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

[Warren]

So for example (famous words around here!)
Say Lord Nicholas Windsor (who was raised Protestant and therefore in the line of succession until his Catholic conversion) decides to revert to Church of England (I know, unlikely given his recent Catholic marriage), he would very much not be "restored" to his place in the succession line.

Once you're off the list, that's it.

But as he is "out", if after his theoretical reconversion, he raises his children as Protestants, would they be in the line of succession?

They remain in line until if and when they "profess the Popish religion" (quoting the Act of Settlement).

Princess Michael was married as a Catholic but raised her children Protestant (though at least one of her sons and a couple grandchildren have since converted to Catholicism) so they were in line until they were old enough to take themselves out. Lord Nicholas is very likely to raise his children Catholic as he cares little for their "place" but the Kents had a different idea--one I'm trying to determine as more legally sound given the Royal restrictions.

You've mixed up Princess Michael of Kent, Catholic with two Protestant children, and the Duchess of Kent. The Duchess converted to Catholicism and was followed by her son Lord Nicholas Windsor and her grandson Baron Downpatrick.

 

[Iain]

Well, I don't know about "converted"; chances are he was raised Catholic all along on account of his Catholic mother, but he was formally received into the Church (whatever that means - I assume he was confirmed or something) a couple of years ago. That would have made him 15, which seems about the right age for confirmation.

When someone is "received into the Church" it means they have converted from another faith.

Confirmation is usually administered at 10 but in many places it is given when a child makes their First Communion at 7.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

They remain in line until if and when they "profess the Popish religion" (quoting the Act of Settlement).

I would guess (I'm not sure about the British law here) that it has to do with the coming of age in things religiously in Britain. Here in Germany, it's at age 14 that you are considered an adult on choosing your religion. I could imagine that after that you are considered to conciously "profess" to a religion. And if that's catholizism, you're out.

BTW - could Charles convert to greek-orthodox after his succession? Or would he have to give up the throne then?

 

[Iain]

It would be very hard to change the Act simply because all 16 realms would have to agree to a change.

Not necessarily so, Some historians have pointed out that the act is not a British law as it was passed by an English parliament in 1701. As this was six years before the union they say it is not law in Scotland and certainly not in the other realms. As England doesn't have a parliament it would be up to the U.K. parliament to abolish it.

 

[Skydragon]

When the scots signed up to the act of union, they signed up to the British law concerning the act. They certainly did not make any objections concerning the act of succession.

The act states that any alteration 'requires the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom'.

Can you give links to the relevent articles or the names of the 'some historians'

 

[ysbel]

I thought the Act of Succession was passed before the Act joining the Union of Great Britain. It would have to be to grant Queen Anne precedence over her half-brother in the succession.

What Scottish parties gave their assent to the Union of Great Britain act? Did the Scottish parliament pass the Act?

 

[Skydragon]

I thought the Act of Succession was passed before the Act joining the Union of Great Britain. It would have to be to grant Queen Anne precedence over her half-brother in the succession.

What Scottish parties gave their assent to the Union of Great Britain act? Did the Scottish parliament pass the Act?

You are as usual right! The Act of Settlement was passed in 1700, the Act of Union was passed in 1706.
The Scottish parliament of the time passed the Act of Union.

 

[Suonymona]

Warren--thanks for the clarification. If I ever write a novel about Royalty, I know right where to check my research!


In what instances are Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland considered separate from England as far as everyone needing to be in agreement for an act to be passed as law in all the UK?

 

[wbenson]

Warren--thanks for the clarification. If I ever write a novel about Royalty, I know right where to check my research!


In what instances are Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland considered separate from England as far as everyone needing to be in agreement for an act to be passed as law in all the UK?

The Parliament of the United Kingdom has supremacy over the entire United Kingdom, and any Act of Parliament can be applied to England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Since devolution, this is not always the case, but the regional assemblies only have as much power as the Parliament in Westminster allows them to have. Parliament can take away any of that power or overrule them as they see fit.

 

[Warren]

Posts relating to succession issues and Australia have been moved to The Queen and Australia thread.

 

[Next Star]

here is a link to the line of succession: line: Definition, Synonyms and Much More from Answers.com
Primogenture is use when it comes to the British line of succession allow both males and females in line.
Male primogeture only allows males meaning no females are included in line of succseion.

 

[Lady Bluffton]

Wasn't there some discussion about the EU Parliament or some other multi-national body having some say over the Act of Settlement? I believe I remember the gist of it was that it was religiously discriminatory, and counter to EU civil rights laws?

If that's true, then I wonder if the Phillips-Kelly wedding will get that pot brought forward on the stovetop again?

 

[wbenson]

Wasn't there some discussion about the EU Parliament or some other multi-national body having some say over the Act of Settlement? I believe I remember the gist of it was that it was religiously discriminatory, and counter to EU civil rights laws?

If that's true, then I wonder if the Phillips-Kelly wedding will get that pot brought forward on the stovetop again?

It would only be religious discrimination if a Catholic or person wed to a Catholic was actually denied the throne. As that hasn't happened, and won't happen for some time to come, there is no grounds for any investigation or lawsuit.

 

[Lady Bluffton]

It would only be religious discrimination if a Catholic or person wed to a Catholic was actually denied the throne. As that hasn't happened, and won't happen for some time to come, there is no grounds for any investigation or lawsuit.

I'm sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree. The entire point of the Act of Settlement seems to me to protect against what may happen -- that a person with a remote chance of becoming monarch may actually become the monarch.

If your argument is true, then why aren't the provisions (no Catholics; no Catholic spouses) of the Act of Settlement limited only to the top five or ten potential candidates? If I recall, even the most remote candidates are excluded (think Juan Carlos of Spain as a descendant of Queen Victoria, who is of course Catholic).

The Act of Settlement is unfortunately the vestige of a less tolerant time, designed to shore up the institutional validity of the Church of England as a state church and the sovereign as its head.

Please accept my apologies if I have inadvertently offended anyone.

 

[Lady Bluffton]

Interesting opinion article in the Telegraph about Peter's & Autumn's engagement and whether it will have an effect on the Act of Settlement:

Peter's plight must act as a trigger for reform - Telegraph

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

Is it too hopeful to expect that the Parliament will change the Act of Settlement -- if I am not mistaken, isn't Peter the closest heir in recent times to be marrying a Catholic?

I hope Parliament will repeal or amend this outdated act. I am sure that most British people would be strongly in favor. I mean, how can anyone say this is reasonable and relevant to the times? The reasons the act was created no longer apply. It must be just laziness or preoccupation that kept it around this long. Only, I suppose Prince Michael of Kent might be a little miffed that he had to surrender his, however lowly, right to the succession, while Peter may get his cake and eat it too. Nah.... what am I saying? As if either of them cares, knowing they hardly have any chance at all of being in the 'top job'. Just out of curiosity, say the law is repealed, would it mean the succession rights of people like Prince Michael to be reinstated?

 

[bekalc]

Does anyone know if they will have a Catholic, Anglican, or combination Catholic-Anglican wedding (with priests from both faiths)?

Is it too hopeful to expect that the Parliament will change the Act of Settlement -- if I am not mistaken, isn't Peter the closest heir in recent times to be marrying a Catholic?

From what I understand the Catholic church does not let other religions at the alter during the Mass. Normally, Catholics are required to have their marriage blessed by the Catholic Church. This normally means a wedding in the Catholic Church, and in the case of mixed marriages, the Church will allow people to have a non mass wedding, with mainly Scripture verses and songs.

However, if there is a good reason, a Catholic can have a non Catholic ceremony. Let's say for example your spouse's father is a pastor and wants to marry the couple. However, then the Catholic would have to get a dispensation from his/her bishop. Also, the Catholic and his/her fiance would be required to still attend a Pre-cana class, and sign documents pertaining to birth control/ and the fact that the Catholic has a responsibilty to train their child in their faith...

 

[wbenson]

Unless someone is actually denied something, then they have not been discriminated against. You cannot be discriminated against unless you are prevented from doing something that you would have been permitted to do but for the reason of their discrimination.

If Peter Phillips marries a Catholic, his status does not change. The "line of succession" is not a recognized feature of the law, but rather a convenient way of looking at who moves up when who dies, so his lack of inclusion in it cannot constitute discrimination. The law only recognizes the heir of the Electress Sophia of Hanover, with the further provisions that catholics and those who marry them may not be the said heir. If he were actually passed up, he would have been denied that status of monarch solely on the grounds of his spouse's faith, which would then constitute religious discrimination. Whether such discrimination violates EU law and whether the EU can actually do anything about it is another matter, a very complicated one which I know very little about.

The provisions cannot be limited to the "top five or ten potential candidates" because there is always a chance that they will die. As the Act of Settlement respects only the office of monarch, it does not change the status of any other persons.

 

[Warren]

The Act of Settlement is unfortunately the vestige of a less tolerant time, designed to shore up the institutional validity of the Church of England as a state church and the sovereign as its head.

I think it much more nakedly political than merely propping up the Church of England. The Act gave the Parliament the power to determine the succession to the Crown, and was designed to ensure the Protestant Succession and deny the descendants of the deposed James II any legal right to the Crown. The Parliament considered the Electress Sophia of Hanover the "next best" successor to Queen Anne, and all now flows from her.

 

[Lady Bluffton]

From what I understand the Catholic church does not let other religions at the alter during the Mass. Normally, Catholics are required to have their marriage blessed by the Catholic Church. This normally means a wedding in the Catholic Church, and in the case of mixed marriages, the Church will allow people to have a non mass wedding, with mainly Scripture verses and songs.

However, if there is a good reason, a Catholic can have a non Catholic ceremony. Let's say for example your spouse's father is a pastor and wants to marry the couple. However, then the Catholic would have to get a dispensation from his/her bishop. Also, the Catholic and his/her fiance would be required to still attend a Pre-cana class, and sign documents pertaining to birth control/ and the fact that the Catholic has a responsibilty to train their child in their faith...

My husband and I were a mixed faith couple at the time of our marriage. We would not have had a valid marriage in the eyes of the Catholic Church had a Roman Catholic priest or permanent deacon not been present as a witness (the actual officiant was a Protestant minister). The dispensation is to allow marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic:

"Without the express permission of the competent authority, marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons, one of whom was baptized in the catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act, the other of whom belongs to a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the catholic Church."Canon 1124 of the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church.

​

My understanding is that unless there is a Catholic priest or deacon present to witness in an official role, the Church takes the view that no valid marriage took place:

"Can. 1127 ß1 The provisions of can. 1108 are to be observed in regard
to the form to be used in a mixed marriage."

"Canon 1108: Only those marriages are valid which are contracted in the presence of the local Ordinary or parish priest or of the priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who, in the presence of two witnesses, assists, in accordance however with the rules set out in the following canons, and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in canon 144, 1112 ß1, 1116 and 1127 ß2‚3.

ß2 Only that person who, being present, asks the contracting parties to manifest their consent and in the name of the Church receives it, is understood to assist at a marriage."

​

So in other words, the way I understand it, if there is not a Catholic priest or deacon involved in this wedding, and assuming Autumn does not renounce her Catholic faith, Autumn would not be validly married in the eyes of the Catholic Church because of a defect in the form of the marriage (how they got married).

It is true that in mixed marriages, the Catholic spouse is expected to raise the children Catholic, and that the non-Catholic spouse is not to impede those efforts.

The fact that the Act of Settlement may tempt someone to give up their faith is just terrible.

 

[selrahc4]

The "line of succession" is not a recognized feature of the law, but rather a convenient way of looking at who moves up when who dies, so his lack of inclusion in it cannot constitute discrimination.

This is an excellent and significant point. This line isn't like a regular line/queue at all, where one's position is going to confer a guaranteed benefit in time; e.g. the right to purchase a ticket when you eventually get to the box office. For one thing, there are constantly new people jumping the queue. For another, only a very very few who are in the line are ever going to get to the box office to purchase that ticket.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

I think it much more nakedly political than merely propping up the Church of England. The Act gave the Parliament the power to determine the succession to the Crown, and was designed to ensure the Protestant Succession and deny the descendants of the deposed James II any legal right to the Crown. The Parliament considered the Electress Sophia of Hanover the "next best" successor to Queen Anne, and all now flows from her.

Exactly. This confirms that the Act of Settlement has outlived its purposes and usefulness, by anyone. It's a useless act today. It's just .... there, existing for no purpose than to annoy students of constitutional law.

 

[bekalc]

My husband and I were a mixed faith couple at the time of our marriage. We would not have had a valid marriage in the eyes of the Catholic Church had a Roman Catholic priest or permanent deacon not been present as a witness (the actual officiant was a Protestant minister). The dispensation is to allow marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic:

"Without the express permission of the competent authority, marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons, one of whom was baptized in the catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act, the other of whom belongs to a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the catholic Church."Canon 1124 of the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church.​

My understanding is that unless there is a Catholic priest or deacon present to witness in an official role, the Church takes the view that no valid marriage took place:

"Can. 1127 ß1 The provisions of can. 1108 are to be observed in regard

to the form to be used in a mixed marriage."

"Canon 1108: Only those marriages are valid which are contracted in the presence of the local Ordinary or parish priest or of the priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who, in the presence of two witnesses, assists, in accordance however with the rules set out in the following canons, and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in canon 144, 1112 ß1, 1116 and 1127 ß2‚3. ​

ß2 Only that person who, being present, asks the contracting parties to manifest their consent and in the name of the Church receives it, is understood to assist at a marriage."​

So in other words, the way I understand it, if there is not a Catholic priest or deacon involved in this wedding, and assuming Autumn does not renounce her Catholic faith, Autumn would not be validly married in the eyes of the Catholic Church because of a defect in the form of the marriage (how they got married).

It is true that in mixed marriages, the Catholic spouse is expected to raise the children Catholic, and that the non-Catholic spouse is not to impede those efforts.

The fact that the Act of Settlement may tempt someone to give up their faith is just terrible.

Any marriage involving a Catholic is subject to Church norms known as "canon law." Catholics are obliged to marry in the Catholic Church, following the marriage rite of the Catholic Church. Their exchange of vows must be witnessed by either a priest or deacon and two other witnesses. A Catholic can receive permission to marry a non-Catholic and they may be married in the church of the non-Catholic party, but if their exchange of vows will be witnessed by a minister of that denomination, the Catholic must seek a written dispensation from the local Catholic Bishop. Any priest or deacon in one of our local parishes can assist in this matter.
Getting Married in the Catholic Church

Maybe it's different in the United States.. The parties still have to go through the same things though in order for the marriage to be recognized.

 

[WetzvonPlanken]

Peter Phillips His Bride And The Absurd Settlement Act

Taking into account this absurd discussion about Miss. Kelly’s Catholic membership, in connection with her future wedding to the smartest of the Queen’s grandsons, Peter Phillips, I find that it is time that the British Parliament must derogate as soon as possible this preposterous so-called Settlement Act, which is in open violation with the European Convention on Human Rights, remembering that this one has been adopted by the British Parliament in 1998, so it is law of the land now in Britain, your Government should put and end to this aberration. I am persuaded that the UK must fulfil with its duties towards the European Convention of Human Rights, which forbids this kind of bigotry, it is quite ridiculous, if you take into account that for a thousand years, most of the Kings of England were Catholics till Henry VIII “The defender of the Faith” title given by Pope Leo X, thanks to his defence of Catholicism when Luther attacked the Church, He was the man who broke with Rome, just because the Pope did not accept his unlawful divorce of Queen Catherine, like many of his counsellors rejected as well, amongst them John Fisher and Thomas More who before being executed said: “I die a good subject to the King, but to God first!». More was not the first Catholic martyr, but thousands had followed him, persecutions will last for almost three centuries. The first Catholic King after Queen Elizabeth I was going to be King James II, his predecessor, Charles II took the holy communion from a Jesuit before he passed away, Their mother Queen Henrietta Marie wife of Charles I was another Catholic, and so were the majority of the oldest nobility of England (not the Cecil’s indeed), Scotland and Ireland and most commoners, which were forced to convert to Anglicanism if not they were considered traitors and paid with their lives those who did not obey. {religious digression deleted - Elspeth} I would like to remind you that the Duchess of Kent, Princess Michael of Kent, Lord and Lady Nicholas Windsor, The Earl and the Countess of Saint Andrews (members of the royal family) the Duke and Duchess of Norfolk first Peer of England, and many others are Catholics. {religious material deleted - Elspeth} England is a country, which has more Catholic worshipers than Anglicans. {religious material deleted - Elspeth} In times of Queen Victoria, her son Alfred Duke of Edinburgh married Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna of Russia, daughter of Tsar Alexander II “The Liberator of serfdom” she was an Orthodox and never became an Anglican, she continue to be devoted to the Orthodox Church till her death and nobody said a word about it. So why make such differences with Catholics? I would like to have an answer. {religious material deleted - Elspeth}

 

[Iluvbertie]

I really don't think your pro-Roman Catholic diatribe has a place in a forum like this.

Henry's break from Rome had more to do with his desire to actually have total control in England than the divorce which was a convenient excuse (hopefully within the next week or two I will have my article on this issue in the article section of this forum).

He wanted the same power in England as the kings of Spain and France had but the pope wasn't prepared to allow it.

As a stauch protestant, of Irish descent (who left Ireland due to Roman Catholic attacks on their home and family), I find your comments offensive in the extreme.

 

[WetzvonPlanken]

My Apologies If I Had Offended You

I really don't think your pro-Roman Catholic diatribe has a place in a forum like this.

Henry's break from Rome had more to do with his desire to actually have total control in England than the divorce which was a convenient excuse (hopefully within the next week or two I will have my article on this issue in the article section of this forum).

He wanted the same power in England as the kings of Spain and France had but the pope wasn't prepared to allow it.

As a stauch protestant, of Irish descent (who left Ireland due to Roman Catholic attacks on their home and family), I find your comments offensive in the extreme.

Dear lady, I had not have the slightest intention to offend you or anyone else in this forum, {religious digression deleted - Elspeth} someday nobody will discuss why a Roman Catholic woman or man cannot wed a member of the Hanoverian dynasty in England, because nobody will care about this matter. As I said earlier I find ridiculous that a member of the current British royal family cannot marry a Catholic without loosing her or his rights to the throne, Prince Phillip was originally Greek Orthodox and his grandfather George I of Greece was a Prince of Denmark, from the Lutheran tradition, converted to Orthodoxy in order to be accepted as King of Greece, his wife was a Russian Grand Duchess, Queen Olga of Greece, cousin to Maria Alexandrovna who eventually married Alfred Duke of Edinburgh without any opposition, in spite that she never became a member of the church of England. {Religious material deleted - Elspeth} And speaking about Henry VIII there are many documents and books, his schism from Rome was just because the Pope did not accept his divorce from Catherine of Aragon, and being an incredible smart person, but at the same time extremely arrogant, he could not accept that anyone, including the Pope would not consent his behaviour, which was in open violation with the Church’s teachings and rules. Other European Kings challenged Rome, but finally like the French King during the papacy of Avignon, finally accepted the authority of the Roman Sovereign Pontiff as the head of the Church. Sincerely yours Reich Graf LAFWvPzK JD.

 

[WetzvonPlanken]

Not Always Is The Same

Any marriage involving a Catholic is subject to Church norms known as "canon law." Catholics are obliged to marry in the Catholic Church, following the marriage rite of the Catholic Church. Their exchange of vows must be witnessed by either a priest or deacon and two other witnesses. A Catholic can receive permission to marry a non-Catholic and they may be married in the church of the non-Catholic party, but if their exchange of vows will be witnessed by a minister of that denomination, the Catholic must seek a written dispensation from the local Catholic Bishop. Any priest or deacon in one of our local parishes can assist in this matter.
Getting Married in the Catholic Church

Maybe it's different in the United States.. The parties still have to go through the same things though in order for the marriage to be recognized.

My niece Patricia married a German Lutheran here in Buenos Aires, and our priest just asked him if he was going to accept that their children will be educated in accordance with the Catholic faith, and just two hours later the wedding took place. In California they had lots of "red tapes", so when they arrived for their honey moon in Buenos Aires, they were extremely happy that nobody block her intention to marry through the Church, she wanted as the most important factor for her marital life, to have a Catholic wedding and not only a civil one. There are very different approaches depending from each Bishop or Archbishop, here they did not have the some problems than in San Francisco.

 

[BeatrixFan]

It's mainly the children. The Church will accept a mixed marriage if the children will be brought up Catholic.

 

[bekalc]

I really don't think your pro-Roman Catholic diatribe has a place in a forum like this.

Henry's break from Rome had more to do with his desire to actually have total control in England than the divorce which was a convenient excuse (hopefully within the next week or two I will have my article on this issue in the article section of this forum).

He wanted the same power in England as the kings of Spain and France had but the pope wasn't prepared to allow it.

As a stauch protestant, of Irish descent (who left Ireland due to Roman Catholic attacks on their home and family), I find your comments offensive in the extreme.

That's not what I have studied in my history books, and no offense but I have a history degree, took a whole year of English history, and wrote a paper specifically researching the English Reformation.. Henry wanted a divorce partly because he wanted an heir to the throne, plus he did start to think that perhaps his marriage was cursed. The Church wouldn't/couldn't give him a divorce because 1. They had already issued him a dispensation for marrying his sister in law, and 2 (More cynicallly). Catherine of Aragon's nephew was the Holy Roman Emperor who at that time was holding the pope hostage. Even if Henry had control of the Church of England a la France, the status of his marriage would have been regarded as a Church marriage.

Another thing is that the English people adored Queen Catherine. She was charitable, and at one point she even defended England from a Scotish invasion. The fact is henry's decisions hurt a lot of people, but probably the person they hurt the most was Mary. Because she was made illegitimate and marriage was put off for her for years, to the point where she couldn't have children any more (when she finally did marry.) A lot of people lost their lives do to Henry's little "power grab"

 

[Polly]

Hi Chrissy57, et al,

Let's not get hot under the collar about this. We can all, presumably, agree that the prohibition against a Catholic marriage is well and truly past its sell-by date. People's religion today is a highly personal matter and no longer the business of the state - well, not in the West, and possibly elsewhere.

But we shouldn't ignore nor gloss over the actual historical facts.

1.Henry VIII's title 'Defender of the Faith' was given to him by the Pope! This was in response to Henry's attack on Martin Luther, for which the Pope was immensely grateful. It is, therefore, ironic that the secular head of a protestant church continues to use the title.

2. The pope was indeed about to grant Henry VIII his divorce from Katharine of Aragon. However, her uncle, The Holy Roman Emperor, was at war with Rome and had surrounded the city. To appease him and secure release, the Pope withdrew, under protest, his decision to allow Henry VIII the annulment which would have allowed him to marry Anne Boleyn without penalty.

3. Despite the popular conception of Henry VIII as gross and vain, and a wife-murderer, to boot, (he actually murdered one woman, AB, not six) he was one of the very few English monarchs who had a measurable IQ. He had a brilliant and cultured mind and he knew precisely what he was doing when he set up a rival 'church'. One of the very few succeeding monarchs who had anything approaching his intellectual genius was his daughter, Elizabeth I, who actually surpassed him, surprisingly, in intelligence.

4. The Act of Settlement, manifestly and undoubtedly prejudiced, came about after more than 100 years of turmoil and disruption, when, in particular, attacks upon the lives of reigning monarchs had occasioned great alarms, chaos, and even caused a civil war. It's not too easy for us, living hundreds of years away from the events, to appreciate just how frightening the religious divide really was and the radical social implications and terror of the divide. Those days, hopefully, are well and truly behind us.

Today's Prince of Wales, an avid student of history, knows this, I'm sure. I refer to his oft repeated comments that he wants to be acknowledged as the Defender of Faith, not THE faith. The Church of England's privileged position as part of the social and legal structure of the monarchy is, apparently, not for him. And good for the prince! There is every sign that he's embracing C21 with elan and understanding, for which those of us of all and of every religion, have reason to be grateful.

In this, as in so many other ways, I look forward to Charles' assuming the throne. I believe that he'll herald many innovations to our mutual benefit. Which is not to say, naturally, that I don't wish for a continuing long and healthy life for our beloved Queen.