The Act of Settlement and the Line of Succession

[Incas]

Originally Posted by Jackswife

I'm a little bit confused here. The Duke and Duchess of Kent are both Anglican.

Duke of Kent is still Anglican. Duchess of Kent converted to Catholicism in the 90's.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by james

"Marry a Papist" clearly equates to anyone married to a Papist as such a person cannot be King/Queen.

Yet the Duke of Kent is still in the line of succession.

"Marry a Papist" refers to the act of marriage. When someone converts after marriage, the other person didn't marry a Catholic.

[Oppie]

Incas great minds think alike (or at the same time :p )

When they were writing the act I don't think they thought anyone would convert to Catholicism after they were married (weren't Catholics treated badly in those days ? )

[james]

If one wants to be totally pedantic (and ridiculous) one can interpret the law as being solely concerned with WHEN a person becomes a Catholic with pre-marital Catholicism being unacceptable and conversion welcomed. Obviously and realistically though it was always meant to be interpreted as solely anti-Catholic thus when they were in a position of strength in 1978 the Royal Family chose to follow the law stringently (in the case of Prince Michael) and now that they are not so strong the law is being interpreted more liberally to deflect criticism.

I doubt very much that if William wanted to marry a Catholic the law wouldn't be repealed however I think this ought to take place before a future heir to the throne is ever placed in this position.

[kelly9480]

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

[Mapple]

james, the Act is written in such a way that it cannot be interpreted as you want... It is called a loophole--and the most likely reason behind it has been suggested by Oppie. It doesn't matter that the law was supposed to be stringently anti-Roman Catholic in 1701--no UK court can legislate from the bench here, the judges have to abide by the text of the Act.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by kelly9480

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

Well, depending on how integrated Britain becomes in the EU, it's possible that this law, since it's based in religious discrimination, will have to be dealt with sooner or later. And if the C of E is ever disestablished, it makes a mockery of that law anyway.

How many of the 16 realms do you think would really want to take a stand to preserve such an archaic piece of prejudice?

[tiaraprin]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Yet the Duke of Kent is still in the line of succession.

"Marry a Papist" refers to the act of marriage. When someone converts after marriage, the other person didn't marry a Catholic.

And the Duke of Kent's children were all raised Anglican and remain in the line of succession also except the Earl of St. Andrews. The Duchess was Anglican when she married. Her conversion after her children are raised does not impact her husband and children's places in line. The Earl of St Andrews resigned his when he married a Catholic, not because his mother converted.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by tiaraprin

The Duke of Kent's children were all raised Anglican and remain in the line of succession, except the Earl of St. Andrews.

The Earl's son Edward, Baron Downpatrick, lost his place in the Line of Succession when he converted to Catholicism in 2003. The Earl's younger brother, Lord Nicholas Windsor, also lost his place when he converted in 2001.
.

[tiaraprin]

Originally Posted by Warren

The Earl's son Edward, Baron Downpatrick, lost his place in the Line of Succession when he converted to Catholicism in 2003. The Earl's younger brother, Lord Nicholas Windsor, also lost his place when he converted in 2001.
.

Baron Downpatrick converted?? I didn't know that. I had heard rumors about Nicholas, but didn't know about Baron Downpatrick.

[Elspeth]

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.

If this was because of a Catholic upbringing, I assume we'll be seeing his sisters following suit in due course.

[chrissy57]

I suspect that the children are being raised with instruction in both the Anglican and Roman Catholic faiths so that when the time comes to make a commitment - i.e. confirmation - they will be able to do so freely.

If they are only begin raised as Roman Catholics then their parents are effectively removing them from the order of succession without the children having a say. By giving them instruction in both faiths it will be up to the children themselves to make a decision based on religion and/or their desire to remain in the line of succession.

I would hope that they are being given the chance to make that decision for themselves and it is not that hard to do. My mother was raised that way as were her mother and her mother's siblings due to the fact that they were the children of an Anglican and Roman Catholic. (I actually really take my hat off to my great-grandmother who continued to raise her youngest two children that way after the death of her husband at Gallipoli in 1915. The two youngest were aged 6 and 8 at the time while the two eldest had already been received into the Anglican faith. She could so easily have ignored her late husband's wishes - as she did in other things - but she didn't. None of her children actually followed her into Roman Catholicism but they were raised with both faiths and then each made their own decisions.)

As for changing the law about those who are Roman Catholics or who marry Roman Catholics the biggest problem is the fact that that ban is part of the Act of Settlement. The legal boffins would have to work out how to repeal those clauses of that Act without repealing the whole Act.

I was pleased when the Queen made it clear that the Duke of Kent would remain in the Order of Succession when the Duchess converted was that otherwise a future spouse could use the threat of conversion, and thus of blocking the person in line of succession from remaining there, to blackmail their spouse. I know that Diana was reported to have considered conversion and I believe that I read she was considering it to stop Charles becoming king, during the War of the Wales. In the light of the Queen's subsequent announcement (I hope, and in fact feel sure, with the advice constitutional lawyers) I wonder whether Diana also was given this advice as well and so decided conversion wasn't worth it. If you are one of those who believe her to have been that manipulative it makes sense. Then again she may have just been trying to seek a sense of peace and others put out that story to blacken her name. I don't know of course.

[kelly9480]

How is it bad news for the Windsors that a basically unknown teenage boy decides to become a Catholic? There are literally dozens of people ahead of him.

Sylvana herself is not a practising Catholic, and Katharine was described as the one who turned her grandson on to Catholicism, so I don't really think the kids were being raised in both faiths. The St Andrewses said they would raise their children as Anglicans when they married.

[branchg]

The Duke of Kent officially remains in the line of succession because Katharine was Anglican at the time of their marriage. Whether or not, in theory, he could ascend the throne as King, and Katharine as Queen, without coming into conflict with the Act of Settlement is another matter entirely.

I would imagine that since there is no chance he will ever reign, it is a matter that has been ignored for the most part. But if it ever came to pass, I don't think the Duke could become Sovereign with a Catholic spouse.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by kelly9480

How is it bad news for the Windsors that a basically unknown teenage boy decides to become a Catholic? There are literally dozens of people ahead of him.

Sylvana herself is not a practising Catholic, and Katharine was described as the one who turned her grandson on to Catholicism, so I don't really think the kids were being raised in both faiths. The St Andrewses said they would raise their children as Anglicans when they married.

In my opinion, it is irrelevant in today's diverse society, but the law is the law. Until the Act of Settlement is repealed or modified (which remains a doubtful proposition), the royal family must continue to follow the law with regard to their marriages.

[chrissy57]

As far as I am aware the Church of England is only the official church in England and not in any of the other realms. It is certainly not an established church in Australia so that is not an issue here.

Disestablishment of the Church of England is a difficult proposition because it is also tied up with the Act of Settlement and some other acts that pre-date it as well as the Bill of Rights (I believe) that followed the Glorious Revolution of 1688 - when the Roman Catholic James II and his son were forced to leave the throne for the Protestant William of Orange and James' eldest daughter Mary.

[ysbel]

What are the 16 realms?

[Oppie]

The 16 realms are where the Queen is still the head of state represented by a Governor General

from www.royal.gov.uk

Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St Christopher and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu

[Von Schlesian]

Originally Posted by ysbel

What are the 16 realms?

16 is not an accurate figure.

Her Majesty Elizabeth II, by Grace of God Queen of:

1. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
2. The Commonwealth of Australia
3. Canada
4. New Zealand, Cook Islands and Niue
5. Papua New Guinea
6. Antigua and Barbuda
7. The Commonwealth of the Bahamas
8. Barbados
9. Belize
10. Grenada
11. Jamaica
12. The Federation of Sain Kitts and Nevis
13. Saint Lucia
14. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
15. Soloman Islands
16. Tuvalu

Other Realms and Territories:

17. Anguilla
18. Bermuda
19. British Virgin Islands
20. British Indian Ocean Territory
21. Cayman Islands
22. Falkland Islands
23. Gibraltar
24. The Bailiwick of Guernsey
25. The Bailiwick of Jersey
26. The Isle of Man
27. Montserrat
28. Pitcairn Islands
29. Saint. Helena
And her Dependencies,
30. South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands
31. The Turks and Caicos Islands

Each of the countries 17-31 are British dependencies, with Governors as Her Majesty's representatives. The other countries, 2-24, are Sovereign constitutional Monarchies, of which Her Majesty is individually Queen of each, with a Governors-General for each acting as Head-of-State.

[Mapple]

Originally Posted by Brian_Ahern

To me it doesn't seem likely that William or Harry would be barred from marrying a Catholic. My guess would be that there'd be some quick legal shuffling to allow for them to marry a Catholic, so long as anyone who ascended the throne was C of E.

Does the spouse of a monarch have to swear some kind of oath to the Church of England? If not, what's the problem with the spouse being Roman Catholic? The Act of Settlement does not prevent dynasts from marrying adherents of the Church of Scotland, Greek Orthodox Christians, Muslims, Jews, Satanists...