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

[wbenson]

I'm surprised they're considering doing it without an urgent need to. I had assumed that such legislation wouldn't come about until a female first-born.

 

[LadyCat]

I think perhap to avoid being accused of having archaic laws better suited to the Middle Ages......

Cat

 

[morhange]

A 300-year-old law which gives males precedence in the royal line of succession is to be abolished.

BBC NEWS | Politics | Royal succession law change due

Well I hope they also issue something that restricts the line of succession to the descendants of George V, otherwise there's going to be a huge jumble of people getting new spots in the LoS. Will this act like Norway's where everyone will just stay put, and only new additions will be treated this way, or will it be like Sweden, where everyone immediately goes into their new spot? In any case, it won't have any effect on the first three spots, but I'm wondering about the latter 2000 or so who are in line through Electress Sophia.

 

[Skydragon]

I wonder if this will only affect girls born after the new bill has passed or all living females in line? In fact, as Charles and William are both the first-born child of their parents, it won't change much in reality. Okay, let's face it: I'd prefer Princess Anne and then her son Peter (he is older than Zara, isn't he?) as spares of heir and spare Wiliam and Harry to Andrew and Beatrice any time - so doing it backwards would be my choice.

Will that mean as well that daughters get their own peerages as automatically as the sons get it on marrying?

So far, it seems to have been made clear that it will not affect the present line, whether they mean Charles then Andrew we would have to wait for the precise wording. Unless something untoward were to happen to William and Harry, I don't foresee questions being raised.

I don't know that it will affect females getting peerages in their own right, or the totally unfair system of the estate automatically going to eldest son!

 

[wbenson]

I doubt it would switch everyone around, considering that Victoria's first child was a female, and if her descendant (or someone else farther up) suddenly became the heir, we'd be in for a surprise. (I don't even know who it would be.)

The heir of Princess Victoria would be Princess Felicitas of Prussia.

Edit: It wouldn't be her, but I can't find good enough records.

 

[serenissima]

Maybe, in due course, people who are in the line of succession will become more limited to people who are descending from the Queen Elizabeth II or something for there are so many people who are descending from her already. In Spain or else where, people who are in the line of succession to their thrones seem to be more immediately related to the current reigning monarchs of their countries by their newly adopted laws and regulations.

 

[Elspeth]

I'm probably missing something, but I don't see any wording in the Act of Settlement that says that younger brothers have precedence over older sisters. This is something that was in force for years before the Act was written, because it's the order the children of Henry VIII succeeded, but I don't know which law it would have been.

 

[LadyCat]

Can you provide a link to the Act of Settlement? I would love to read it.

Cat

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

I'm probably missing something, but I don't see any wording in the Act of Settlement that says that younger brothers have precedence over older sisters. This is something that was in force for years before the Act was written, because it's the order the children of Henry VIII succeeded, but I don't know which law it would have been.

I could have sworn that male-preference primogeniture was encoded there, or in the act of succession 1689. If not, it's probably because male-preference primogeniture (as opposed to strictly agnatic succession) is enshrined in English (later British) common law.

 

[wbenson]

If not, it's probably because male-preference primogeniture (as opposed to strictly agnatic succession) is enshrined in English (later British) common law.

I'm pretty sure it's that.

Can you provide a link to the Act of Settlement? I would love to read it.

As in force today, after various amendments.

As originally passed

 

[LadyCat]

The Act of Succession of 1689 was to declare one of Henry VIII's daughters a "bastard" and move another in line to inherit the throne, wasn't it? Since Henry set aside wives with alarming regularity in order to find one to give him a male heir to his throne, I would think male preference primogeniture predated 1689.

I am curious as to why the Act of Settlement would be amended to remove the male preference when there is nothing in the Act that states any gender preference at all. Perhaps that was Elspeth's point?

Cat

And thank you for the links wbenson. It was interesting to read.

 

[wbenson]

I think it wouldn't be so much as removing the male preference as it would be adding a specific neutral preference as an Act of Parliament, which would override any uncodified common law.

And I'll be very interested to see how this works in Canada. Will the government just approve such a change in a meeting of the Canadian Privy Council, will it require an Act of Parliament, or will it require a Constitutional Amendment (which is a real chore)?

 

[KingCharles]

Succession Law Changes - NEWS!

I have been reading the newspapers recently and there has been some debate on a certain matter of royal succession.

Apparently the Act of Settlement is to be amended to acquire to a more modern society.

Obviously, The Queen, would have to give the go - ahead for something as constitutionally important as this to be discussed in Parliament, but some of the changes proposed are:

The eldest child (first born) should be heir to the throne whether they are a boy or girl. This means that everyone is equal within the royal family with regards to succession. I think the system of men over women is a little out-dated by say - forever. I think this is a much better proposal than having men always taking the throne regardless.

Another proposal is that the whole situation about Catholics on the British throne be scrapped. The idea is you can be King/Queen and be married to a Catholic without losing your right to be the monarch. A much better system which infused equality and less division amongst other people and their beliefs. I also believe I read that the monarch themselves be allowed to believe in what they like - which could create problems with the monarch's role as the Head of the Church of England.

Other proposals were mentioned but they weren't as important and I have forgotten them haha.

Be aware however, that this enactment may not happen for months, even years - only because even if Westminster passes this law, all the other governments in which Her Majesty is sovereign will have to debate this law also and decide whether or not they also agree. I think every country can have their own independent views on the situation but if one country dis-agrees with any of the proposals then it's back to the drawing board as the Act of Settlement is a law in all the countries the Queen is Head of State. Therefore, all countries must agree on the change.


What are your thoughts?

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

Let me do some looking around:

41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:

(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province; (b) the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time this Part comes into force; (c) subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language; (d) the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada; and (e) an amendment to this Part.​

(from here: Constitutional Act, 1982)

That's in the section dealing with amendments. As an aside, I wonder if we will run into any future problems because they used 'Queen' specifically and not 'Sovereign' or 'Monarch'.

Moving on...

Besides the two countries having symmetrical Acts of Settlement, there is no provision in Canadian law that states the King or Queen of Canada must be the same person as the King or Queen of the United Kingdom; thus, if the United Kingdom were to breach the convention set out in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster and change the line of succession to the British throne without Canada's consent, the alteration would have no effect on the reigning sovereign of Canada or his or her heirs and successors

Seems to indicate that if Westminster changes the law to strictly agnatic succession, Ottawa can safely ignore it unless/until the Heir to the throne becomes a girl with a younger brother, or the monarch dies childless. At that point we'd have to do something.

However, this seems to be definitive:

Succession to the throne is by male-preference primogeniture, and governed by the provisions of the Act of Settlement, 1701, as well as the English Bill of Rights; these documents, though originally passed by the Parliament of England, are now part of Canadian constitutional law, under control of the Canadian parliament only. As such, the rules for succession are not fixed, but may be changed by a constitutional amendment.

Yes, it's Wikipedia, but the article seems fairly accurate in all other respects.

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

Apparently the Act of Settlement is to be amended to acquire to a more modern society.

That's debatable. The idea has been floated and defeated before.

Obviously, The Queen, would have to give the go - ahead for something as constitutionally important as this to be discussed in Parliament,

The only time Her Majesty needs to give (or deny) assent to debate is when the debate affects (as in, limits) the Royal Prerogative. Seeing as this wouldn't, Parliament is free to debate and pass the bill; Her Majesty wouldn't be (officially) involved until she gives (or denies) Royal Assent.

The eldest child (first born) should be heir to the throne whether they are a boy or girl.

Yes.

Another proposal is that the whole situation about Catholics on the British throne be scrapped. The idea is you can be King/Queen and be married to a Catholic without losing your right to be the monarch.

The concern is that the Pope is also the Head of State for Vatican City, in much the same way that the Dalai Lama is the head of Tibet-in-exile. On paper, when one is Catholic one owes one's allegiance to the Pope. This is obviously an impossibility when one is the monarch--one owes one's allegiance to one's people, and not to another authority.

The issue gets somewhat stickier when it is the spouse of the monarch, as they should probably owe their allegiance first and foremost to the Queen (or King).

I also believe I read that the monarch themselves be allowed to believe in what they like

That's absolute twaddle, and would never happen.

Be aware however, that this enactment may not happen for months, even years - only because even if Westminster passes this law, all the other governments in which Her Majesty is sovereign will have to debate this law also and decide whether or not they also agree.

Actually no, because:

Besides the two countries having symmetrical Acts of Settlement, there is no provision in Canadian law that states the King or Queen of Canada must be the same person as the King or Queen of the United Kingdom; thus, if the United Kingdom were to breach the convention set out in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster and change the line of succession to the British throne without Canada's consent, the alteration would have no effect on the reigning sovereign of Canada or his or her heirs and successors

 

[serenissima]

The concern is that the Pope is also the Head of State for Vatican City, in much the same way that the Dalai Lama is the head of Tibet-in-exile. On paper, when one is Catholic one owes one's allegiance to the Pope. This is obviously an impossibility when one is the monarch--one owes one's allegiance to one's people, and not to another authority.

The issue gets somewhat stickier when it is the spouse of the monarch, as they should probably owe their allegiance first and foremost to the Queen (or King).

Oh, I see. However, the King of Spain is a Roman Catholic and the King of the Belgians is also Roman Catholic. The Grand Duke of Luxembourg, too, is Roman Catholic, so is the Prince of Monaco and the Prince of Liechtenstein but this allegiance to the Bishop of Rome business does not seem to matter in their countries' affairs. What matters most in this regard seems as though our monarch is tied to the faith of the Church of England by the Act of Parliament. However, if the Church of England is disestablished as in the cases of the Church of Scotland and the Church in Wales in Communion with the See of Canterbury, then, things may become much easier for the sovereign to be an Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist or a Roman Catholic or a member of the Old Catholic Church of Utrecht or whatever, I reckon.

 

[wbenson]

The only time Her Majesty needs to give (or deny) assent to debate is when the debate affects (as in, limits) the Royal Prerogative.

And even then, that's most likely given on the advice of the government.

The concern is that the Pope is also the Head of State for Vatican City, in much the same way that the Dalai Lama is the head of Tibet-in-exile. On paper, when one is Catholic one owes one's allegiance to the Pope. This is obviously an impossibility when one is the monarch--one owes one's allegiance to one's people, and not to another authority.

The same could be said for Catholic politicians, though, and they, for the most part, seem quite capable of separating the Pope from their duties. It's hypocritical and patronizing to assume that certain people can't separate their duty from their religion when others prove that it can be done every day.

The issue gets somewhat stickier when it is the spouse of the monarch, as they should probably owe their allegiance first and foremost to the Queen (or King).

Why is that incompatible with being a Roman Catholic? If Catholic politicians do it every day, why can the monarch or their consort not?

 

[wbenson]

That's in the section dealing with amendments. As an aside, I wonder if we will run into any future problems because they used 'Queen' specifically and not 'Sovereign' or 'Monarch'.

There's a section covering that somewhere. I think it's in the 1867 Act.

Not in the 1867 Act, but I know I've seen a provision somewhere talking about that.

 

[serenissima]

And even then, that's most likely given on the advice of the government.



The same could be said for Catholic politicians, though, and they, for the most part, seem quite capable of separating the Pope from their duties. It's hypocritical and patronizing to assume that certain people can't separate their duty from their religion when others prove that it can be done every day.



Why is that incompatible with being a Roman Catholic? If Catholic politicians do it every day, why can the monarch or their consort not?

Oh, here, Roman Catholics are not supposed to take the office of Prime Minister because our PM has to appoint all the bishops of the Church of England.

 

[wbenson]

I would imagine that the PM would simply let another minister advise HM on CofE appointments in that case.

 

[serenissima]

I would imagine that the PM would simply let another minister advise HM on CofE appointments in that case.

Well, the Queen does not appoint the bishops of the Church of England but the PM does it. It's a part of his post here. Obviously, the PM, if not particularly familiar with the Anglican clergy circle and what-not, will seek some advice from people who know who's who in that circle. To me, it will be better if each diocesan chapter has more say in who their bishop is going to be etc but things are done in such old fashioned manners still that they just put up with whoever they get as their bishop.

Mrs Thatcher put a lot of people who she thought were her men in the bishoprics but she got it wrong and appointed Dr Runcie as the Archbishop of Canterbury. The late Lord Runcie was very much anti-Thatcherism.

 

[SIDOROFF]

The eldest child (first born) should be heir to the throne whether they are a boy or girl.

This is disgusting. It is against nature and common sense. And it also means dynasties changing frequently, which undermines the idea of monarchy.

 

[SIDOROFF]

in much the same way that the Dalai Lama is the head of Tibet-in-exile.

He abdicated in 2002.

 

[serenissima]

This is disgusting. It is against nature and common sense. And it also means dynasties changing frequently, which undermines the idea of monarchy.

However, "common sense" seems to vary from place to place that a lot of things that are seen as "common sense" in Russia may not be seen as so "common sense" here in England.

My grandmother seemed to have believed that people who were born below her station were inferior to her and she understood that opinion of hers was a "common sense" but I am sure you will disagree with her. Many older English people still regard that one English man is worth ten foreigners and they call that a "common sense", too.

 

[wbenson]

Well, the Queen does not appoint the bishops of the Church of England but the PM does it. It's a part of his post here.

The PM doesn't formally appoint the bishops. He constitutionally advises the Queen to do it. In 99.99999% situations, that is no difference. In this case, however, the PM could designate another minister to do it, as what the law forbids is not that no PM shall be Roman Catholic, but that no Roman Catholic shall advise the Queen on CofE bishoprics. That could easily be skirted by having a Catholic PM simply pick a different minister to do that.

 

[Al_bina]

This is disgusting. It is against nature and common sense. And it also means dynasties changing frequently, which undermines the idea of monarchy.

Could you please explain why equal primogeniture is against both nature and common sense?

 

[wbenson]

And it also means dynasties changing frequently, which undermines the idea of monarchy.

Tell that to Prince Charles, who will reign as a King in the House of Windsor.

 

[NGalitzine]

The government has since announced that there will be no chnages to the succession or the the RMA with respect to Catholics so future debate here can only be purely academic.

 

[SIDOROFF]

Could you please explain why equal primogeniture is against both nature and common sense?

It is so in many ways:

1) Power is the art of men. When women try to rule, it is usually a disaster.
2) The Y-DNA is inherited only through the male line.
3) In normal circumstances, a family name is inherited in the male line.
4) Male primogeniture is the law in most monarchies.

 

[SIDOROFF]

Tell that to Prince Charles, who will reign as a King in the House of Windsor.

And will always be reminded that he is not really such.