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

[iowabelle]

Perhaps some of you are better versed in this than I am. Did Parliament ever grant the monarch the title "Defender of the Faith"? I thought this title was awarded to Henry VIII by the Pope in recognition of his defense of the Catholic Church. And Henry didn't relinquish it once he decided to break with Rome (in Henry's eyes he was not in the wrong and he was still defending the faith).

 

[Warren]

Yes, it was a papal title bestowed on the King.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I agree they should change the the succesion laws for both the crown and the titles.
But I think bringing the EU in is nonsense.

 

[Dierna23]

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.

Thank you for the explanation, Warren! From common sense I still find it an odd or contradictorily law that a spouse is allowed to convert to Catholicism whereas a member of the family looses his place in the line of succession when he marries a Catholic...

 

[Warren]

In practical terms let's assume a King took the throne. His wife, allied to some ruthless and unscrupulous politicians (imagine!) converts to Roman Catholicism. Under a wider interpretation of the Act of Settlement the King would be immediately disqualified from holding the Crown and become legally "dead". His successor would then become King.

Obviously such a situation would be untenable as a resentful or ambitious or embittered spouse could topple a monarch at any time by a quick dash to a priest.

 

[Dierna23]

Yes, this example makes it more understandable for me. What I only did mean (sorry, if my thoughts can be a bit confusing) was that I find it in some way a bit inconsequent that it isn't allowed to marry Catholics, but it is allowed for the spouses to convert to Catholicism during the marriage and it doesn't touch the other spouse. Not that I would find it bad when someone converts or that I would wish the other marriage partner would lose his place in the line of succession then, but if it is such a big deal that you lose your place in the line of succession when marrying a Catholic, I'm a bit surprised that it doesn't lead to consequences when a member of the Royal Family is married to a Catholic after the spouse converts during the marriage. Do you get, what I mean? It just confuses me a bit... Your example made it clearer to me why it is practised that way, but I still find it a bit unfair for the others.
And I'm sorry that I cannot express myself clearer at the moment.

However, for a peaceful world I would wish that religion would become a personal thing for everyone and that no-one should be judged or discriminated because of creed, colour or gender. I know it is a different and difficult situation with the King or Queen of Great Britain as they are the head of church. But as long as it is hypothetically not forbidden to marry Hindhu's, Muslims, Jews etc. I would be happy if they would find a solution for the "Catholic-problem" as well. Just my two cents.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Yes, it was a papal title bestowed on the King.

It was originally bestowed in 1521 but was removed by the Pope in 1530 after Henry broke with Rome.

In 1544 the Parliament re-created the title so the current title is a creation of the English Parliament (and yes I mean English Parliament as it pre-dates the Union of the Crowns). It wasn't used during the Protectorate by the Cromwells but has been used by every monarch since Henry, including Mary I, who of course used it to Defend the Roman Catholic faith, while all other monarchs have used it to defend the Anglican faith. The only one of HM's realms that also include the title are the UK, NZ and Canada (where in 1953 the following comment was made:

The rather more delicate question arose about the retention of the words, "Defender of the Faith". In England there is an established church. In our countries [the other monarchies of the Commonwealth] there are no established churches, but in our countries there are people who have faith in the direction of human affairs by an all-wise providence, and we felt that it was a good thing that the civil authorities would proclaim that their organisation is such that it is a defence of the continued beliefs in a supreme power that orders the affairs of mere men, and that there could be no reasonable objection from anyone who believed in the Supreme Being in having the sovereign, the head of the civil authority, described as a believer in and a defender of the faith in a supreme ruler.
—Louis St Laurent


​

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

I never knew Parliament re-bestowed the title upon the monarch after the Pope revoked it. I had simply assumed that the sovereign continued to assert the title in the list of royal styles. Ironically, Pope Leo X, according to Jasper Ridley, told Henry that should anyone attempt to deprive him of the title, 'such a person would incur the indignation of Almighty God and of the holy Apostles, Peter and Paul."

 

[iowabelle]

Thank you, Iluvbertie. You answered my question very nicely.

I did quite a bit of graduate work on the Tudors and Stuarts, and we had to study the background of the Act of Settlement. My guess is that the writers never considered that their royals might stop marrying other royals (you'd get the occasional rare marriage of a royal to someone like Anne Hyde but it would have been rare ). It would be pretty easy to figure out that a Hapsburg or a Bourbon would be an ineligible mate for a British royal, so those were the groups that the Act was really intended to target.

Today's situation with the likes of April Kelley or Mrs. Trowbridge wouldn't have been dreamed of.

 

[DuedePhiladelphia]

Line of Succession

1 Prince Charles, Prince of Wales (b 1948)
2 Prince William of Wales (b 1982)
3 Prince Henry of Wales (b 1984)
4 Prince Andrew, Duke of York (b 1960)
5 Princess Beatrice of York (b 1988)
6 Princess Eugenie of York (b 1990)
7 Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex (b 1964)

so, Prince Edward isnt ahead of Beatrice and Eugenie because of his gender?

 

[Iluvbertie]

so, Prince Edward isnt ahead of Beatrice and Eugenie because of his gender?

No because they are the daughters of his older brother but he is ahead of his sister Anne, because of his gender.

The Queen has four children, in order of birth - Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward. However, both Andrew and Edward are ahead of Anne due to the gender issue.

Once into the Queen's grandchildren they take their claim through their respective royal parent so Charles' sons before Andrew and then Andrew's daughters and then Edward, with James ahead of his older sister Louise and then Anne and her two children.

If the succession from the Queen was gender neutral it would be:

Charles
William
Harry
Anne
Peter
Zara
Andrew
Beatrice
Eugenie
Edward
Louise
James

If you compare this list to the actual list of

Charles
William
Harry
Andrew
Beatrice
Eugenie
Edward
James
Louise
Anne
Peter
Zara

it is easy to see the effect of the gender rules as Anne and her children are currently at 10, 11 and 12 rather than 4, 5 and 6 where they would be if it was gender neutral from the Queen and Edward's son wouldn't come ahead of Louise so Louise instead of being 9th as now would actually be 11th with James at 12th. Gender neutral wouldn't affect the first three but after that it would change considerably.

 

[MAfan]

In this way, the Earl of Harewood, his descendants and the descendants of his late brother would go ahead of the Duke of Gloucester. Am I right?

 

[Warren]

Mary, Princess Royal, Countess of Harewood was born in 1897.
Under equal primogeniture she and her descendants would have been ahead of her younger brothers Henry, Duke of Gloucester (born 1900), George, Duke of Kent (1902) and Prince John (1905) but behind her elder brothers Edward (1894) and Albert (1895).

 

[Iluvbertie]

In this way, the Earl of Harewood, his descendants and the descendants of his late brother would go ahead of the Duke of Gloucester. Am I right?

If it had existed at the time of her birth certainly but it is highly doubtful if they would make it retroactive that far back.

How far back would you take it - e.g. in Victoria's children the German royal family would have to come before the present British line as they are descended from Victoria's first born child - a girl.

If, and when, they change it it will be effective probably from William's children rather than change the existing order of things so that if William has a girl first and then a boy the girl won't suddenly be downgraded to 2nd behind her father but remain his heir.

 

[MAfan]

That's what I wand to understand: would this changes be retroactive, or would they regard only the descendants of the present Queen?
Even if they made it retroactive starting with Edward VII nothing would change, since the last woman skipped in favour of a man was Empress Frederick, the Princess Royal Victoria in favour of Edward VII.
So, it would not be a problem if the descendants of Princess Mary, the Princess Royal, would be placed before the Gloucesters.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Any time I have seen it discussed is for it to happen in the future rather than retroactively i.e. from William's children.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Any time I have seen it discussed is for it to happen in the future rather than retroactively i.e. from William's children.

Thats what I always assumed.
As in Norways case, it was from Haakons children onwards. And not extended to Martha-Louise.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

There is no doubt that any change would be prospective and not retroactive. The latter would cause a lot of confusion. Sweden made the change after Victoria and her younger brother were born and his place in the line of succession became subordinate to Victoria's. Perhaps the change may come and affect William's children.

 

[Iluvbertie]

They did discuss it when Diana was pregnant with William but once he was born there was no need so it was put in the 'not necessary at the moment basket'.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

Ahh, so it may arise again when William marries and his wife is expecting.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Ahh, so it may arise again when William marries and his wife is expecting.

If it hasn't already been changed by then it most certainly will be looked at at that time - whether they change it may very well await the outcome of the first pregnancy - if a son then leave it another generation.

The government do seem to try to avoid passing legislation about the royals and I think the royals like it like that as any legislation could lead to debates about the royal family in general rather than the specific issue at hand.

 

[Furienna]

Why did the British royal houses favor the Lutheran royal houses so much?

I've been wondering about something. I know that you (to this day!) can't inherit the British crown, if you're a Roman-Catholic, or even if you're married to a Roman-Catholic. So far so good, even though I don't understand why those laws haven't been changed by now. But isn't the Church of England "a bridge church" between the Roman-Catholic church and the Protestant churches? So why did the the British royal house only make marriage alliances with the Lutheran royal houses in northern Germany, Denmark and Sweden, if the Church of England is just as close to the Catholic church as to the Lutheran churches? Why did they never think of the many Catholic royal houses all over Europe? All of these Lutheran future queens of England had to join the Church of England, so couldn't a Catholic princess had done the same thing? Or is the Church of England really that much closer to the Lutherdom than to Roman-Catholicism? (I know it's considered as one of the Protestant churches, but like I said earlier, it's also called "a bridge church".) Do you have any thoughts about this?

 

[Osipi]

My first reaction to this question and I think probably the biggest reason of all to exclude the Roman Catholics is the Pope. Back then the Pope along with bishops and such carried a lot of political clout.

 

[Warren]

why did the the British royal house only make marriage alliances with the Lutheran royal houses in northern Germany, Denmark and Sweden?

Under the Act of Settlement any person who marries a Roman Catholic automatically loses their place in the Line of Succession. Thus royal brides were sought from the Protestant Houses of Germany and Scandinavia who happened to be/are largely Lutheran or Evangelical. Other brides came from Russia and Greece (Orthodox).

A prospective bride who was Roman Catholic could convert to C of E prior to the wedding (as Autumn Phillips did) but such examples are very rare.
It is claimed the Duke of Clarence was engaged to Princess Hélène d'Orléans who was said to have offered to defy her father (the French Pretender) and the Pope by renouncing Roman Catholicism and by joining the Church of England. However, it came to nothing.

 

[Furienna]

So I assume the answer to my question is, that the C of E still is closer to the Lutheran churches than to the Roman-Catholic church, even though it's been called "a bridge church". It was interesting to hear about Autumn Philips and Hélène d'Orléans though.

But it's also interesting, that the Russian tsar family, which was Orthodox, also favored the Lutheran royal houses, when it came to marriage alliances.

 

[Stefan]

The problem is and was simple that catholic most of the time would not change their religion for a marriage but protestants di so it was easier for the Romaniovs to look for birdes in the porotestant houses. Although there was on marriager when Grand Duchess Alexandra Pavlovna married Archduke Joseph.

 

[MAfan]

Most of times Catholic Church didn't allow Catholic to marry Protestants or Orthodoxes or Anglicans unless they converted to the Catholic Church, or unless they raised the children as Catholic.
The last example coming to my mind is the marriage in 1948 of King Michael of Romania, Orthodox, to the Catholic Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parma; the Pope forbade her to marry him, because he stated that he would remain Orthodox and their children would raise as Orthodox (Romania's most followed religion). They could marry in a Catholic ceremony only in 1966.

The problem about the marriage of the Duke of Clarence and Princess Helene of Orleans was this one, they wanted to marry but the Pope (and the Count of Paris) forbade Helene to convert; and if I remember correctly, she was also considered as a possible bride for Tsarevic Nicholas of Russia, but this idea was soon left because of the religion problem.

 

[Furienna]

Okay. Thank you for the information. That was really interesting.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Roman Catholic will not become king after monarchy reforms are abandoned | Mail Online

I didn't know where to put this, but it does have something to do with the church.

 

[akbarsprincess]

What is the heir to the throne became a Muslim?

The 1701 Act of Settlement bars Catholics, or anyone married to one, from becoming King or Queen. But what if the heir was Muslim or the heir married a muslim and raised a Muslim child? Does the act make mention of other faiths the future head of the Church of England is forbidden to marry? If not and a Muslim became monarch, what would happen to their role as Head of the Church of England?