The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession

[sthreats]

Diestablishment. This is what I thought. Then BROWN should be honest about what the goal is. Isn't this something for the people of the Commonwealth/United Kingdom to both initiate the debate and decide?What does he think--I'll save some money by closing the state sponsored churches and the monarchy? Sorry for the early am sarcasm but this economic meltdown is really showing me how pitiful most politicians are both here in the U.S. and abroad.Pray and PeaceOut.

[wbenson]

Gordon Brown opens way for end to ban on monarchs marrying Catholics - Telegraph

Gordon Brown has paved the way for sweeping changes to the 300-year-old law which prevents Roman Catholics ascending to the throne.

Mr Brown has made it clear he also wants to change the rule of primogeniture, which prevents women taking their place ahead of men in the line to the throne.

BBC News - No 10 denies firm plan to change royal succession laws

Downing St has played down suggestions that laws discriminating against women and Catholics in the succession to the throne are set to be changed.

[Lumutqueen]

I agree with the primogenture suggestion. But not the banning marriage to catholics.

[Westminster]

In my humble opinion especially the banning marriage to catholics has to be changed. It's a obsolete and unpleasant gesture that a member of the british royal family can marry a muslim, hindu, buddhist, jehovas witness (?) or whatever, but will lose his place in the line of succession because of marrying a catholic!!

As well I think that a girl/woman should have the same right as a male child!! Of course I respect traditions, but we now live in the 21th century and other monarchies changed this rule as well.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by lumutqueen

I agree with the primogenture suggestion. But not the banning marriage to catholics.

I would prefer them to insist that the spouse must be an Anglican rather than say the spouse can be anything but a Roman Catholic. That is the case in many other monarchies.

[Westminster]

I think that the heir must be anglican, no doubt and his children should be raised anglican too. But if, hypothetical spoken, the heir can marry any imaginable religious woman beside a catholic, then he should be allowed to marry a catholic too. There shouldn't be such problems with a intermarriage as long as the children will be raised anglican. The disputes are hundreds of years old, there must be new ways now, but just my opintion of course! All those things are discriminatory and no good example for a peaceful, open-minded world.

[muriel]

I suspect we will see the ban on Catholics dissappearing fairly soon. Similarly, I would like to see discrimination against women in the line of succession being adressed soon, ideally before William has children.

[mktv2000]

One interesting point regarding the two possible changes, it will be much easier to change the law regarding gender as opposed to the law banning Catholics. With the Queen being the head of the Church of England, there are more entanglements there. One would think that with a sweep of the pen, the male preference could be gone.

Both should be done IMO, but I just think one is much easier.

[Jacknch]

Didn't Crown Princess Mary of Denmark convert to the Lutheran church before her marriage? I'm not sure what her previous religion was, but even a more "modern" style of monarchy such as Denmark's seems to require the future spouse of the heir to convert religion before marriage!

Apart from custom and tradition, is there anything written in the Act of Settlement or indeed any other law in Britain that requires male preference?

[wbenson]

I don't think it's written, but on the other hand that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't law.

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Jacknch

Didn't Crown Princess Mary of Denmark convert to the Lutheran church before her marriage? I'm not sure what her previous religion was, but even a more "modern" style of monarchy such as Denmark's seems to require the future spouse of the heir to convert religion before marriage!

Apart from custom and tradition, is there anything written in the Act of Settlement or indeed any other law in Britain that requires male preference?

Princess Mary was Presbyterian.
Alexandra, Countess of Frederiksborg was an Anglican but had to renounce her faith and become Lutheran.

[Connie Cutmantle]

It seems extraordinarily archaic to me that because one man was sooooo obsessed with begetting a son and had a monumental tantrum and decided to make himself Head of his nation's church and thus brought about a reformation, that nearly half a millenia later and after the issues of 1688, UK legislation still actively excludes Catholics from marriage to heirs to the throne! It's revolting out of date bigotry IMHO! Does the USA exclude Catholics from being eligible to run as President...No it does not!!!! The Uk needs to wake up and move on and stop being so 'stuck in the past!' I am also rather shocked that the Danes insist upon conversion to Lutheranism! Spain is another country that also insist upon conversion does it not? Actually thinking about it, do any extant sovereign nations not insist upon heirs marrying spouses who conform to applicably accepted 'National' religion/creed?

In the first instance such prejudices appear to me terribly negative! It is a non-sensical/divisive and hardly constructive stance to take in this day and age! Especially when we are forced to realize/accept that the world has very few paragons......... one's creed (Anglican/Lutheran/Orthodox/Catholic/Muslim/Buddhist/Sikh/Taoist etc.....) is not what should be important....it should really be about loving and cherishing all mankind and wanting to aim to provide a safer and better world for our children and those who come after.....surely?

I hope that the POW will be brave enough to disassociate the British Monarchy from the COE if and when he succeeds, as his coronation would be rather tricky to stage in the traditional sense as things stand today! The issue of Peers also comes in to the equation here!

I would like to see members of the British RF marrying for love.....pure and simple! Creed(s) should be something that are/is reconciled through love! The same applies IMHO to alll RFs....they would be setting such a wonderfully 'tolerant' and pertinent example then! (Which is what I thought they were supposed to be doing to justify their 'bread and butter' anyway!!!!!!!)Ooooh maybe I have trodden over the line as I note that Religion is a sort of dodgy area to get into here on TRF.....I do not want to offend anyone...so I shall say no more!

[wbenson]

NZ supports change to royal-succession rules - Politics - NZ Herald News

Prime Minister John Key says New Zealand will give its support to change royal succession law that bans first-born daughters from ascending the throne and another law that bans Catholics from marrying into the royal family.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by RoyalProtocol

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!

The Queen reigns, but does not rule. She may advise, she may warn, she may consult, but if the Prime Minister tenders formal advice to the Crown, she is compelled to accept it.

If Parliament decides to lift the ban on Catholics and establish the right of first-born daughters succeeding over subsequent male children, there's nothing much she can do about it.

[Connie Cutmantle]

Originally Posted by wbenson

NZ supports change to royal-succession rules - Politics - NZ Herald News

Prime Minister John Key says New Zealand will give its support to change royal succession law that bans first-born daughters from ascending the throne and another law that bans Catholics from marrying into the royal family.

Good for John Key.....one of the few sensible things he has done recently IMHO! First borns should come first in the natural pecking order regardless of gender!

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Connie Cutmantle

It seems extraordinarily archaic to me that because one man was sooooo obsessed with begetting a son and had a monumental tantrum and decided to make himself Head of his nation's church and thus brought about a reformation, that nearly half a millenia later and after the issues of 1688, UK legislation still actively excludes Catholics from marriage to heirs to the throne! It's revolting out of date bigotry IMHO! Does the USA exclude Catholics from being eligible to run as President...No it does not!!!! The Uk needs to wake up and move on and stop being so 'stuck in the past!' I am also rather shocked that the Danes insist upon conversion to Lutheranism! Spain is another country that also insist upon conversion does it not? Actually thinking about it, do any extant sovereign nations not insist upon heirs marrying spouses who conform to applicably accepted 'National' religion/creed?

In Denmark the monarch is also the head of the Church. According to the law the spouse of the King/Queen doesn't have to belong the lutheran Church but so far all have converted. Also in Sweden the succession law states expilcit that these in line of succession have to belng to the swedish lutheran Church. Don't know about Norway but there also the monarch is the Head of the Church.

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Connie Cutmantle

Spain is another country that also insist upon conversion does it not? Actually thinking about it, do any extant sovereign nations not insist upon heirs marrying spouses who conform to applicably accepted 'National' religion/creed?

I hope that the POW will be brave enough to disassociate the British Monarchy from the COE if and when he succeeds, as his coronation would be rather tricky to stage in the traditional sense as things stand today! The issue of Peers also comes in to the equation here!

As far as I know, nope no reigning monarchy accepts a prince/ss unless they conform.

I doubt very very much that the POW will disassociate himself from the Church of England, he has said he wants to be coronated as
"Defender of Faith" rather than "Defender of the Faith".

But tbqh, he will still attend an anglican church at christmas and easter like he always has done. There is no reason to "move with the times" and stop the King or Queen being head of the church of england.

[RoyalistRiley]

While there would surely be no problem in getting the Commonwealth Realms to amend the Act of Settlement, I think it would be hard to restore Catholics to the Succession while the Monarch remains the Church of England's Supreme Governor. There has never been an Anglican Pope, so why should a Catholic be Head of the Church of England?

I am suprised that nothing regarding equal succession for females was discuessed at CHOGM recently, though. It seemed like an ideal place to do so.

[Princejohnny25]

I personally see the monarchs role as head of the church coming to an end soon. Simply because the church does not have a place in modern day society like it used to. Plus, the more traditional branch or high church is becoming friendly with the Catholics. The more liberal parts are sorta forming their own body. That leaves the monarch in a funny place down the line. It will be really interesting to see how things unfold in the coming years.

But, it wouldnt be a problem to change the marrying catholics rule. It would be like the Dutch, Prince WA is with the Dutch church while Maxima is a catholic. But their children have been raised in the Dutch religion. It would be the same in britian.

[Zonk]

RoyalistRiley...you made a valid point at least IMO, in regards to a Catholic being in Charge of the Anglican Church. How could that be possible.

I am not Catholic so forbid me for speaking out of turn or offending anyone but who do Catholics owe their allegiance to besides God...is it the Pope? If so, than taking into consideration what RoyalistRiley is saying....how can a Catholic leader being charge of the Anglican church? In addition, how does the Catholic faith view the Anglican faith?

But than all of the above begs the question...how does the Catholic faith differ to other religions, i.e. what would makes the act so discriminatory to Catholics that it is not applicable to other faiths i.e. Islam, Hindu, Judiasm, etc? I will admit to being one of those who viewed the Act as discriminatory to Catholics cause to be simple...it just doesn't seem fair. But looking at it from another angle (that brought forth by RoyalistRiley) and knowing the history of Catholicism in England...it kind of makes sense know.

And Princejohnny (not to be mean) but just because something works in the Netherlands doesn't necessarily mean it will work in the United Kingdom.