The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession - Page 32

Skydragon · #**621** 03-30-2009, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir_knight

The King or Queen taking orders from? That was not what I meant. I meant that the head of my church would become the dictator on the Vatican Hill. He that is so conservative and so tight on Catholic Theology that is no room for a developement of thought on theological issues lest he give it his blessing.

The Roman Catholic monarch would be subservient to the Holy Father is according to his Cardinal Deacon during his Corination.

So far there is only talk of allowing those in the line of succession to marry a Catholic and even if one did, they are unlikely to convert without a great deal of talk and thought. Nor would you have to change your religious affiliation, there is unlikely to be a law passed that says everyone in the UK must follow the same religion as HM. If they decide to alter this law, they will have to rewrite the words of the Coronation as well.

Al_bina · #**622** 03-30-2009, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zembla

I didn't realize there was so much drama over one of the princes marrying a Catholic girl. It's odd that any other religion is perfectly fine...although if one of them married a Jewish or Muslim girl, I'm sure there would be outrage too. Just because someone is Catholic doesn't mean they have to take orders from the Pope, most people are just raised with a religion and rarely go to church or keep up with it. Even the royal family only goes on rare occasions...I don't recall seeing pics of any of them going every week to a church.

In a real world chances of Prince William or Prince Henri marrying a Jewish or Muslim lady are extremely slim. At the same time, a probability of marrying a Catholic is somewhat higher. Although I might be wrong in my assumptions, I think that is the crux of the matter.

**MAfan** · #**623** 03-31-2009, 04:44 PM

If Prince and Pincess Michael would divorce, would he get his place in the Line of Succession back?

Al_bina · #**624** 03-31-2009, 04:49 PM

I do not think it is important for Prince Michael to have a place in the succession line. What special meaning does the place in the succession line have for Prince Michael at this point in time? His children have got the above mentioned place. That is all.

RoyalProtocol · #**625** 03-31-2009, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAfan

If Prince and Pincess Michael would divorce, would he get his place in the Line of Succession back?

In a nutshell- No

**MAfan** · #**626** 03-31-2009, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al_bina

I do not think it is important for Prince Michael to have a place in the succession line. What special meaning does the place in the succession line have for Prince Michael at this point in time? His children have got the above mentioned place. That is all.

Yes, I agree with you, but if hypotethically he would be the next family member after the Sovereign, would he get his place in the succession line back if he would divorce from his catholic wife?

If I remember correctly, he has lost his place in the succession only because of his wedding to a catholic woman...

RoyalProtocol · #**627** 03-31-2009, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAfan

If I remember correctly, he has lost his place in the succession only because of his wedding to a catholic woman...

Yes you're right but it's not reversable once cut out that's it

RoyalProtocol · #**628** 03-31-2009, 07:08 PM

Here's what some of today's Times letters had to say on the issue of a Catholic on the Throne

Catholic could govern supreme -Times Online

Incas · #**629** 03-31-2009, 07:25 PM

Could Gordon’s plans for royals lead to a dis-United Kingdom? - Eric Waugh, Columnists - Belfasttelegraph.co.uk
Various theories are abroad as to why, in the midst of the worst economic crisis in 80 years, the Prime Minister has chosen to launch himself on the reef-strewn shoals of religion, Catholics and the Crown.

RoyalProtocol · #**630** 03-31-2009, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Incas

Could Gordon’s plans for royals lead to a dis-United Kingdom? - Eric Waugh, Columnists - Belfasttelegraph.co.uk
Various theories are abroad as to why, in the midst of the worst economic crisis in 80 years, the Prime Minister has chosen to launch himself on the reef-strewn shoals of religion, Catholics and the Crown.

IMHO HM Govt. is using this as a very nice distraction from the economic doom and gloom and don't have any real desire to see changes to the succession laws

Incas · #**631** 03-31-2009, 07:35 PM

It was a curious timing for Downing Street to make a point of it. Awhile back, when the european royal houses were changing their succession laws with birth of girls as first borns, there were talk about the same for Britain. I wonder why that wasn't followed through then.

Iluvbertie · #**632** 03-31-2009, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Incas

It was a curious timing for Downing Street to make a point of it. Awhile back, when the european royal houses were changing their succession laws with birth of girls as first borns, there were talk about the same for Britain. I wonder why that wasn't followed through then.

It was discussed in 1982 when Diana was pregnant with William and simply died when he was born.

It may very well take a new pregnancy, and even birth of a daughter, followed by a son, to change things. Otherwise it is simply a distraction from matters that need more urgent consideration IMHO.

RoyalProtocol · #**633** 03-31-2009, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Incas

It was a curious timing for Downing Street to make a point of it. Awhile back, when the european royal houses were changing their succession laws with birth of girls as first borns, there were talk about the same for Britain. I wonder why that wasn't followed through then.

I doubt it'll be followed through with now either, number 10 just want a bucket of water to quell the flames of the recession and other media muckups and this was a handy bucket to grab. I believe, IMVHO, that The Queen will never allow it, so any changes will have to waith until the next reign, and hopefully our future sovereigns will see sense and say NO

Iluvbertie · #**634** 03-31-2009, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoyalProtocol

I doubt it'll be followed through with now either, number 10 just want a bucket of water to quell the flames of the recession and other media muckups and this was a handy bucket to grab. I believe, IMVHO, that The Queen will never allow it, so any changes will have to waith until the next reign, and hopefully our future sovereigns will see sense and say NO

The monarch can't actually say 'No'.

If it passes both Houses of Parliament the monarch has to give it the Royal Assent.

**wbenson** · #**635** 03-31-2009, 11:06 PM

I could see her being a little more forceful (all behind the scenes, of course), if it was a unilateral move by the UK to change succession, but if all or most of her governments advise her to approve of such a change, I really don't see how she could refuse.

RoyalProtocol · #**636** 04-01-2009, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

The monarch can't actually say 'No'.

If it passes both Houses of Parliament the monarch has to give it the Royal Assent.

I know she can't say no outright- but she could advise her opinion to her Prime Minister, and since the Crown is a matter for the Commonwealth I'm sure they would at least listen to what Her Majesty had to say.

When they tried to remove The Queen from postage stamps in the early 1970s she said No firmly but in her ever gracious manner and she's still on the stamps today!

Skydragon · #**637** 04-01-2009, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoyalProtocol

---- IMVHO, that The Queen will never allow it, so any changes will have to waith until the next reign, and hopefully our future sovereigns will see sense and say NO

I don't feel that HM is against it, otherwise it simply wouldn't have made the papers. HM's talks with the PM are private, afterall. They do have to look at the logistics of a change and I would hope that HM can see that it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of faith.

RoyalProtocol · #**638** 04-01-2009, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I don't feel that HM is against it, otherwise it simply wouldn't have made the papers. HM's talks with the PM are private, afterall. They do have to look at the logistics of a change and I would hope that HM can see that it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of faith.

Well on the point of confidences, I think the PM just can't hold his water and leaked this one. While it may have been meantioned I doubt it got as much attention as he is making out, and I think The Queen will not see this as a matter of discrimination but a principal in which she belives. She obviously has no problem with Catholics (and very rightly so) she has met The Pope on several occasions and has a cathloic Earl Marshall and many "loyal Catholic subjects). I just think HM is a traditionalist and likes to keep things like this the way they are. She has been a wonderful Queen and on this issue of Primogeniture I think there may be some movement, but not in the current reign.

sthreats · #**639** 04-01-2009, 05:25 AM

But how would it work in real life if the Act were changed? The monarch is also the 'head' of the Anglican Church. When a Catholic and non Catholic marry the non Catholic has to agree to respect and support the teachings of the Church and (when I married in the late 80s) to raise the kids Catholic. This is a solemn written agreement that must be done prior to be married in the Catholic Church by a priest. So if the royal is the Anglican and the future spouse is serious about her/his faith it seems to me that future generations of royal kids could be Catholic (or Muslim, Hindu etc). Is the real issue being raised here the link between the monarch and the Anglican Church? Is Brown looking to a secular monarchy in the future?FYI The weekend edition of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL had a half page story on Brown attempting to change the Act. The journal also raised the issue of why now? with the economy, summit etc.