The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #401  
Old 10-09-2007, 06:57 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,352
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.
__________________

__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #402  
Old 10-15-2007, 03:18 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
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.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #403  
Old 10-15-2007, 06:15 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by iowabelle View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #404  
Old 10-16-2007, 03:59 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #405  
Old 10-16-2007, 06:02 PM
Picmajik's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 161
outdated but made sense at the time

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
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'
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #406  
Old 11-10-2007, 11:25 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Madison, United States
Posts: 4
Americans in the line of succession

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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #407  
Old 11-10-2007, 05:47 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor of America View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #408  
Old 11-10-2007, 06:05 PM
norwegianne's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Rogaland, Norway
Posts: 5,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrissy57 View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #409  
Old 11-10-2007, 09:08 PM
HMTLove23's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: bethlehem, United States
Posts: 445
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
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #410  
Old 04-07-2008, 06:50 AM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,428
Act of Settlement

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.
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
Reply With Quote
  #411  
Old 04-07-2008, 09:21 AM
NotAPretender's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: WPB FL/Muttontown NY, United States
Posts: 853
Repeal of 1701 Act of Settlement - New Monarch?!

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
__________________
"Me, your Highness? On the whole, I wish I'd stayed in Tunbridge Wells"
Reply With Quote
  #412  
Old 04-07-2008, 10:02 AM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #413  
Old 04-20-2008, 05:17 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Thumbs up

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
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #414  
Old 04-20-2008, 05:30 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
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?
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
Reply With Quote
  #415  
Old 04-20-2008, 09:39 AM
LadyCat's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: WM, United States
Posts: 371
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
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #416  
Old 04-20-2008, 09:52 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
The first Princess of Wales, in her own right. Not Crown Princess.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
Reply With Quote
  #417  
Old 04-20-2008, 09:53 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: -, Ireland
Posts: 629
Quote:
I believe Ann is the eldest of QEII's children.
Charles is the eldest, isn't he? - then Anne, Andrew and Edward.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #418  
Old 04-20-2008, 09:57 AM
LadyCat's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: WM, United States
Posts: 371
I always lose track of who is older than whom. I know the younger two are Andrew and Edward but as for Charles and Ann???? I'll have to check.

And Madame Royal I used the term Crown Princess loosely. Of course William's daughter, if born first, would be Princess of Wales in her own right -- eventually.....


Cat
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #419  
Old 04-20-2008, 09:57 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
Yes, Charles is the oldest child followed by Anne, then Andrew and lastly Edward.

Quote:
I used the term Crown Princess loosely
Fair enough, though the title Crown Prince and Crown Princess is a Continental observance and not in anyway associated with the UK. Wouldn't it be lovely though if William's first born (assuming he'll have children) was a daughter, and consequently the first future Princess of Wales in her own right.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
Reply With Quote
  #420  
Old 04-20-2008, 10:00 AM
LadyCat's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: WM, United States
Posts: 371
Charles born in 1948 and Anne in 1950. I don't know why I always mess that up!

Cat
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
act of settlement, catholicism, line of succession, succession


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth bourbon-parma charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympics ottoman poland pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit visit wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:22 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]