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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
auntie said:
H'mm, Sorry to interrupt the conversation, and relegious argument, does anyone know what relegion Prince Philip, being originally a prince of Greece, was before marrying QElizabeth?:confused:
Greek Orthodox Church.
 
Probably Greek Orthodox (sp?). His mom became a nun in the faith.

auntie said:
H'mm, Sorry to interrupt the conversation, and relegious argument, does anyone know what relegion Prince Philip, being originally a prince of Greece, was before marrying QElizabeth?:confused:
 
a quick question, can Prince William(or any other heir to the throne) marry someone who converted from Roman Catholic church to the Anglican church ?

i know that Prince Philip converted and was considered ok, but he is a 'he' and married the future Queen, and he was not a RC, things might be different.
 
florawindsor said:
a quick question, can Prince William (or any other heir to the throne) marry someone who converted from Roman Catholic church to the Anglican church ?
Yes, the Act of Settlement just stipulates the spouse cannot be Roman Catholic. Which is why an earlier poster suggested the spouse could convert just prior to the wedding, and revert to Catholicism the day after.
.
 
Isn't it too inconvenient to pass sixteen necessary laws in sixteen countries? I think that Charles III (or George VII) is going to reign quietly, be content with making Camilla his Queen, and leave the task of changing the Act of Settlement to William V.

As for me, I don't think that the ban on Roman Catholics makes much sense today; the best way possible would have been to repeal it before the adoption of the Statue of Westminster. I suppose that any attempt ot change the laws of succession in the parliaments of the Commonwealth realms, especially Canada and Australia, is going to stir up Republican sentiment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, that strikes me as a rather poor excuse for upholding discrimination. If anything, the existence of this sort of blatant discrimiation with no real relevance to the 21st century is the sort of nonsense that would encourage republicans to want a grown-up sort of government. What if the Act of Settlement had specified Jews rather than Catholics? Or had specified that spouses with brown eyes weren't acceptable or something?

Republicans are going to seize any excuse to claim that the monarchy is outdated and worthless; I don't think that tactic should be the one that stops the various governments from trying to eliminate unnecessary discrimination.
 
Elspeth said:
Well, that strikes me as a rather poor excuse for upholding discrimination. If anything, the existence of this sort of blatant discrimiation with no real relevance to the 21st century is the sort of nonsense that would encourage republicans to want a grown-up sort of government. What if the Act of Settlement had specified Jews rather than Catholics? Or had specified that spouses with brown eyes weren't acceptable or something?

...
Erm... Yes, what is a quaint oddity for me is a blatant discrimination for republicans. Still I think it is too complicated to effect a change in the laws of succession.
 
Mapple said:
Isn't it too inconvenient to pass sixteen necessary laws in sixteen countries? I think that Charles III (or George VII) is going to reign quietly, be content with making Camilla his Queen, and leave the task of changing the Act of Settlement to William V.

As for me, I don't think that the ban on Roman Catholics makes much sense today; the best way possible would have been to repeal it before the adoption of the Statue of Westminster. I suppose that any attempt ot change the laws of succession in the parliaments of the Commonwealth realms, especially Canada and Australia, is going to stir up Republican sentiment.

There is no question the Act of Settlement needs a thorough review and possible amendment by Parliament. The trouble is there are many subsequent acts and precedents that followed which would require new laws. In addition, the role of the Anglican Church and the Crown would have to be redefined, and perhaps most importantly, the rights of the Catholic descendants of the House of Stuart would have to be addressed to prevent legal challenges to the future succession.

Politically, there would be much fear that addressing all of these very charged issues would result in republicanism and momentum for the abolishment of the monarchy. Given all of these obstacles, I doubt there will be any change for years to come.
 
Well, other countries have managed to change succession laws without parades of people coming out of the woodwork to claim that if only their ancestor had been allowed to be king or queen back in 1429 they'd be the rightful claimant now. Britain has survived a few of those episodes already (and they made for some interesting diversions in our history lessons at school!). I'm afraid that insisting on sticking in the past (no Catholic spouses, males succeeding before older female siblings) is going to run the risk of making the monarchy appear badly out of touch, which has also been fuel for republicans.
 
It doesnt have to be chagned seperatly in 16 different countries. There is a special westminster convection or something that allowes the change to happen in one country and affect others. I am pretty sure something like that exits. I think Charles will try to change the Act. He will definitly pressure the future PM about it. Protocal would still dictate that who ever the spouse is has to take part in anglican services and traditions and raise their kids anglican.
 
Princejonnhy25 said:
It doesnt have to be chagned seperatly in 16 different countries. There is a special westminster convection or something that allowes the change to happen in one country and affect others. I am pretty sure something like that exits. ...
Actually, the opposite thing exists. From the Statute of Westminster: 'And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom...'
 
Are there a new list.. tha list are getting old.
 
angela said:
I DON'T KNOW HOW THE DUKE OF KENT CAN STILL BE IN LINE TO THE THRONE. THE DUCHESS IS NOW A CATHOLIC WHICH MUST EXCLUDE HIM AS HAVING A CATHOLIC WIFE EXCLUDES PRINCE MICHAEL.
This has been discussed elsewhere in these Forums, but the simple answer is that the Act of Settlement disbars a person from the succession if they "marry a papist". When the Duke of Kent married his wife, she was a Protestant. The Act has no provision disbarring a person who's spouse converts to Roman Catholicism after the wedding.

So Prince Michael married a Catholic and forfeited his place, the Duke of Kent's wife became a Catholic after they were married so the Duke's position is unaffected.
.
 
The 100 first in the line of succession (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_British_throne)
1. HRH The Prince of Wales
2. HRH Prince William of Wales
3. HRH Prince Henry (Harry) of Wales
4. HRH The Duke of York
5. HRH Princess Beatrice of York
6. HRH Princess Eugenie of York
7. HRH The Earl of Wessex
8. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor
9. HRH The Princess Royal
10. Peter Phillips
11. Zara Phillips
12. David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley
13. The Hon. Charles Armstrong-Jones
14. The Hon. Margarita Armstrong-Jones
15. Lady Sarah Chatto
16. Samuel Chatto
17. Arthur Chatto
18. HRH The Duke of Gloucester
19. Earl of Ulster
20. Lady Davina Lewis
21. Lady Rose Windsor
22. HRH The Duke of Kent
23. Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor
24. Lady Amelia Windsor
25. Lady Helen Taylor
26. Columbus Taylor
27. Cassius Taylor
28. Eloise Taylor
29. Estella Taylor
30. Lord Frederick Windsor
31. Lady Gabriella Windsor
32. HRH Princess Alexandra
33. James Ogilvy
34. Alexander Ogilvy
35. Flora Ogilvy
36. Marina Ogilvy
37. Christian Mowatt
38. Zenouska Mowatt
39. The Earl of Harewood
40. Viscount Lascelles
41. The Hon. Alexander Lascelles
42. The Hon. Edward Lascelles
43. The Hon. James Lascelles
44. Rowan Lascelles
45. Tewa Lascelles
46. Sophie Lascelles
47. The Hon. Jeremy Lascelles
48. Thomas Lascelles
49. Ellen Lascelles
50. Amy Lascelles
51. Henry Lascelles
52. Maximilian Lascelles
53. The Duke of Fife
54. Earl of Southesk
55. Lord Carnegie
56. The Hon. George William Carnegie
57. The Hon. Hugh Alexander Carnegie
58. Lady Alexandra Etherington
59. Amelia Mary Carnegie Etherington
60. HM King Harald V of Norway
61. HRH Crown Prince Haakon Magnus of Norway
62. HRH Princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway
63. Princess Märtha Louise of Norway
64. Maud Angelica Behn
65. Leah Isadora Behn
66. Princess Ragnhild, Mrs. Lorentzen
67. Olav Lorentzen
68. Christian Lorentzen
69. Sophia Lorentzen
70. Victoria Ribeiro
71. Princess Astrid, Mrs. Ferner
72. Alexander Ferner
73. Stella Ferner
74. Carl-Christian Ferner
75. Cathrine Ferner Johansen
76. Sebastian Ferner Johansen
77. Madeleine Ferner Johansen
78. Benedikte Ferner
79. Elisabeth Ferner Beckman
80. Benjamin Ferner Beckman
81. HRH Princess Margarita of Romania
82. HRH Princess Helen of Romania, Mrs. McAteer
83. Nicholas Medforth-Mills
84. Karina Medforth-Mills
85. HRH Princess Irina of Romania
86. Michael Kreuge
87. Angelica Kreuger
88. Sophie de Laufenborg
89. Elisabeta-Maria de Laufenborg
90. HRH Prince Peter of Yugoslavia
91. HRH Prince Philip of Yugoslavia
92. HRH Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia
93. HRH Prince Nikolas of Yugoslavia
94. HRH Princess Marija of Yugoslavia
95. HRH Prince George of Yugoslavia
96. HRH Prince Michael of Yugoslavia
97. HRH Princess Katarina of Yugoslavia
98. Victoria de Silva
99. HRH Prince Karl Wladimir of Yugoslavia
100. HRH Prince Dimitri of Yugoslavia
 
Thanks, Norwegianne! With both Taylor girls in there, this one does look up to date.
 
Yeah, Thanks Norwegianne! What a loooong list.
 
Re:

Is there a list around that has the Swedes, Danes etc on as well? Is King Constantine listed in Sucession?
 
You mean in the line of succession to the British throne? Sort of the first five thousand on the list? I'm not sure if there's one like that; I should think it'd be a nightmare to keep up to date.
 
BeatrixFan said:
Is there a list around that has the Swedes, Danes etc on as well? Is King Constantine listed in Sucession?
If you check out the wikipedia link I provided above, it lists both the Swedes and the Danes - Queen Anne-Marie is placed 219th - far above her husband.

There is a list out there that lists Constantine as well, but I think it was last updated in 2001, as it is a lot of people to keep track of. Then he was at number 472, now he's at 420 (Wikipedia) so he's moving upwards ;)

. http://www.wargs.com/essays/succession/2001.html Goes to 4 - 5,000... the last person on that list is "Karin Vogel".
 
Last edited:
Re:

Thats just what I wanted Mapple - thankyou!

Queen Anne-Marie of Greece is 219th and King Constantine is 420th - that could cause an argument.....:p
 
Elspeth said:
You mean in the line of succession to the British throne? Sort of the first five thousand on the list? I'm not sure if there's one like that; I should think it'd be a nightmare to keep up to date.

Hi!

There is a list that shows something like 3,000 of them in line..all the way through the former Russian Royal Family.

It includes The Greek Royal Family, Danish, Swedish, the former German houses, Bulgarian and Romanian houses.

Obviously the Catholic houses are not included.

I will try and find it for the thread..
 
Lady Marmalade said:
Hi!

There is a list that shows something like 3,000 of them in line..all the way through the former Russian Royal Family.

It includes The Greek Royal Family, Danish, Swedish, the former German houses, Bulgarian and Romanian houses.

Obviously the Catholic houses are not included.

I will try and find it for the thread..
http://www.wargs.com/essays/succession/2001.html This one?
 
Re:

Wow! Thanks Norwegianne!:D
 
And if Queen Victoria had been a male and the House of Hanover continued in the line of births since then and up to Prince Ernst August, he would be king today. But only if the lines continued as they had up to the present time.

And if he had divorced Chantal and then married Caroline as he did, that means she would be Queen of England.

That is just an assumption if everything played out as it has...
 
Lady Marmalade said:
And if Queen Victoria had been a male and the House of Hanover continued in the line of births since then and up to Prince Ernst August, he would be king today. But only if the lines continued as they had up to the present time.

And if he had divorced Chantal and then married Caroline as he did, that means she would be Queen of England.

That is just an assumption if everything played out as it has...
If everything plays out the way it has: Ernst August Jr. would sit on the throne - his father married a catholic.
 
norwegianne said:
If everything plays out the way it has: Ernst August Jr. would sit on the throne - his father married a catholic.

Yes, thank you for the correction. I totally forgot about that one. :)
 
Don't you think that Caroline would have converted religion for the English Throne??
Since she's allowed her daughter princess Alexandra to be bapitized as Protestant I think that a religious conversion for her would not be so far out of reach as some would think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom