some interesting questions. When we consider that a man is no better than a woman, which I firmly believe, than why should it be that the eldest son, even if he is the sixth child, inherits the throne from the monarch? Parliament in the past has created the order of succession. If it should choose to amend the law of succession, would this be any different than its past acts?

But then when you analogize the monarchy to a family run business, perhaps the monarch should choose his or her successor, just like the founder of the business chooses who gets to run it in the next generation?

I am a tradionalist and love the historical precedent of the British monarchy but in today's age, can we really insist that males predominate over females? As pointed out above, there have been wonderful Queens.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I would go further and say that the eldest child, regardless of gender, should be able to inherit all titles e.g. I find it extremely unfair that Beatrice could become Queen but she can't inherit her father's dukedom just because she is female and that Louise also could be Queen but no inherit her father's titles or even worse, if they change the succession to the monarchy to gender blind she remains able to be Queen ahead of her brother so that if the awful happened she could be Queen but her father's titles wouldn't merge with the Crown but pass to her brother, because he is male.

If they change the succession laws to the monarchy they really need to change the succession laws to all titles.

 

[Dierna23]

But then when you analogize the monarchy to a family run business, perhaps the monarch should choose his or her successor, just like the founder of the business chooses who gets to run it in the next generation?

I once had a similar thought. But I think it really would depend on how wise and long-sighted the monarch would be who had to make this decision. I also think some of the decedents would feel betrayed and it would lead to many, well, let me say, discussions. I also think it could be seen as discriminatory whereas if the law of succession would include only the primogenital right - regardless of female or male gender - it could be seen at least as something like destiny.

I am a tradionalist and love the historical precedent of the British monarchy but in today's age, can we really insist that males predominate over females? As pointed out above, there have been wonderful Queens.

I agree with you and I'm a traditionalist as well and I really respect and admire the British Monarchy, but the current laws are discriminatory, IMO. I can understand them in historical context, but nowadays it is discrimination, against woman and against religious freedom. I think it wouldn't hurt anyone to change these laws (correct me, if I'm wrong) if William will have children.

If I take Prince and Princess Michael of Kent for example: as their children were raised Anglican, why does it matter that the Princess stayed catholic? edit: I know that it would be difficult with the heir to the throne, as a King or Queen also is the head of church. But then again, if William would marry a Catholic (and as he is allowed to marry a Muslim, Hindhu or whatever) would it be that difficult if his woman would stay Catholic if their children would be raised Anglican? I'm just asking.

And what about the argumentum e contrario? The Duke of Kent's wife converted to Catholicism during her marriage. So, the Duke of Kent is now married to a Catholic and still ranks in the line of succession, whereas his brother lost his place because he married a Catholic?

 

[Dierna23]

I would go further and say that the eldest child, regardless of gender, should be able to inherit all titles e.g. I find it extremely unfair that Beatrice could become Queen but she can't inherit her father's dukedom just because she is female and that Louise also could be Queen but no inherit her father's titles or even worse, if they change the succession to the monarchy to gender blind she remains able to be Queen ahead of her brother so that if the awful happened she could be Queen but her father's titles wouldn't merge with the Crown but pass to her brother, because he is male.

If they change the succession laws to the monarchy they really need to change the succession laws to all titles.

Very good examples, Iluvbertie. I agree with you 100 %.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

Excellent points, Iluvbertie, I did not even consider the lapsing of titles when there is no male heir! It does appear to be incongruous that some of the Queen's granddaughters could become Queen but not inherit their father's titles. If the rules concerning succession to the throne are changed, I believe you are right that all rules of succession will have to change as well. That could open the possibility that these royal dukedoms will continue for a very long time because having daughters will not end the line.

 

[Warren]

And what about the argumentum e contrario? The Duke of Kent's wife converted to Catholicism during her marriage. So, the Duke of Kent is now married to a Catholic and still ranks in the line of succession, whereas his brother lost his place because he married a Catholic?

It gets down to the wording of the Act of Settlement. Parliament's intent was clear; the expression used is "or marry a papist". The Duke of Kent did not marry a Roman Catholic; Prince Michael did. The Parliamentarians, being themselves familiar with the uses and misuses of power, may have forseen the possibility of an embittered or politically-driven spouse converting to Catholicism purely to disqualify their partner from the Line of Succession or even to topple the reigning monarch. Thus the later conversion of a spouse to Catholicism was not enacted as a disqualifying event for the non-Catholic partner.