The Act of Settlement and the Line of Succession

[branchg]

Peter will automatically lose his place in the line of succession by marrying a Catholic under the Act of Settlement. He doesn't "give up" anything because the law does it for him.

If Autumn embraces the Anglican faith prior to his marriage, then he is fine.

[Warren]

This is the relevant part of the Act of Settlement (my bolding):

...every person and persons that then were, or afterwards should be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or should profess the popish religion,
or marry a papist, should be excluded, and are by that Act made for ever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown and government of this realm...

Thus if a person is not a Roman Catholic at the time of marrying someone in the line of succession, the Act of Settlement exclusion provisions do not apply.

[iowabelle]

At the risk of another argument that makes my eyes pop out, my interpretation was as Elspeth said. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic. I think the reasoning was that those naughty Stuarts claimed to be CoE but really weren't (in particular, Charles I and Charles II). Some Stuarts married Catholic princesses, who influenced their husbands' and children's religious leanings. In particular, Charles I was IMO run by his wife, who then "contaminated" her sons, Charles II and James II, leading up to the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution.

Having had the experience of royal spouses who were Catholic, the English parliamentarians couldn't take the risk of it happening again, even if the spouse disavowed Rome.

I did take graduate level courses in Tudor and Stuart history and that was the information I gained from two professors at different universities.

Ingrid Seward had the idea that Autumn could disavow Rome and Peter's place would be secure. In the alternative, Ingrid said she thought Peter might be reluctant to give up his place because it would upset the Queen and DoE.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by iowabelle

I did take graduate level courses in Tudor and Stuart history and that was the information I gained from two professors at different universities.

Your professors were probably right, but my studies in law tell me that it doesn't matter. The legislation says "marry a papist", not "marry someone who is, or was at any stage of his/her life, a papist", and I am as sure as I can be that if the spouse does not "profess the popish religion" at the time of the marriage, he/she is not a papist for the purposes of the Act. This is especially so since what is now regarded as a highly discriminatory piece of legislation will be strictly and narrowly interpreted.

[iowabelle]

I agree, it is highly discriminatory. But there are so many anachronistic laws, even in the U.S.

I can see why BP would be reluctant to bring this up... and let's be real, it's very unlikely that Peter or his progeny will succeed unless there's some sort of "King Ralph" incident.

[Picmajik]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I think this is because, in a country with an established religion, a case could be made for the monarch and (to a lesser extent) the spouse to have to belong to that religion. However, in a country with an established religion where the spouse isn't required to belong to it, it's discriminatory to say "oh, but you can't belong to this one other religion but feel free to belong to any other religion you like." If they want to require that a person marrying someone high in the line of succession convert to CofE Christianity, fair enough. But to say that the spouse can be anything from Pagan to atheist to Rastafarian to Orthodox Jew to Wahhabist Islam to Satanist to Buddhist, just as long as s/he isn't Roman Catholic, is discrimination.

Like many laws on the books the law made sense for those at the time but in today's climate would seem outdated. Thank goodness I have not had to live through any type of religious civil war but for those who did live in fear of the monarch's religious beliefs, especially after Mary's persecution of protestants, the law would have made perfect sense. They wouldn't have had the foresight to include any non-Christian faith as that possibility would not have crossed their minds. There are all kinds of local, state and national laws still on the books here in the US relating to things no longer valid but no one has updated them yet. Every so often a newspaper will print the funnier-sounding ones as filler. Charleston, SC Latest State and Regional News: Outdated laws in 'no man's land'

[Emperor of America]

Are there any people in the line of succession for the British throne that permenantly reside in the United States and label themselves as Americans? Or does one have to be a British citizen to be in the line of succession? I know that if there is an American in the line, they must be pretty far down on the list and will never actually inherit the throne, but I am still curious if any exist.

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by Emperor of America

Are there any people in the line of succession for the British throne that permenantly reside in the United States and label themselves as Americans? Or does one have to be a British citizen to be in the line of succession? I know that if there is an American in the line, they must be pretty far down on the list and will never actually inherit the throne, but I am still curious if any exist.

In all probability yes although I don't know for sure.

As for being a British citizen, at the time that they became monarch they would automatically become a British citizen but they don't have to be now to be on the list as the King of Norway is about 60th in his own right. If, however, the situation arose where he would inherit the British throne I suspect that the throne would pass him and go either to his own eldest son, or more probably to his eldest daughter as his son is the Crown Prince of Norway. Then again in 1714 the heir to the British throne already held Hannover and following the death of Queen Anne became King of Britain and kept Hannover (until 1837 the two crowns were combined only separately because Hannover didn't allow for female inheritance) so it isn't impossible to imagine that situation could arise again but I suspect that the throne would pass the King of Norway and at least one of his children's line to continue past that.

[norwegianne]

Originally Posted by chrissy57

In all probability yes although I don't know for sure.

As for being a British citizen, at the time that they became monarch they would automatically become a British citizen but they don't have to be now to be on the list as the King of Norway is about 60th in his own right. If, however, the situation arose where he would inherit the British throne I suspect that the throne would pass him and go either to his own eldest son, or more probably to his eldest daughter as his son is the Crown Prince of Norway. Then again in 1714 the heir to the British throne already held Hannover and following the death of Queen Anne became King of Britain and kept Hannover (until 1837 the two crowns were combined only separately because Hannover didn't allow for female inheritance) so it isn't impossible to imagine that situation could arise again but I suspect that the throne would pass the King of Norway and at least one of his children's line to continue past that.

The children of Princess Irina of Romania (currently 89 and 90) were born in the States. As I've understood the 14th amendment, they would automatically be granted citizenship at birth.

Given that the King of Norway can't accept a crown in another country without having to go through a vote in Stortinget (the Norwegian parliament) where 2/3 of the MPs will have to vote in favour of it, my guess is that it would be seen as too much trouble, and quietly passed over to someone with less obligations. That's just a guess.

[HMTLove23]

Kira Alexandrine Brigid Cecilie Ingrid Harris, b.Amarillo 20 Oct 1954--#358

Philip Louis Johnson, b.Fort Worth 18 Oct 1985--#359

Berengar-Orin Bernhard Kirby Patterson, b.Springfield 21 Aug 1948--#364

Marina-Adelaide Emily Patterson, b.Springfield 21 Aug 1948--#365

William John Engel, b.Downey, California 17 Feb 1983--#366

Dohna-Maria Patterson, b.Springfield 7 Aug 1954--#367

Some from Prussia Line of the Succession

[wymanda]

Another attempt to start up a Catholic/Protestant hate session???

Act repeal could make Franz Herzog von Bayern new King of England and Scotland - Telegraph

I'm sure that any action on the Act of Settlement will ensure that the rightfull claimants remain the descendants of Sophie, Electress of Hanover but that those who have married Catholics or been recieved into the Catholic church have their place in the succession reinstated. Those who marry Catholics from the time the new legislation is accepted into law would retain their right of succession.

[NotAPretender]

Of course, it wouldn't really happen, but the Telegraph is speculating this morning:

Act repeal could make Franz Herzog von Bayern new King of England and Scotland
By Richard Alleyne and Harry de Quetteville 07/04/2008

Gordon Brown is considering repealing the 1701 Act of Settlement as a way of healing a historic injustice by ending the prohibition against Catholics taking the throne.
But doing so would have the unforeseen consequence of making a 74-year-old German aristocrat the new King of England and Scotland.

Act repeal could make Franz Herzog von Bayern new King of England and Scotland - Telegraph

[PrinceOfCanada]

It almost certainly would not make him the King. That is absolutely ridiculous pot-stirring by the Telly. What it would do is say "If this Act had never been passed, he would be King now, but since it was perfectly legal at the time, there is no point or reason to change the line of succession. We will merely reinstitute Catholics into the line of succession starting now."

Which, of course, won't make any difference, as the Kents would be first on the list, and they're what, ten steps away from the throne? The likelihood of enough people dying for that to take place is quite vanishingly small. Apart from certain public events (which, one can imagine, have incredibly high security), you'll notice how careful they are to keep Royals separated.

As an example: a friend of mine used to work in travel planning for a very large bank here in Canada. He had an incredibly complex matrix he had to use anytime anyone of VP level or higher was travelling--certain combinations of people could not fly together on the same plane (in case of accident or attack), nor even stay in the same hotel, to ensure continuity of succession. If a bank does that, I'm sure you can imagine how very carefully the security officials around HM and her family regulate who can be where with whom. It is always best for the country for succession to be as direct as possible.

[Skydragon]

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

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

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

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?

[LadyCat]

I believe Ann is the eldest of QEII's children. From what I've read, it will not have any bearing on the current line but if William's first born is a girl she will be the first Crown Princess.

Cat

[Madame Royale]

The first Princess of Wales, in her own right. Not Crown Princess.