The Act of Settlement and the Line of Succession

[kelly9480]

The list is wrong.

The Realms are the independent countries of which she is queen and (except for the UK) have a governor-general in residence - so that's the first 16. The only countries that have any say on the monarchy are the realms because they have 16 independent monarchies that simply have the same woman as monarch.

There's no such thing as "Other Realms and Territories". It a term used in her title that is basically like et cetera, but it has no legal significance. You're either a realm, a territory or a dependency, but you can't be a combination of two.

The Channel Islands (Guernsey & Jersey) & the Isle of Man are crown dependencies, not territories.

Any country with a Governor or Commisioner is a territory. Anguilla, Bermuda, BIOT, BVI, CI, FI, Gibraltar, Montserrat, PI, St Helena, South Georgia & the South Sandwich Islands, Turks & Caicos Islands are in this category.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ in the Government section of each country has the legal description of the country's status.

[Oppie]

Kelly I'm not sure which list you were saying was wrong.

But for further clarification from www.royal.gov.uk

Crown Dependencies

The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not part of the United Kingdom, but are dependent territories of the English Crown. Both territories have their own forms of self-administration, although the United Kingdom government is responsible for certain areas of policy.


Realms

A Commonwealth realm is a country where The Queen is the Sovereign. The Queen is Queen not only of the United Kingdom and its overseas territories, but also of the following realms: 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.

On The Queen's accession in 1952, the Sovereign was for the first time proclaimed by different titles in the independent realms of the Commonwealth. The Royal Titles Act of 1953 had to reflect the fact that the Commonwealth realms were full and equal members with the United Kingdom.

Respect for the particular circumstances of The Queen's Commonwealth realms was secured by providing that legislation on the Royal Title was to be enacted separately by each of The Queen's Commonwealth realms, i.e. each Commonwealth country which retained a monarchical constitution, recognising The Queen as Sovereign.

The form which this takes in each realm includes a common element: the description of the Sovereign as 'Queen of Her Other Realms and Territories and Head of the Commonwealth'.

When The Queen visits one of her Commonwealth realms, she speaks and acts as Queen of that country, and not as Queen of the United Kingdom. As a constitutional monarch, The Queen acts on the advice of the ministers of the realm concerned.

In each of the realms, The Queen continues to be represented by a Governor-General. He or she is appointed by The Queen on the advice of the ministers of the country concerned and is completely independent of the British Government.


Dependent Territories

A dependent territory is a territory belonging by settlement, conquest or annexation to the British, Australian or New Zealand Crown.

There are seven Australian external territories, two New Zealand dependent territories and two New Zealand associated states.

In British dependencies, The Queen is represented by Governors, or in some cases by Commissioners, Administrators or Residents, who are responsible to the British Government for the government of the countries concerned. The United Kingdom is responsible for the security of the dependent territories and for their foreign affairs and defence-related matters. Most dependent territories have their own elected government.

When Edward VIII abdicated, the Act of Abdication needed to be approved by Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa the Irish Free State and a couple of other countries which I can remember at the moment. If there were to be a change only the realms would need to inact the change, it would become automatic for the dependent territories

[kelly9480]

The list posted by Von Schlesian (sp?) was wrong because it listed Territories as Other Realms and Territories and included Crown Dependencies as Other Realms and Territories.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by kelly9480

The list posted by Von Schlesian (sp?) was wrong because it listed Territories as Other Realms and Territories and included Crown Dependencies as Other Realms and Territories.

I think the other thing we are trying to clarify, apart from the definitions, is that Queen Elizabeth wears 17 crowns, she being the Sovereign of 17 independent countries ranging from the United Kingdom, through Australia, Canada and New Zealand, to Tuvalu. She is not "Queen of Gibraltar" or "Queen of the Falkland Islands" because these territories or possessions are not independent states.

So the larger point is that any proposed change to the Act of Settlement may have to be be discussed with all of the countries who have the British Monarch as their Head of State.
.

[IslandDweller]

Originally Posted by Mapple

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...

Good question. Actually, I'm not sure if the spouse has to swear adherence to C of E, or if they'd be allowed to remain any of the religions you mentioned. My guess (and some people around here would definitely know better) is that if they're allowed to marry people of other religions, then those people are allowed to stay those religions.

[james]

Princess Marina maried in Westminster Abbey but then had a private Greek Orthodox ceremony conducted afterwards. She never converted to C of E but remained Greek Orthodox all her life.

[Von Schlesian]

Originally Posted by Warren

I think the other thing we are trying to clarify, apart from the definitions, is that Queen Elizabeth wears 17 crowns, she being the Sovereign of 17 independent countries ranging from the United Kingdom, through Australia, Canada and New Zealand, to Tuvalu. She is not "Queen of Gibraltar" or "Queen of the Falkland Islands" because these territories or possessions are not independent states.

So the larger point is that any proposed change to the Act of Settlement may have to be be discussed with all of the countries who have the British Monarch as their Head of State.
.

Warren, that was exactly my intention when posting the list. Kelly (correctly) pointed out my vague seperation of those countries of which Her Majesty is Queen, and those of which are Corwn dependencies. From experience (especially with the "Sashes" thread), using any type of formal terminology tends to get people confused, so I thought I was giving the simplified version, by listing the old 'etcetera'.

[rchainho]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/3067773.stm

Yesterday it was her aniversary of death.

1968: Princess Marina laid to rest
Senior members of the Royal Family have attended the funeral of Princess Marina, the Duchess of Kent.
Princess Marina, 61, died on Tuesday from an inoperable brain tumour, only hours after it had been revealed that she was seriously ill.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Mapple

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...

No, but they swear an oath of obedience to the Sovereign, who represents both the Crown and the Church. The Act was designed to protect England from the secular power of The Roman Pope, who at the time was actively conspiring with countries like Spain to overthrow the "heretical" throne of Great Britian and had immense power through alliance with Catholic thrones.

Today, these issues are dead, but as with any religious question, it's a touchy subject until there is formal reconciliation between the Anglician Church and Rome. Once that happens, there would be a way to discuss repealing the Act.

[BeatrixFan]

I am staunchly against the 'modernisation' of Monarchy - that is, I don't want to see the Queen in a purple shell-suit buying a pint of milk in Tesco's but there is one thing that I think should be changed.
The Catholic Ban. Prince Charles has previously hinted that he'd like to be known as 'Defender of the Faiths' - do we think that he will change the ban on Catholic succession? And what would it mean if he did?
If Prince Michael is still alive, he'd regain his position in Succession as would others in the Line.
I've been watching, 'Charles II : The Power and The Passion' and I cannot believe that we still have this rule in place. I don't think Catholic Monarchs would have the same style as Mary I or be as fervent as Queen Henrietta Maria.

Thoughts?

[Warren]

While ever the Church of England is the Established Church of the United Kingdom, and the Sovereign is Head of the Church, then the Sovereign must be Church of England.
I assume the Act of Settlement provision against a Roman Catholic spouse is to ensure any children are raised Church of England. This was what caused the problem in the first place - not James II's marriage to a Roman Catholic per se, but the fear that any son of the marriage (and heir to the throne) would be raised in that religion. Once it became clear that James intended to re-establish a Roman Catholic dynasty, he was turfed out.
.

[Lady Jennifer]

I think they should be allowed to marry whomever they want....just make sure the child(ren) are raised in the Church of England. Make the spouse sign a paper (along with the Pre-nup ) saying they will raise their child(ren) in the Church of England. Don't punish a person for falling in love with someone of another religion....what century are we in??? Isn't that what they are doing in the Netherlands?? With Maxima? She is still Catholic but her kids aren't.

Thats just my opinion of course.

[Elspeth]

Prince Charles can't change the ban on Catholics; it's part of the law and must be changed by Parliament. Since the Act of Settlement also applies to other countries where the Queen is head of state, their governments would have to agree to this change too.

Personally I think it's way past time for this change to be made, regardless of whether it's complicated or whatever the excuses are. It's a blatant form of religious discrimination that really isn't helpful, especially given the state of affairs in Ireland. I think it'd be far better to do this proactively rather than wait until their hand is forced by an heir to the throne wanting to marry a Catholic, but it probably isn't a high priority for the government.

[kelly9480]

It's not going to be changed as long as other countries can vote on it because it would put those monarchies (all obviously headed by the same person) at risk. It would also open up republican debate, and Blair doesn't want to get into that (EIIR told him she had no problem changing to gender-blind succession and he refused to bring it up in Parliament because he doesn't want the headache). The state of affairs in Ireland has nothing to do with the UK -- they don't share the monarchy so their opinions don't count.

The ban is easy to get around. Bring home a Catholic, make the Catholic convert on the wedding day to non-Catholic, have a non-Catholic wedding, and the Catholic can convert back. At the exact moment of the wedding, the spouse can't be Catholic, but they can be Catholic any time before or after.

[Elspeth]

I think that sort of dishonesty would do the monarchy more damage than any potential damage caused by attempting to change this law. Sooner or later, the UK is going to find itself in violation of some European Union directive about religion, and then things are going to get very interesting.

I don't agree that the state of affairs in Ireland is irrelevant. Northern Ireland is fractured between Protestant and Catholic factions, and one of the barriers to Irish unification is that the Northern Irish Catholics don't trust the British to deal with them fairly because Britain has a history of anti-Catholic discrimination. The existence of this prohibition on a Catholic spouse - whether the children are raised Anglican or not - is a present-day example of that discrimination and, IMO, is very societally unhealthy.

[Elspeth]

This situation wouldn't only apply in Britain but in Sweden and Denmark where the spouse MUST be Lutheran and Spain where the spouse MUST be Roman Catholic.

Yes, that might start being a problem, but I think it's a somewhat different situation from the British one. As long as a country has an established church, an argument could be made that it's appropriate for the monarch and even the spouse to be a member of that church. However, as far as I know, there's no specific requirement for the spouse of a British monarch to be Anglican, but there's a prohibition on just one non-Anglican religious affiliation, not all of them. If it's really true that a Queen or Prince Consort could be a practising Muslim, Satanist, Mormon, Greek or Russian Orthodox, Pastafarian, or any other religion, but not Roman Catholic, that's simple discrimination and a lot harder to defend.

[Elspeth]

I really don't see how the discrimination element is different between Britain and the other countries - they all put religious qualifcations on the spouse of the monarch with the other countries being far more restrictive in specifying the actual form of Christianity that has to be followed.

The difference is that when you have an established religion with the monarch as the head, then obviously the monarch needs to be a member of that religion, as does the heir. It's reasonable to also expect the spouse to be a member but not necessary unless the spouse intends to raise children in a religion other than the established one. What isn't reasonable is to say that the spouse can be any religion he or she wants to be except not Roman Catholic. We are - or at least we should be - way past the time when Catholicism is seen as such a dire threat that it has to be specifically prohibited when other non-Anglican religions are not.

As Britain has an established church with members of said church sitting in the House of Lords as well as the monarch being the Supreme Governor of the Church of Anglican they are extremely liberal in only banning RC spouses. They should ban all non-Anglican spouses, IMHO.

They should ban all or none, not just one. That sends a terrible message to the country's Catholics - your religion is so uniquely dangerous that, unlike all other religions, we're going to prohibit it in our royal line of succession.
.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by kelly9480

They all discriminate, so why is Britain being singled out?

They don't discriminate in the same way. Other countries stipulate that a spouse must be a particular religion, they don't simply prohibit some religions and not others. Spain doesn't say that a Jewish or Muslim consort would be fine but we don't want Anglicans, thank you very much. The British system discriminates against one non-Anglican religion while having no problem with others. That sort of thing shouldn't be going on.

By continuing to cling to this anti-Catholic stuff as far as the royal succession is concerned, long after there's any actual justification for it, we're quite needlessly helping to propagate the sense of division.
.

[Iain]

Originally Posted by Warren

While ever the Church of England is the Established Church of the United Kingdom, and the Sovereign is Head of the Church, then the Sovereign must be Church of England.
.

The Church of England is not the Established Church of The United Kingdom, only of England. Wales is mainly Noncormformist and in Scotland the Established Church is the Church of Scotland although the Catholic Church is the largest religion. Queen Elizabeth changes religion when she crosses the Scots/English border and becomes a Presbyterian.

If a country guarantees religious freedom to it's citizens then that freedom must be given to the monarch and whoever they marry. In the Netherlands Willem Alexander has married a Catholic and nobody expected her to change religion. I have been told that the Dutch constitution doesn't even insist that the monarch is a member of the Dutch Reformed Church and can practice whatever religion they want. That is the way it should be.

[Elspeth]

If a country doesn't have an established religion, the monarch should certainly be free to be whatever religion he or she wishes. However, in a country with an established church, especially in England where the monarch is the Supreme Governor of that church, it wouldn't make sense for the monarch to be a different religion. I don't think such a limitation should apply to a spouse, though, as long as children are brought up in that church until they're old enough to decide whether to stay with it or to step out of the line of succession.