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

[branchg]

The current laws of succession are likely to be changed by a new Act of Parliament at some point in the future, providing male and females have equal rights to succeed and ending the ban on Catholics. My prediction is it will happen in the next twenty years.

 

[Elspeth]

Well, as I said, I hope they do it proactively and don't wait until circumstances force their hand.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

Compared to other countries, they have not done so bad in the Queen department.

Look at what Japan is going through, talk about sexism. I know, I know..tradition blah blah...but hey, we are not talking about anything overly big here..give her the right.

 

[Elspeth]

Well, especially since you'd have to be blind not to see the resemblance between her and her father.

 

[BeatrixFan]

The 'problem' is that if they change the law to allow Catholics to come to the throne then are they going to change it to allow buddhists, muslims, jews and mormons to become Sovereign? I hate to sound 'racist' but I'd prefer a Christian Sovereign only - whatever their denomination (whatever my personal preference).

 

[tiaraprin]

The 'problem' is that if they change the law to allow Catholics to come to the throne then are they going to change it to allow buddhists, muslims, jews and mormons to become Sovereign? I hate to sound 'racist' but I'd prefer a Christian Sovereign only - whatever their denomination (whatever my personal preference).

If it becomes open to Catholics, it becomes open to all faiths. [ed] One cannot have their cake and it eat it too. For many years, there has been an uproar about the "Catholic ban". Well, if it is lifted, bans on other religions should be lifted too. Fair is fair. Charles has said he wants to be "Defender of Faith". Here is his chance to open that door.

As a Protestant, I could cry foul about Catholics becoming eligible for the throne. However, I recognize that is patently unfair despite my feelings on Catholicism. Tolerance and Equality should be the order of the day.

 

[BeatrixFan]

one cannot have their cake and it eat it too.

What did that add to this topic?

I'd rather it remained unchanged if it means a person of any religion could become Sovereign. I do not welcome the idea of a muslim King and if that makes me a bad person then so be it - I think I speak for the majority when I say that. We are a officially a Christian country and we should have a Christian monarch whether that be a Roman Catholic, an Anglican or a happy-clappy singer of songs.

 

[Warren]

The Line of Succession is worked out by birth and thats based on salic law. So men take precedence over women.

Salic Law is male succession only. Liechtenstein has Salic Law; Part III Article 12 of the House Laws 1993 of the Princely House states that only males can succeed to the throne.

The 'problem' is that if they change the law to allow Catholics to come to the throne then are they going to change it to allow buddhists, muslims, jews and mormons to become Sovereign?

I thought we were talking about changing the law to allow someone in the line of succession to keep their place if they married a Roman Catholic. The Act of Settlement also states "That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown, shall join in communion with the Church of England, as by law established.".So we are safe from Tom Cruise and the Scientologists, at least in the short term.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Salic Law is male succession only. Liechtenstein has Salic Law; Part III Article 12 of the House Laws 1993 of the Princely House states that only males can succeed to the throne.

Thanks Warren! My mistake.

The Act of Settlement - it says that one has to join in communion with the Church of England. How would they change that? Would it be replaced with 'communion with a Christian denomination'?

 

[Warren]

Thanks Warren! My mistake.
The Act of Settlement - it says that one has to join in communion with the Church of England. How would they change that? Would it be replaced with 'communion with a Christian denomination'?

We have to be clear what we are talking about here: the spouse of someone in the line of succession, or the Sovereign? By removing the ban of Roman Catholics as spouses and replacing it with a "Christian" spouse requirement, you are actually extending discrimination where there was none before. William could quite happily, and legally, marry a Muslim bride as the Act of Settlement does not proscribe anyone but Catholics. While the Sovereign remains "head" of the Church of England I guess it is fair enough to expect the Sovereign be a member of that Church.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I mean the Sovereign. I think there is discrimination against catholics now but I dont think that by replacing it with a requirement for the Sovereign to be a Christian of whatever denomination is created discrimination. We are, in principle, a Christian country and we should have a Christian Sovereign. Personally, I'd like to see a Catholic Monarch but that won't happen.

I think we're seeing the huge problems opened up when you look into changing the succession laws.

 

[Warren]

I don't know the details, but a Spanish Soveriegn must be Roman Catholic. I wonder if the Spanish Constitution has rules about the religion of the Sovereign's spouse? And if so, why aren't those rules criticised as "discriminatory"? Off topic, but relevant to the general discussion.

 

[BeatrixFan]

And if so, why aren't those rules criticised as "discriminatory"?

I would assume because Spain is a Catholic Country and so it's not a huge thing to have rules that say the Sovereign must be a Roman Catholic. Doesn't Juan Carlos use the style His Catholic Majesty?

 

[Warren]

I would assume because Spain is a Catholic Country and so it's not a huge thing to have rules that say the Sovereign must be a Roman Catholic. Doesn't Juan Carlos use the style His Catholic Majesty?

Yes, exactly. England has an established church, the Church of England, and therefore the Sovereign is expected to be just that. Just as the Norwegian Sovereign must be Lutheran. Curiously enough, the House Laws of Liechtenstein (all 10 pages) only mentions religion in the Preamble, which states "These centuries-old family traditions include the Catholic Faith...whilst respecting the freedom of belief and conscience of the individual". Medieval and Modern, all in one!

 

[Lady Marmalade]

The Royal Family uses the system cognatic primogeniture.

Salic Law used in the Kingdom of Hanover is the reason why Ernst August is not sitting on the throne of England today. Victoria was a female and could not inherit the throne of Hanover and therefore the Kings of Hanover lost the throne of England.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Thanks Lady M. I thought Salic Law was a short way of saying Cognatic Primogeniture but it's obviously not!

Interesting that there isn't a female equivalent of Salic Law that only allows females to become Sovereign.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

No kidding, Beatrixfan....

You know, many people have always said Princess Anne would make a hell of a queen, or, if you guys went to a system like we have, a hell of a president.

I would agree. She is smart, articulate, no nonsense, and has more of a backbone than Charles in many respects.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I think Princess Anne would make a good Monarch but I honestly don't think she'd want the job. And her children wouldn't exactly be ideal to follow her. The problem is, there are lots of members of the RF who would have made good Monarchs - Princess Alexandra for one. As someone said, when we start picking and choosing it all goes to pot.

 

[ysbel]

Thanks for clearing that up Elspeth. I was just writing off the top of my head. I don't know why I thought the Kents were ahead of the Gloucesters.

Compared to other countries, they have not done so bad in the Queen department.

Look at what Japan is going through, talk about sexism. I know, I know..tradition blah blah...but hey, we are not talking about anything overly big here..give her the right.

In Japan, women cannot inherit the throne, period, whether there is an eligible male heir or not. That's what makes the situation so harsh and unfair to the crown princesses. It is similar to the situation in Russia when Nicholas and Alexandra kept having daughters and then their son was born a hemophiliac. The daughters couldn't succeed to the throne even without an available male heir. The situation puts the imperial family under a pressure cooker, IMHO.

Most every country except Japan has modified those laws. Oddly enough Great Britain has never had a law this restrictive, England crowned a Queen Regnant in 1553 (Mary I) and Scotland's Mary, Queen of Scots inherited the throne in 1542. Sweden too accepted female monarchs rather early, Christina (the subject of the great movie with Greta Garbo) became Queen in 1632.

I find it surprising that the British and the Swedes were so ahead of their times. At an age when women were denied many basic rights that men had, at least in these two countries women were accepted as absolute monarchs.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Our female Monarchs have usually been better than their male counterparts. Mary I, Elizabeth I, Victoria etc.

 

[Elspeth]

The 'problem' is that if they change the law to allow Catholics to come to the throne then are they going to change it to allow buddhists, muslims, jews and mormons to become Sovereign? I hate to sound 'racist' but I'd prefer a Christian Sovereign only - whatever their denomination (whatever my personal preference).

The current law requires the monarch to be a communicant of the Church of England, since the CofE is the established church. That's a different matter from the specific exclusion of Catholics as spouses. They could overturn the latter while leaving the former alone. As long as there's an established church in England, it makes sense for the monarch to be a communicant of it.

 

[Elspeth]

I'm not sure I'd count Mary I as one of our better monarchs.

 

[tiaraprin]

I would but I think it's down to personal beliefs and views of what a Monarch should be. I think that for her time and for her faith she was a brilliant Queen. Those who were burned at the stake wouldn't agree with me I'm sure.

While Mary I was a good woman deep within her heart, she is one of the main reasons Catholics are excluded from the throne in my opinion. Her brutality against anyone not Catholic was horrible. At least her sister Elizabeth I tried to bring some tolerance to the table.

 

[ksenia]

I think it is a little dangerous to start messing with sucesssion law today. It raises the question where do you stop? If TOny BLair had his chance I seriously think he would try to get rid of the royal house and be the first president of the UK. We talk so much about keeping tradition etc. If the system is working why mess with it. I think the current system is something that sets the UK apart from the other monarchies. The pomp and circunstance is nice to see when other monarchies have abondoned it- in some cases. I personally don't want to see footage of the Queen riding a bike around London.

As for equal rights for males and females. I think it is so much harder for the female monarchs because the traditional roles are switched. You have to find a mate who will be okay with being secondary to you and all the other issues that arise.

 

[branchg]

Keep in mind the marriage of an heir to the throne requires the consent of the Queen and Parliament. It is highly unlikely William would be allowed to marry anyone who is not Anglican (i.e. a Muslim) or willing to convert to the Church of England prior to marriage. So, in practice, the Act of Settlement can be used in a number of ways to ensure union with the Church.

The Church of England remains within the temporal power of the Crown and anyone close to the succession must marry someone in communion with it.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

You know something that never dawned on me?

I think Elspeth pointed it. The heir, or any other member of the RF, can marry a Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, Taoist, etc, and still retain their place in line. Only if they marry a Catholic, or convert, do they lose their place.....very interesting....

 

[ysbel]

As for equal rights for males and females. I think it is so much harder for the female monarchs because the traditional roles are switched. You have to find a mate who will be okay with being secondary to you and all the other issues that arise.

I agree with you ksenia. Its not an issue of whether the women are capable, they are. And when there is no available male heir, a female monarch from the same family is far better than picking a male who may be living in a different country and has no knowledge of the position of monarch.

But, a crown prince is going to have an easier time of finding a woman willing to be crown princess than a crown princess of finding a willing consort. Margrethe, Beatrix, and Elizabeth are the exceptions. I think Beatrix is the only one who had a really good and supportive marriage.

I'm just surprised that England and Scotland allowed female monarchs so early in their history. This was so far in advance of the notion that women were people in their own right and had their own rights.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

Fascinating how a woman could rule the country...but not vote in elections..as women were not granted that right until the 20th century in Britain first and then the U.S.

Which leads me to realize a woman legally could be president before that time...she just could not vote for herself..

 

[BeatrixFan]

There's that very grand story about Queen Mary and the suffragette. A lady at court threw herself in front of Queen Mary and said, "Help Us Ma'am - We must be able to vote!". The Queen looked out of the window, said "Charming Weather we're having" and walked on past as if nothing had happened. So, Queen Mary was against women voting but for her grand-daughter ruling. As you say Lady Marmalade - fascinating and strange.

 

[ysbel]

Yes, exactly. Very strange.

Queen Victoria had the same aversion to women being given the vote.