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.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
zembla said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
If Prince and Pincess Michael would divorce, would he get his place in the Line of Succession back?
 
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.
 
Al_bina said:
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.
Click to expand...
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...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MAfan said:
If I remember correctly, he has lost his place in the succession only because of his wedding to a catholic woman...
Click to expand...

Yes you're right but it's not reversable once cut out that's it
 
Incas said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:whistling:
 
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.
 
Incas said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Incas said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
RoyalProtocol said:
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
Click to expand...


The monarch can't actually say 'No'.

If it passes both Houses of Parliament the monarch has to give it the Royal Assent.
 
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.
 
Iluvbertie said:
The monarch can't actually say 'No'.

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

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!
 
RoyalProtocol said:
---- 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
Click to expand...
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.:flowers:
 
Skydragon said:
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.:flowers:
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
I agree with the primogenture suggestion. But not the banning marriage to catholics. :)
 
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.
 
lumutqueen said:
I agree with the primogenture suggestion. But not the banning marriage to catholics. :)
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
I don't think it's written, but on the other hand that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't law.
 
Jacknch said:
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?
Click to expand...

Princess Mary was Presbyterian.
Alexandra, Countess of Frederiksborg was an Anglican but had to renounce her faith and become Lutheran. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Blog Real
Prince Edward, Duke of Kent & Strathearn & Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld
Replies
7
Views
1K
Prinsara
Prinsara
Blog Real
Princess Leopoldina of Brazil (1847-1871)
Replies
2
Views
440
Tatiana Maria
T
Marengo
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession 2, Sep 2022-
Replies
1
Views
205
Tatiana Maria
T
Blog Real
King Carlo Emanuele IV (1751-1819) and Queen Marie Clotilde of France
Replies
1
Views
329
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
Blog Real
King Lodovico I, King Lodovico II and Kingdom of Etruria
Replies
3
Views
614
Blog Real
Blog Real

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom