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

[HRH Kerry]

Thanks Iowabelle and Lady Jennifer. I thought I already knew but wanted to know from the experts to be sure.

 

[HRH Kerry]

Thanks Iowabelle for the PM on the line of succession. I tried to PM you back but it didn't go through to you.

 

[morhange]

I think it was mentioned on the wikipedia talk page, that as long as you aren't Catholic, you can be in line. So that means any other religious denomination, as far as I know, Muslim, Jewish, Buddist, etc, even atheist, as long as you aren't Catholic.

However, I think to actually be able to assume the throne, you have to in communion with the Church of England. So, for example, let's say that King Bob of the UK has two daughters, Jane and Jill, and a son, John. His elder daughter Jane, married a Jewish man, and converted, and their two sons are raised Jewish. They are still in line for the throne. Prince John decides for whatever reason, to not marry or have children, so upon the death of King Bob, his sister Jane becomes heiress presumptive, and her children become next in line for the throne. After John's death, in order for Jane to become queen, or in the event that she dies before him, her eldest son, would have to convert to the Church of England to actually become the monarch. I hope that made sense!

 

[Warren]

...to actually be able to assume the throne, you have to in communion with the Church of England.

Here's the relevant part from the Act of Settlement:
That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown, shall join in communion with the Church of England, as by law established;

I'm pretty sure that a British royal can't marry a Catholic, even one who converts, and remain in the Line of Succession.

If the spouse has converted prior to the marriage then he/she is not Catholic, and the disqualification provisions of the Act of Settlement don't apply.

Another sidelight is that once disqualified from the Succession there is no going back. So, for example, if Prince Michael of Kent or the Prince of Hanover (as widowers or divorcees) marry a Protestant, they remain ineligible because they had previously married a Roman Catholic.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The reason I'm stuck on this is that I was playing "What if..." I'm Catholic, and it startled me to see that, even if I "made the sacrifice" and converted, my husband would lose his spot in the Line of Succession. (And it seems pretty unfair that only Catholics are singled out in this way. If Gabriella Windsor marries her BF, is she going to lose her spot in the Line of Succession? -- I'm assuming her BF is not a Christian. -- I don't think so.)

I think the framers of the Act of Succession were concerned that a Catholic might make a subterfuge of a conversion... and then raise the children to be Catholic. I'm not sure that Queen Henrietta Maria was required to convert to the Church of England (my guess is NO, although I don't know for sure), but it is undeniable that her background as a French Catholic princess strongly influenced the later actions of her sons, Charles II and James II... bringing on the Glorious Revolution and the effective end of the House of Stuart in England.

Henrietta Maria wasn't required to convert because when she married there was no such law in place.

The Act of Settlement came many years later - after the deposition of her younger son and the succession of her granddaughter.

 

[iowabelle]

Yes, chrissy57, I understand the chronology that resulted in the Act of Succession (I was a grad student in Tudor/Stuart history), but my profs never really clarified the procedure for a Catholic French princess marrying into the Stuarts while they sat on the thrones of Scotland and England. My assumption is that the Stuart heirs would have been expected to be raised as Protestants, and rule as Protestants, no matter what their mother's religion was. (And I guess the French royals would have objected to placing their daughter's soul in peril by requiring her to convert to Protestantism.) And in the normal course of events a queen would have had little day-to-day contact with her children, and her ability to influence their religious leanings would have been limited by the people who actually raised the royal children.

But the turmoil that resulted in the death of Charles I and the exile of the royal family had the unintended result of making the mother's influence over the sons stronger, with Charles II being a Catholic in all but name until his death and James II always professing Catholicism.

And Warren, I disagree with you about the disqualification by marriage with a "former" Catholic. "Once a Catholic..." I think you have to remember the fear of contagion from the Catholics that the English had.

But I don't mind a little debate on the issue -- who else in my life is going to tolerate me talking about this?! (But we really need to come up with a definitive answer -- the Duke of York is still available and in my age range!)

 

[Elspeth]

Oh, I see - ulterior motives at work.

 

[Next Star]

I wonder if Queen Elizabeth II were not Queen and if she was still a princess where would she be if she were in the line of Succession?

 

[User0501]

I wonder if Queen Elizabeth II were not Queen and if she was still a princess where would she be if she were in the line of Succession?

HM Queen Elizabeth II would be in the line of succession if HM is not The Queen and still a princess and if and only if HM is not married to a Roman Catholic as HM is a princess through the male line.If HM marries a Roman Catholic,she as well as any kids that she bear would automatically be struck off the line of succession.

 

[Elspeth]

I wonder if Queen Elizabeth II were not Queen and if she was still a princess where would she be if she were in the line of Succession?

Depends on the circumstances by which you envisage her being a princess and not a queen. If Edward VIII hadn't abdicated, she'd be Queen now anyway since Edward was childless. If he'd had children, or if George VI had had sons, her position in the line of succession would depend on how many offspring those hypothetical royals might have had.

 

[Iluvbertie]

HM Queen Elizabeth II would be in the line of succession if HM is not The Queen and still a princess and if and only if HM is not married to a Roman Catholic as HM is a princess through the male line.If HM marries a Roman Catholic,she as well as any kids that she bear would automatically be struck off the line of succession.

The children aren't barred so long as they are raised Protestant.

E.g. Prince and Princess Micheal of Kent's children are in the line of succession but he lost his place when he married her. The same with Ernst of Hannover - he lost his place but, I believe that his daughter by Caroline is being raised Protestant and as a result she is in the line of succession, as, of course, are his older children.

 

[User0501]

The children aren't barred so long as they are raised Protestant.

E.g. Prince and Princess Micheal of Kent's children are in the line of succession but he lost his place when he married her. The same with Ernst of Hannover - he lost his place but, I believe that his daughter by Caroline is being raised Protestant and as a result she is in the line of succession, as, of course, are his older children.

Both your situation involves two royal princes who married a Roman Catholic not royal princesses.

 

[Warren]

Both your situation involves two royal princes who married a Roman Catholic not royal princesses.

Yes, Chrissy57's real-life example involved two princes, but it makes no difference whether they are princes or princesses, dukes or duchesses or misters or misses. The Act of Settlement is concerned with maintaining the Protestant succession, not with gender or titles.

 

[Simeon]

Catholic/Monarch question? THX in ADVANCE

Noob question here, half embarrased to ask, but what [instrument] keeps a single/unwed king from marrying a catholic? I would think the king can do what he pleases.... not to say that this would not bring up a basket of complications. Was this an option for Edward VIII? See plenty of posts about being removed from the LOS for marrying a catholic, but what if you are already king?

Want the text from the instrument or document, please no personal/private spectulation, I know it is silly for the head of a church to have an interfaith marriage, etc.

 

[Oppie]

The law that prevents the King or anyone else in the line of sucession from marrying a catholic is an Act of Parliament. The King can not disobey it.

But this is one of those things were it is a 300(?) year old law. What happens could turn out to be anyone's guess.

Also it depends if the wife is willing to convert before marriage. The wording is a little vague on that one.

Here is the article on the Act of Settlement at the very bottom there is a link to the actually Act (although I included the article because the Act is a little hard to read) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_1701

Oh and by the way, since you used the word Noob I think you are totally awesome

 

[afro1920]

Rules of Succession

Other Western European monarchies are either undergoing or have undergone the switch to full-lineal primogenture. I know there have been several female monarchs including the latest one (which is interesting that they have been among the longest ruling in the Great Britian line of rulers). Does anyone know if Great Britian has had any discussion on this at all? While I don't really have any problems with whose in line now, I feel like that GB has this reputation for a being a modern country and should come in line the modern world. Thanks to the Semi-Salic Law, women have been able to rule, but I feel that this is just a lighter form of discrimation. So let's talk about it!

 

[EmpressRouge]

Britain has male primogeniture, meaning males in the same generation and their subsequent lines have preference over females, i.e. Charles, Andrew, Edward and their descendents before Anne's. Semi-salic law is, basically, when females are allowed to inherit only if all male heirs have been wiped out.

I doubt there will be much discussion about changing succession laws in the near future unless Prince William's first child is a girl. For now, both Charles and William are the eldest children, so unless both of them and Harry were to die before QE 2, having absolute vs. male primogeniture would not make a difference. A lot of governments don't try to change successions law until need be because they are part of the constitution, and it takes a lot of time and work to amend. Plus, you have to account for situtations in Norway and Spain where the current heir is male but not the eldest, etc. Denmark was ready to change the law IF Mary and Frederick's first child had been a girl, but he wasn't, they've scrapped plans for now. With Spain, they're trying to decide whether to change the law when Felipe becomes king so he doesn't get booted. Norway had to add an extra clause "For those born before the year 1971, Article 6 of the Constitution as it was passed on 18 November 1905 shall, however, apply. For those born before the year 1990 it shall nevertheless be the case that a male shall take precedence over a female. " So Haakon got to keep his position of heir apparent.

 

[afro1920]

Norway had to add an extra clause "For those born before the year 1971, Article 6 of the Constitution as it was passed on 18 November 1905 shall, however, apply. For those born before the year 1990 it shall nevertheless be the case that a male shall take precedence over a female. " So Haakon got to keep his position of heir apparent.

Good points. I feel like if Norway could specify the rule then the other countries should be able to as well.

 

[KikkiB]

What if... an interesting article

This might not be the correct thread, but it was the closest I could find, so I hope it's ok

I've translated this article from www.aftenposten.no And I found it rather interesting, in a what if... sort of way.

Heir to throne wanted

Are you heir to the English throne? If so, you should quickly report it, believes an organisation that is looking for Harold Godwinsons decendants in ads in Norwegian, German, Australian and US press.

External links
Les mer om Harold Godwinson her
(Aftenposten is not responisble for the contenst of external web sites)

Heir to the English throne, that is – and that doesn’t exist any longer, since England has been in a union with Scotland since 1603, and thus is called the British throne. Though, you won’t have any chance of chucking Queen Elizabeth and family out of Buckingham Palace.

“Can you trace your family three back to 1066? Perhaps your ancestors could have a claim in the English throne"; it says in the ads the reknown heritage organisation English Heritage has put in.

1066 was the year the Norman duke Wilhelm the Conqueror invaded England, conquered and killed Harold Godwinson at the battle of Hastings and took the English throne. Harolds son and heir Aetheling later accepted Wilhelm as king.

If Wilhelm had lost at Hastings or later, England could have been a different country than today. The English would probably have seen Danes and Norwegians as their closest friends and allies, believes researcher Nick Barratt at English Heritage.
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/kongelige/article1596383.ece

 

[wbenson]

There is currently dispute as to whether ot not the law actually prevents the monarch him or herself from marrying a Roman Catholic. One of the prevailing views is that no person shall accede to the throne who has married or is a Roman Catholic, but the law does not govern post-accession marriages. In something I read about Edward VIII, it said that the Prime Minister tricked him into asking for constitutionally-binding advice that he did not have to seek in order to marry, as it was not technically necessary for the King himself to need permission to marry.

 

[ysbel]

There is currently dispute as to whether ot not the law actually prevents the monarch him or herself from marrying a Roman Catholic. One of the prevailing views is that no person shall accede to the throne who has married or is a Roman Catholic, but the law does not govern post-accession marriages. In something I read about Edward VIII, it said that the Prime Minister tricked him into asking for constitutionally-binding advice that he did not have to seek in order to marry, as it was not technically necessary for the King himself to need permission to marry.

Very convenient loophole if a monarch so chooses to take it!

 

[ysbel]

Depends on the circumstances by which you envisage her being a princess and not a queen. If Edward VIII hadn't abdicated, she'd be Queen now anyway since Edward was childless. If he'd had children, or if George VI had had sons, her position in the line of succession would depend on how many offspring those hypothetical royals might have had.

I thought about that. After all the acrimony over the Abdication, if it hadn't happened, Elizabeth II still would have ascended the throne. So Edward VIII wouldn't have saved his niece much except she would have ascended the throne when she was in her forties after her eldest children were grown.

 

[Warren]

There is currently dispute as to whether ot not the law actually prevents the monarch him or herself from marrying a Roman Catholic. One of the prevailing views is that no person shall accede to the throne who has married or is a Roman Catholic, but the law does not govern post-accession marriages.

Here are the relevant parts of the Act of Settlement:

...that all and 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, ... or to have, use, or exercise any regal power, authority, or jurisdiction within the same: and in all and every such case and cases the people of these realms shall be and are thereby absolved of their allegiance.


II. Provided always, and be it hereby enacted, that all and every person and persons, who shall or may take or inherit the said Crown, by virtue of the limitation of this present act, and is, are or shall be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with, the See or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be subject to such incapacities [ie no longer have the right of succession to the Crown.]

No doubt a smart lawyer might try to argue otherwise, but the Act of Settlement seems pretty clear. When it comes to the interpretation of Acts of Parliament, the intent of the original legislators may also be taken into account.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Popish religion could refer to some branches of Eastern Orthodoxy. It's a good job they got that See or Church of Rome stuff in.

 

[Royal Fan]

Wonder if theyll ever allow Roman Catholics on the Throne (and Correct me if i am Mistaken but wasnt Charles the First POW To Marry Legally in a Civil Ceremony)

 

[wbenson]

I think it would become allowed fairly quickly if William or his heir would want to marry a Catholic or convert. The popular sentiment just doesn't exist anymore to deny someone the throne. It also doesn't exist to change it unless it becomes necessary.

 

[Elspeth]

The Archbishop of Canterbury seems to be in discussions these days with the Catholic church on the subject of bringing the Church of England back under the umbrella of the Catholic church. If that ever happens, we'd have to scrap the "no Catholic" provision under the Act of Settlement - we'd probably end up with a "Catholics only" succession.

 

[Suonymona]

If a Catholic marries someone in the line of succession and later converts to the Church of England (but before any children are born), does the person they marry still lose the succession or is it restored?
Obviously if they convert before children are born (and raised presumably in the COE), the children are still eligible/in line.

 

[Warren]

If a Catholic marries someone in the line of succession and later converts to the Church of England (but before any children are born), does the person they marry still lose the succession or is it restored?
Obviously if they convert before children are born (and raised presumably in the COE), the children are still eligible/in line.

It's subject to debate, but the opinion is that once out of the Line of Succession, there can be no restoration.

Any children of such a marriage retain succession rights unless they are raised as Roman Catholics or convert; eg the children of Prince Michael of Kent are in line because they are not Roman Catholic, although their father became ineligible upon marriage.

The question regarding young Roman Catholic children is at what stage are they deemed to "profess the Popish religion", at which time the Act of Settlement comes into play.

 

[Suonymona]

So for example (famous words around here!)

Say Lord Nicholas Windsor (who was raised Protestant and therefore in the line of succession until his Catholic conversion) decides to revert to Church of England (I know, unlikely given his recent Catholic marriage), he would very much not be "restored" to his place in the succession line.

But as he is "out", if after his theoretical reconversion, he raises his children as Protestants, would they be in the line of succession?

Princess Michael was married as a Catholic but raised her children Protestant (though at least one of her sons and a couple grandchildren have since converted to Catholicism) so they were in line until they were old enough to take themselves out. Lord Nicholas is very likely to raise his children Catholic as he cares little for their "place" but the Kents had a different idea--one I'm trying to determine as more legally sound given the Royal restrictions.