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

[Kataryn]

The reason why only Roman Catholics are banned is that in 1701 it wasn't seen as plausible that a Christian would marry a Jew or a Muslim or someone from another religion.

Interesting that the wording is not "Roman Catholic" but Papist - which is a political statement in itself. Popes and their courtiers at that time were very political people which actively supported the disposed Stuarts, especially the Old Pretender against his sister and her husband who had taken the throne. The deposed Prince of Wales, only son of king James II/VII. and italian princess Mary of Modena, even died in Rome, his second son became a catholic cardinal.

So the rift within the Stuart family came from religious as well as political reasons - no wonder as it was a result of the Civil which sent James II. to exile in France where he became a believer in the Catholic church and changed his faith subsequently. His daughter on the other hand were raised as protestants on orders of his brother Charles II. (who only converted to Catholicism on his deathbed, having reigned as a protestant). So when James finally fathered a son with his Catholic wife, the political powers in England feared a "catholic dynasty" and invited William of Orange, son of Mary Stuart, princess Royal as eldest daughter of king Charles I. and husband of Mary Stuart, eldest daughter of king James II.
to invade Great Britain and take the throne together with his wife.

Problem was that neither of James II.'s daughters managed to have children surviving infancy, so the British politicians who had already fought hard against the Catholic opposition in the country, had to search for a non-catholic heir. As these were further down the line than Catholic ones (even after the male-line of James II. became extinct), they needed a law to legalize their protestant choice.

And to make sure that the Catholic influence did not come back through the king's bedroom, they forbid marrriages of future monarchs with catholic wifes.

So back in 1701 this law made sense.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Interesting that the wording is not "Roman Catholic" but Papist - which is a political statement in itself. Popes and their courtiers at that time were very political people which actively supported the disposed Stuarts, especially the Old Pretender against his sister and her husband who had taken the throne. The deposed Prince of Wales, only son of king James II/VII. and italian princess Mary of Modena, even died in Rome, his second son became a catholic cardinal.

So the rift within the Stuart family came from religious as well as political reasons - no wonder as it was a result of the Civil which sent James II. to exile in France where he became a believer in the Catholic church and changed his faith subsequently. His daughter on the other hand were raised as protestants on orders of his brother Charles II. (who only converted to Catholicism on his deathbed, having reigned as a protestant). So when James finally fathered a son with his Catholic wife, the political powers in England feared a "catholic dynasty" and invited William of Orange, son of Mary Stuart, princess Royal as eldest daughter of king Charles I. and husband of Mary Stuart, eldest daughter of king James II.
to invade Great Britain and take the throne together with his wife.

Problem was that neither of James II.'s daughters managed to have children surviving infancy, so the British politicians who had already fought hard against the Catholic opposition in the country, had to search for a non-catholic heir. As these were further down the line than Catholic ones (even after the male-line of James II. became extinct), they needed a law to legalize their protestant choice.

And to make sure that the Catholic influence did not come back through the king's bedroom, they forbid marrriages of future monarchs with catholic wifes.

So back in 1701 this law made sense.

I am aware of all of this.

I was explaining why they only banned Papists and not other religions. Other protestants were fine - and in fact many Lutherans became the wives/husbands of the future monarchs.

 

[EmpressRouge]

British Royal Family - Bing Visual Search
Guess the royal wedding has increased the interest in the British Line of Succession so Bing put together this visual search result. Two things that are wrong (there's always a mistake in these things) with the list:
1) They forgot to add baby Savannah Phillips, who has replaced Aunt Zara as number 12
2) The Duke of Edinburgh IS in the line of succession although wayyyyyyy down the list.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

Church affiliation is still very important, not only amongst royals, but in regular families as well. I would like to know the inside story of Kate's confirmation into the CofE at such a late age (week before last or last week). Anyone know if she was just unchurched or of another religion?

 

[Lenora]

Church affiliation is still very important, not only amongst royals, but in regular families as well. I would like to know the inside story of Kate's confirmation into the CofE at such a late age (week before last or last week). Anyone know if she was just unchurched or of another religion?

As I 've read on Wiki and heard is that Kate's parents were married in an Anglican Church,so the most likely they are Anglicans,though not very active in practicing

 

[Dierna23]

Strange situation,they talk a lot about democracy and innovations,equal primogeniture etc.,but avoid Catholic reformation like something to be evil,it's outrageous!
If it's so,then let's keep traditional male primogeniture as well in order not to harm anybody's traditional views and theories about royals in Britain

I like it how you put it, Lenora! I totally agree with you, have nothing more to add.

 

[Furienna]

I believe that there was an act of parliament in the early 19th century that blanket removed any previous laws covering commoners in the UK that discriminated against Catholicism. The UK is probably the only country in the world that has not updated it's Act of Succession.

The standard argument is that they will update the law of succession if events warrant the effort. Cases like if William's first born is a girl, if Harry falls in love with a Catholic, if William and Catherine prove infertile and decide to adopt. It's perceived as not worth the trouble as long as it is abstract.

My own personal feeling is parliament doesn't want to open a larger can of worms. The complex relationship between public property and property of the Anglican church; the bishops who are entitled to seats in the House of Lords; the gender biased laws governing peerages. The list goes on and on. Although updating the law of succession seems trivial, then people will want updates in a government that is built largely on medieval institutions.

An update to the law of succession will be open season for republicans.

But I think this is a change, that already should have done a long time ago, like when the other discriminations against the Catholics were removed. I can somewhat understand, that people are afraid of "opening a can of worms". And I have no problem with keeping other parts of the succession law, that might seem archaic to many people today, like the male primogeniture. If the law had simply said something like "an heir to the thrown and his/her spouse must belong to the Church of England", I would have less problems with it. But to still specifically discriminate Catholics in the year 2011, because of a law, that was made in the 17th century because of a power struggle back then, is just stupid.

 

[Zonk]

It does sound ridiculous but honestly, you would be amazed on how many laws are on the books that were written over a hundred of years ago. No one has taken the time to do away with them so they remain, dormant. And a majority of them are silly, offensive or make you think...why was that law created?

Right now, the British Government has a lot of things on its plate (like try to improve the economy, immigration, defense, etc.) so this law is not a priority.

Now saw that Kate was Cathoic and William wanted to marry her...one of three things would have happened: 1) she would have done an Autumn and became Anglican 2) William would have renounced his place in succession to marry her or 3) the law would have been changed.

Things tend to change when there is a reason to do so.

 

[Furienna]

It may be descriminatory but really it only impacts on a very very very small fraction of a percent of the population....those in line of succession to the throne and even then probably really only of you are in the top 5 to 10 in line. If Autumn had not become an Anglican but had remained RC would Peter Phillips life be any different? Doubt it. Would the monarchy have been hurt? No. Would people in the UK care if Peter had been dropped from the line of succession? No, most probably don't know who he is.

I seem to recall that Pope Paul VI refused to allow Prince Michael of Kent to marry in a RC Church because he could not sign a document promising to raise his children as Roman Catholics. Seems like "descrimination" can be found in more places that just the Act of Settlement.

Basically it comes down to choices made by the individuals involved. They know the rules of the game and decide to play by those rules or not, but it doesnt impact on the lives of the general population. Peter & Autumn decided to play by the rules, Michael & MC decided not to.

I believe an article stated, that there are some five million Catholics in the UK. That's just about as many people as the total population of Finland, Norway or Denmark, and even within the UK, it's a twelth of the population. They probably make up a bigger part of the total population than what Jews or Muslims do, and they're not discriminated by the law.

And just because there are discriminations in other places as well, two wrongs don't make one right.

 

[Zonk]

Not to minimize the discrimination but its not like they have to live somewhere different, can't hold different jobs, etc.

They just can't be King or Queen or marry into the royal family and keep their line of succession. I agree its not ideal but a great majority of Catholics are not affected by this. Only the immeadiate Kent family.

But again, its a bad law...I do think it will be changed. When is the question.

 

[Furienna]

So back in 1701 this law made sense.

Back in 1701, maybe it did. But it doesn't now in 2011.

And even the arguement of "the child of a Catholic parent won't be able to be the head of the Anglican church" doesn't hold water, as was proven here in Sweden already back in the 19th century. Because the first two queens of the current Bernadotte dynasty, Desirée Clary and Josephine of Leuchtenberg, were both allowed to keep their Catholic faith. And this was at a time, when Catholicism hardly was that popular around here, so it was controversial (the Norwegian archbishop even refused to coronate queen Josephine, even though the royal family of Sweden at the time also was the royal family of Norway). But as long the heirs themselves were Lutherans, and as long as their spouses came from some royal family, it didn't seem to matter what a spouse's faith was. And neither Desirée's son Oscar (king Oscar I) or any of Josephine's five children (out of whom two, Carl XV and Oscar II, became kings) became Catholic. And I also wonder, if our current queen Silvia didn't have a partially Catholic upbringing, considering that her mother was Brazilian.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Church affiliation is still very important, not only amongst royals, but in regular families as well. I would like to know the inside story of Kate's confirmation into the CofE at such a late age (week before last or last week). Anyone know if she was just unchurched or of another religion?

She was baptised but like a lot of other children didn't decide to get confimred as a teenager.

I teach at an Anglican school here and we do ask to see the baptismal certificate of students at enrolment (we don't stop them enrolling but we do have a preference for those that have been baptised - and yes that is legal here - our order of taking students is - children of Anglican ministers, children who regularly attend the local parish church, children who regularly attend other local churches, children baptised into Christian churches, other children.

If all the baptised Anglicans were confirmed at about 13/14 we would have over 50 kids get confirmed each year but we usually end up with about 8 - 10 as the others simply chose not to get confirmed. Kate, I think fell into that sort of category - decided that her faith wasn't there, saw no reason to do so etc but now, as the wife of the future Supreme Governor of the Church of England felt that it was the right thing to do.

 

[Furienna]

I know most Catholics aren't affected by it, but still, like you say, it's one of those silly, archaic laws, that might have made sense hundreds of years ago, but doesn't today. The worst thing about this law is, that no other religious group is forbidden to marry into the royal family. I know this has historical reasons (three hundred years ago, it was considerably more likely, that a British royal would married a Catholic than, say, a Jew or a Muslim), but still, some laws just shouldn't be around anymore. However, if Kate had to become confirmed to be able to marry William, I guess a Jewish or Muslim girl would have been expected to convert to the Anglican church as well, even though no law would have made her do so.

 

[wbenson]

Prince William Might Be Second in Line to the British Crown, but Karin Vogel, at No. 4,973, Still Has a Shot - WSJ.com

Karin Vogel wakes up in this graffiti-pocked east German city and drives to the hospital where she is a therapist who counsels elderly people in chronic pain.

If a few thousand people would just disappear, Ms. Vogel would be leading a far more enchanting life. She would be the queen of England.

 

[Prince Albert]

Succession Hypothetical

Suppose that in 12 months time Prince William was King and Catherine was 5 months pregnant with a son. In some unfortunate situation William dies. Does Harry become King or does the unborn child have some claim to the throne?

 

[Kataryn]

Suppose that in 12 months time Prince William was King and Catherine was 5 months pregnant with a son. In some unfortunate situation William dies. Does Harry become King or does the unborn child have some claim to the throne?

It wouldn't matter if it was a son or daughter - child is enough. Unborn children have no right to the throne. Thus Harry would become king, but would surely listen to political advice if he should abdicate for the child either on his/her birth or when the child turn 18. IIRC the child would come before any of Harrys in the line of succession. You find more infos about this in the "line of succession"-thread.

 

[Royal_Eagle]

Didn't Queen Victoria have the same situation--I think there was a LP or an Act of Parliament regarding Queen Victoria ascending the Throne--that if her uncle, King William IV pass away and his wife was carrying a baby at that time, that the baby would ascend to the Throne upon birth and the Queen would act as Regent until the baby turn 18?

In any case, as it stands now, baby being carried doesn't have any claim to the Throne until born. Hence if King William V pass away before Catherine give birth, then Harry will become King and stay King even after the birth. If the baby was born before King William pass away, then Harry would become the Regent (and maybe Catherine as Co-Regent, but I'm not sure), until the baby turn 18.

I highly doubt Harry would be advised to abdicate, as the child would NOT be in the line of succession anyway, unless a special Act of Parliament is passed, and that in turn would be fraught with unintended consequences, just like trying to change the rules on succession and religion exclusion. Also abdication is something the Royal Family really dislike, due to past experience.

 

[EmpressRouge]

Wow, that is different from other monarchies. There were only two people in history that I know of where a widow is carrying the potential heir apparent, the son was became king at birth: John I (the Posthumous) of France, who only lived and was king for 5 days, and was succeeded by the previous heir, his uncle Philip V; and Alfonso XIII of Spain, whose eldest sister would have become Queen if he had been a girl.

But I guess the situation in Britain is different and I learned something new.

 

[Furienna]

Prince William Might Be Second in Line to the British Crown, but Karin Vogel, at No. 4,973, Still Has a Shot.

Wow... And there are still only three heirs to the Swedish thrown.

 

[Andrew_Goodchild]

A rather morbid question...

Hi Guys, been a long-time member but only ever been a lurker.

I have been a long time follower of our wonderful monarchy and I am usually the font of knowledge amoungst friends of mine when it comes to past Kings and Queens and the future of the institution but today I was stumped by a question and I hope someone could answer it as you all know much more than me. (Apologies if I posted this in the wrong section although it does relate to the Duke of Cambridge.)

God forbid this happens but if we lost Her Majesty, The Prince of Wales and Duke of Cambridge then obviously Harry would become Henry IX (presumably) However if this happened whilst The Duchess of Cambridge was pregnant but before the heir was born who would be the rightful monarch?

The question that follows onto this would be that if it was Harry who was crowned would the child of the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge become the heir presumptive or would any future children of Harry go above them in the order of succession?

Again apologies for the rather morbid question but it one that has puzzled me since I was asked.

Thanks
Andy

 

[snowhite]

Good question! I'm interested to hear what the more knowledgeable forum members have to say.

 

[Thain]

The child would be the rightful monarch. Harry would be regent until the child's birth and after, until the child came of age. If the child did not come to term or did not survive, then Harry would be King.

 

[Sister Morphine]

If William dies before his father but while Catherine is pregnant or their eldest child is a minor, that child will be heir after Charles. What will happen is the same thing that was proposed during William IV's illness when his heir Victoria was under 18; a regency. Catherine as the child's mother would be regent, probably with Harry, until the child is 18, at which time he/she will then be crowned.

 

[Parrothead]

If the Duchess was pregnant at the time of All of the aboves death, then upon birth, the child would become monarch with a regency until he or she comes of age. One would assume that the child's uncle, prince Harry would be regent, but that would have to be decided at the time of birth or prior.

Any child the Cambridge's have will bump Harry down the line of succession.

 

[wbenson]

As far as I know, a fetus cannot become the monarch and is not legally classified as a person capable of holding any position until birth. Harry would become the King immediately upon such a mass death. However, what would happen upon the birth of the child is much less clear. It's entirely possible that Harry would immediately cease to be the King and the throne would pass to the newly-born child. Under the terms of the Regency Acts, Harry would be the regent for such a child monarch.

In the 1830s, this is what was planned in the event that King William IV had died leaving behind a pregnant Queen Adelaide. Victoria would have immediately become Queen, and she would have stopped being the Queen upon the birth of the child. The only question is whether the law passed to deal with the possibility was simply clarifying what would have happened anyways or if the law created a special exception to the normal rules of succession.

 

[Andrew_Goodchild]

Very interesting, thanks for the responses.

I did assume that common sense would prevail in a situation like the above and he would be Prince Regent until the child reached 18.

Would the same be the case if say they were unaware of any pregnancy, and Harry was already declared as the king?

Obviously these are all hypothetical situations and one I hope that never materialise .

 

[wbenson]

Well, since it's never happened before, there isn't really a lot else to go off of. The reliance on unwritten convention and common law means that extraordinary circumstances tend to result in them making things up as they go along, to put it bluntly. There might not be a definite answer until it actually happens.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

I don't see how any such thing as Andrew's scenario could ever take place.

So, Prince William impregnates the Duchess and dies within 10-14 days? Because these days, that's about when most young women of Kate's age and status find out they're pregnant. They're usually aware that they're not using birth control and trying to get pregnant - and pretty excited to know the instant it happens.

At any rate, one of the first things Kate would think to do, if she had any reason to believe she was pregnant (there are signs) is to get tested, if she wasn't already tested anyway.

There's no way a Coronation could occur before a Funeral. The shocking circumstances of such a death would probably mean at least a week before a Funeral - and who knows how long before Coronation?

So, the new question is particularly morbid, because it asks one to speak about the details of a future death - rather than in terms of just succession. The family would have the usual advice about what to do in these instances - just as any family in their position would have.

I hope that's enough speculation about this topic, now.

 

[Andrew_Goodchild]

I realise the situation I posed was one of the most unlikely thing that could ever happen, especially in this modern time.

I think the question I was trying to get answered was that in the event that a new monarch was proclaimed before such a birth happened (either one that we were aware was on the way or not) Would that monarch have any obligation to pass the crown over to the person who, if born earlier would have became king/queen.

Apologies if I offended anyone with the previous question

 

[Iluvbertie]

If William was King and he and Kate had no child the instant William died Harry would be King - no need to proclaim anything - Harry would be King.

Now the question arises as to would he abdicate, would he declare that the child of his older brother was to succeed him or what but Harry would be King instantly.

The parliament would have to pass the necessary legislation to deal with the situation.