Act of settlement 1707

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

People do not choose to be baptized and raised Catholic as infants and children. Even if they choose not to stay Catholic, and convert to the Church of England the moment they come of age, they are "for ever uncapeable to inherit" (in the words of the Act of Settlement) the British throne. This "forever" ban is not legislated for any other non-Protestant groups. A lifelong atheist, Muslim, or Orthodox who converts to Protestantism the day before the previous monarch dies is perfectly allowed to succeed as monarch and supreme governor of the Church of England.

Of course that part of other religions can be seen as a loophole in a way, but the point at the time was that Catholics were barred was the main point. I don’t believe those who made the settlement ever considered beyond that.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

Of course that part of other religions can be seen as a loophole in a way, but the point at the time was that Catholics were barred was the main point. I don’t believe those who made the settlement ever considered beyond that.

That is correct. Back in 1700, it was assumed that a European monarch would be either Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox , and the latter at the time only applied to the Russian Tsar really. The possibility that a British monarch could be a Jew, or a Muslim , or a Buddhist , or anything else other than a Catholic or a Protestant didn’t cross anybody’s mind in Parliament, hence the probable reason why no other religion besides Roman Catholicism was singled out in the Act.

That doesn’t mean the law cannot be modernized or even entirely repealed today. Right now, it doesn’t seem to be a pressing issue for the British politicians.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Alison H

Autumn Kelly converted from Catholicism to Anglicanism when she married Peter, who consequently was able to keep his place in the line of succession, under the rules in place at the time. OK, that's a spouse, not a potential monarch, but I don't think anyone would be blocked from succeeding if they had been baptised a Catholic but then converted.

Both Catherine and Meghan were confirmed in the Anglican Church (Church of England) just before their marriage - although Catherine was baptized as a child. So, it seems that it is rather common for spouses to become confirmed members of the Anglican Church to be more acceptable as future brides for the BRF.

[Prinsara]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

People do not choose to be baptized and raised Catholic as infants and children. Even if they choose not to stay Catholic, and convert to the Church of England the moment they come of age, they are "for ever uncapeable to inherit" (in the words of the Act of Settlement) the British throne. This "forever" ban is not legislated for any other non-Protestant groups. A lifelong atheist, Muslim, or Orthodox who converts to Protestantism the day before the previous monarch dies is perfectly allowed to succeed as monarch and supreme governor of the Church of England.

I'm not entirely certain of that — to my knowledge, the children of parents who have been barred from the line of succession for being, marrying or converting to Catholicism have been kept in the line while they are young and have not chosen to be confirmed as Catholics (like at least one of the Kent descendants). But I could be wrong.

In an amazing workaround, there is also the Duchess of Kent converting to Catholicism with her husband remaining in line with the remote chance to succeed, simply because the Act didn't cover spouses becoming Catholic later. And even the Queen was fine with this.

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

That is correct. Back in 1700, it was assumed that an European monarch would be either Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox , and the latter at the time only applied to the Russian Tsar really. The possibility that a British monarch could be a Jew, or a Muslim , or a Buddhist , or anything else other than a Catholic or a Protestant didn’t cross anybody’s mind in Parliament, hence the probable reason why no other religion besides Roman Catholicism was singled out in the Act.

That doesn’t mean the law cannot be modernized or even entirely repealed today. Right now, it doesn’t seem to be a pressing issue for the British politician's.

Yes it isn’t an important thing for politicians right now. For me, I don’t think it is a priority or that it should be changed. It wouldn’t change anything IMO. If you’ve seen how some Catholic monarchs have behaved or reacted to certain legislations that go against the beliefs of the Catholic Church is why it shouldn’t be changed. Good examples are King Baudoin and Grand Duke Henri when legislations regarding things like euthanasia and abortions came up, it would make it very difficult.

Originally Posted by Prinsara

I'm not entirely certain of that — to my knowledge, the children of parents who have been barred from the line of succession for being, marrying or converting to Catholicism have been kept in the line while they are young and have not chosen to be confirmed as Catholics (like at least one of the Kent descendants). But I could be wrong.

In an amazing workaround, there is also the Duchess of Kent converting to Catholicism with her husband remaining in line with the remote chance to succeed, simply because the Act didn't cover spouses becoming Catholic later. And even the Queen was fine with this.

Well Katherine, Duchess of Kent isn’t in line for the throne and she converted long after she got married and as you mentioned she informed the Queen so that was fine. I don’t think the Queen had anything against her conversion or at least has nothing against Catholics perse, she’s just following the Act and her faith that she was born into.

[Prinsara]

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

Well Katherine, Duchess of Kent isn’t in line for the throne and she converted long after she got married and as you mentioned she informed the Queen so that was fine. I don’t think the Queen had anything against her conversion or at least has nothing against Catholics perse, she’s just following the Act and her faith that she was born into.

At the time the Duchess converted the law excluded people who had married Catholics from succeeding to the throne — like her brother-in-law Michael — so it was rather a big deal indeed, and not simply a matter of informing the Queen.

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Prinsara

At the time the Duchess converted the law excluded people who had married Catholics from succeeding to the throne — like her brother-in-law Michael — so it was rather a big deal indeed, and not simply a matter of informing the Queen.

Yeah, but Katherine was already Protestant and converted after she married unlike Prince Michael who married Marie-Christine who was born catholic. Plus they are much further down in the succession so it was easier for the elder Kents. I think that if it was any of the Queen’s children, it would be much more difficult for their spouses to do that.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

Yes it isn’t an important thing for politicians right now. For me, I don’t think it is a priority or that it should be changed. It wouldn’t change anything IMO. If you’ve seen how some Catholic monarchs have behaved or reacted to certain legislations that go against the beliefs of the Catholic Church is why it shouldn’t be changed. Good examples are King Baudoin and Grand Duke Henri when legislations regarding things like euthanasia and abortions came up, it would make it very difficult.

First, our discussion did not involve Catholic monarchs, only Protestant monarchs who were formerly regarded as members of the Catholic church (not necessarily by choice).

Second, you first claim that "it wouldn't change anything" but then go on to talk about "why it shouldn’t be changed".

Third, I do not know the reason for your belief that no Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or atheist monarch would ever choose to remove themselves from the legislative process rather than be forced to sign laws which will/which they believe will inflict harm. Many non-Catholics, myself included, would also desire that reform to the legislative procedure (which, if I remember correctly, was at least partly completed in Luxembourg).

Originally Posted by Prinsara

I'm not entirely certain of that — to my knowledge, the children of parents who have been barred from the line of succession for being, marrying or converting to Catholicism have been kept in the line while they are young and have not chosen to be confirmed as Catholics (like at least one of the Kent descendants). But I could be wrong.

I'm not clear on what scenario you are referring to - the post which you quoted was about individuals who were raised Catholic but have converted to Protestantism. Such persons remain barred from the succession to the British throne.

Children of a Catholic parent who were raised as Protestants from birth (like the children of Princess Michael of Kent) have never been barred by the Act of Settlement.

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

Of course that part of other religions can be seen as a loophole in a way, but the point at the time was that Catholics were barred was the main point. I don’t believe those who made the settlement ever considered beyond that.

Originally Posted by Mbruno

That is correct. Back in 1700, it was assumed that a European monarch would be either Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox , and the latter at the time only applied to the Russian Tsar really. The possibility that a British monarch could be a Jew, or a Muslim , or a Buddhist , or anything else other than a Catholic or a Protestant didn’t cross anybody’s mind in Parliament, hence the probable reason why no other religion besides Roman Catholicism was singled out in the Act.

That doesn’t mean the law cannot be modernized or even entirely repealed today. Right now, it doesn’t seem to be a pressing issue for the British politician's.

Certainly, but back in 2013, the government which decided to lift the discrimination between spouses of Catholics and spouses of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. were certainly cognizant of the possibility that a descendant of Sophia of Hannover or their spouse might be affiliated with a religion other than Protestant or Catholic, or no religion at all. There is no reason they could not have also equalized the differential treatment between ex-Catholics and ex-Jews, ex-Muslims, etc. (actually, the parliamentary record causes me to suspect that it simply never occurred to them).

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

First, our discussion did not involve Catholic monarchs, only Protestant monarchs who were formerly regarded as members of the Catholic church (not necessarily by choice).

Second, you first claim that "it wouldn't change anything" but then go on to talk about "why it shouldn’t be changed".

Third, I do not know the reason for your belief that no Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or atheist monarch would ever choose to remove themselves from the legislative process rather than be forced to sign laws which will/which they believe will inflict harm. Many non-Catholics, myself included, would also desire that reform to the legislative procedure (which, if I remember correctly, was at least partly completed in Luxembourg).




I'm not clear on what scenario you are referring to - the post which you quoted was about individuals who were raised Catholic but have converted to Protestantism. Such persons remain barred from the succession to the British throne.

Children of a Catholic parent who were raised as Protestants from birth (like the children of Princess Michael of Kent) have never been barred by the Act of Settlement.






Certainly, but back in 2013, the government which decided to lift the discrimination between spouses of Catholics and spouses of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. were certainly cognizant of the possibility that a descendant of Sophia of Hannover or their spouse might be affiliated with a religion other than Protestant or Catholic, or no religion at all. There is no reason they could not have also equalized the differential treatment between ex-Catholics and ex-Jews, ex-Muslims, etc. (actually, the parliamentary record causes me to suspect that it simply never occurred to them).

I mentioned Catholics because they are key denomination affected by the settlement. The original line of succession had Catholics in it until the deposition of Charles the II and some of the other Stuart monarchs. Why I stated that changing the settlement wouldn’t do anything is because currently the main branch of the royal family are Protestant and won’t just change denominations for the sake of it. Maybe some of them aren’t super religious or believe in God even, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they will change faiths. I never mentioned other faiths that you stated because the chances of a future heir being “Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish or atheist” is just likely as the Habsburgs converting to Islam or the Spanish Bourbons converting to Islam. I gave Baudoin and Henri as examples of what possible problems people will encounter with this particularly with the Catholicism. My point is that each of those respective faiths and denominations have their own beliefs, values etc some of which will conflict with certain pieces of legislation and will raise questions about suitability of certain future monarchs.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

I mentioned Catholics because they are key denomination affected by the settlement. The original line of succession had Catholics in it until the deposition of Charles the II and some of the other Stuart monarchs. Why I stated that changing the settlement wouldn’t do anything is because currently the main branch of the royal family are Protestant and won’t just change denominations for the sake of it. Maybe some of them aren’t super religious or believe in God even, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they will change faiths. I never mentioned other faiths that you stated because the chances of a future heir being “Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish or atheist” is just likely as the Habsburgs converting to Islam or the Spanish Bourbons converting to Islam. I gave Baudoin and Henri as examples of what possible problems people will encounter with this particularly with the Catholicism. My point is that each of those respective faiths and denominations have their own beliefs, values etc some of which will conflict with certain pieces of legislation and will raise questions about suitability of certain future monarchs.

There is a broader issue related to the succession though. Genealogically speaking, the Windsors are not the most senior line among the Stuart descendants. That would be the line descending from James VII and II's sister, Henrietta of England. If , hypothetically speaking, the Act of Settlement (and all associated legislation) were repealed retroactively, so as to reinstate the Roman Catholic lines that were removed from the succession in 1701, that would cause the Crown to pass today to the Bavarian House of Wittelsbach and, later, to the House of Liechtenstein according to the current Jacobite line of succession.

[ronald biver]

Almanach the Gotha, the "bible" of ALL the royal families & nobilities of Europe, it seems there is no interest to have a discussion about it, after all it's about the history of all royals & nobilities. I did question in my last input about Almanach de Gotha "bible" to the royal forum members, no response, every year the Almanach release a new edition about anything royal (and nobilities) and it is very expensive to buy, but it is worth it. After all that is what royal history is all about.

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

There is a broader issue related to the succession though. Genealogically speaking, the Windsors are not the most senior line among the Stuart descendants. That would be the line descending from James VII and II's sister, Henrietta of England. If , hypothetically speaking, the Act of Settlement (and all associated legislation) were repealed retroactively, so as to reinstate the Roman Catholic lines that were removed from the succession in 1701, that would cause the Crown to pass today to the Bavarian House of Wittelsbach and, later, to the House of Liechtenstein according to the current Jacobite line of succession.

When I was referring to the main branch of the BRF, I was referring to the current House of Windsor as they are the current occupants of the British throne. If they changed the Act, I highly doubt that it would be retroactive.

Originally Posted by ronald biver

Almanach the Gotha, the "bible" of ALL the royal families & nobilities of Europe, it seems there is no interest to have a discussion about it, after all it's about the history of all royals & nobilities. I did question in my last input about Almanach de Gotha "bible" to the royal forum members, no response, every year the Almanach release a new edition about anything royal (and nobilities) and it is very expensive to buy, but it is worth it. After all that is what royal history is all about.

Is there a thread on it on the forums? I think there should be a discussion on that.

[Tatiana Maria]

The thread for the Almanach de Gotha may be found here:
https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...da-3470-2.html

Returning to the thread topic:

Again, it is crucial not to confuse two entirely different issues: The requirement that the British monarch be a Protestant and the barring of Protestant ex-Catholics from ascending the British throne.

The two measures have little in common. Restricting the throne to Protestants has a reasonable justification: The monarch automatically holds the office of supreme governor of the (Protestant) Church of England and is required to protect the official status of the (Protestant) Church of Scotland. This rule also produces the same consequences for all non-Protestant religious groups, as well as non-religious people.

In contrast, the ban on former Catholics treats Protestant ex-Catholics more negatively than Protestant ex-Orthodox, Protestant ex-atheists, etc. with no objective justification.

Originally Posted by Mbruno

But Luxembourg, Liechtenstein and Monaco are not kingdoms. I was commenting only on kingdoms not principalities or grand duchies as Indicated in text.

That's why I replied as I did. Since your text italicized the word "kingdoms" in "the only kingdoms in Europe", I wondered if you were implying that religious tests still existed in non-kingdom monarchies in Europe.

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

The thread for the Almanach de Gotha may be found here:
https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...da-3470-2.html

Returning to the thread topic:

Again, it is crucial not to confuse two entirely different issues: The requirement that the British monarch be a Protestant and the barring of Protestant ex-Catholics from ascending the British throne.

The two measures have little in common. Restricting the throne to Protestants has a reasonable justification: The monarch automatically holds the office of supreme governor of the (Protestant) Church of England and is required to protect the official status of the (Protestant) Church of Scotland. This rule also produces the same consequences for all non-Protestant religious groups, as well as non-religious people.

In contrast, the ban on former Catholics treats Protestant ex-Catholics more negatively than Protestant ex-Orthodox, Protestant ex-atheists, etc. with no objective justification.




That's why I replied as I did. Since your text italicized the word "kingdoms" in "the only kingdoms in Europe", I wondered if you were implying that religious tests still existed in non-kingdom monarchies in Europe.

Sometimes converting religions isn’t that simple in terms of just converting from Catholicism to Protestantism (Anglicanism).

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

Sometimes converting religions isn’t that simple in terms of just converting from Catholicism to Protestantism (Anglicanism).

Are you trying to say that the exclusion of Protestants who are ex-Catholics is justified because converting religions "isn't that simple"? In that case, there ought to be a bar on Protestants who converted from any other denomination or faith, and not only Catholicism, but there is not.

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Are you trying to say that the exclusion of Protestants who are ex-Catholics is justified because converting religions "isn't that simple"? In that case, there ought to be a bar on Protestants who converted from any other denomination or faith, and not only Catholicism, but there is not.

Protestant doesn’t just refer to Anglicanism exclusively. Secondly, the majority of people in the succession are Protestant faith, there are no Muslims or at least openly atheists I have come across in the succession. Also it’s one thing to be in the succession as opposed to being in at least the first 10 in line for the throne because in the case of the latter those people would have to be Protestant if one of them was to be on the throne. Secondly, I don’t believe anyone who is in the succession has converted from their faith to any other, at least not of anyone particularly well known figures and whoever they are they have remote chances of getting the throne anyway. Your hypothetical scenario isn’t an easy one because I can’t imagine a scenario for an ex-Catholic turned Protestants in the succession, but I’m sure if the person is under 18 and not a remote relative then discussions with the core BRF on this wouldn’t be a problem.

[Tatiana Maria]

Sorry, I still don't understand your point.

Just a clarification of the law: All persons in the line of succession to the British throne are ostensibly Protestant, because the Act of Settlement restricts the British throne to Protestant "heirs of the body" of Sophia of Hanover:

[...] the Crown and Regall Government of the said Kingdoms of England France and Ireland and of the Dominions thereunto belonging with the Royall State and Dignity of the said Realms and all Honours Stiles Titles Regalities Prerogatives Powers Jurisdictions and Authorities to the same belonging and appertaining shall be remain and continue to the said most Excellent Princess Sophia and the Heirs of Her Body being Protestants [...]

The former faith of a Protestant heir of the body only affects their right to the British throne if and when that former faith was Catholicism. A Catholic is barred "for ever" from succeeding to the British throne, even if they subsequently convert to Protestantism, by a clause in the Bill of Rights which is recited in the Act of Settlement:

That all and every person and persons that is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall professe the Popish Religion F3... shall be excluded and be for ever uncapeable to inherit possesse or enjoy the Crowne and Government of this Realme and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same or to have use or exercise any Regall Power Authoritie or Jurisdiction within the same

In contrast, should an "heir of the body" of Sophia be Orthodox Christian, Muslim, atheist, etc., they may convert to Protestantism and, if so, will thereafter be permitted to ascend the throne (provided, of course, that they have never been a Catholic).

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Sorry, I still don't understand your point.

Just a clarification of the law: All persons in the line of succession to the British throne are ostensibly Protestant, because the Act of Settlement restricts the British throne to Protestant "heirs of the body" of Sophia of Hanover:

[...] the Crown and Regall Government of the said Kingdoms of England France and Ireland and of the Dominions thereunto belonging with the Royall State and Dignity of the said Realms and all Honours Stiles Titles Regalities Prerogatives Powers Jurisdictions and Authorities to the same belonging and appertaining shall be remain and continue to the said most Excellent Princess Sophia and the Heirs of Her Body being Protestants [...]

The former faith of a Protestant heir of the body only affects their right to the British throne if and when that former faith was Catholicism. A Catholic is barred "for ever" from succeeding to the British throne, even if they subsequently convert to Protestantism, by a clause in the Bill of Rights which is recited in the Act of Settlement:

That all and every person and persons that is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall professe the Popish Religion F3... shall be excluded and be for ever uncapeable to inherit possesse or enjoy the Crowne and Government of this Realme and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same or to have use or exercise any Regall Power Authoritie or Jurisdiction within the same

In contrast, should an "heir of the body" of Sophia be Orthodox Christian, Muslim, atheist, etc., they may convert to Protestantism and, if so, will thereafter be permitted to ascend the throne (provided, of course, that they have never been a Catholic).

My point was that your scenario where someone in line to throne was a former Catholic but converted to Anglicanism is highly unlikely because that person would already be knocked off the succession and you just answered your own question. All I will is if that persons family seriously cared about their child’s remote succession rights, then their child would be confirmed Protestant.

[Tatiana Maria]

I'm not sure what question you are referring to, and I was not discussing the likelihood of Catholics converting to Protestantism versus people of other religions converting to Protestantism. As for the Act of Settlement, I stand by what I said: There is no reasonable justification for treating a formerly-Catholic Protestant differently than a formerly-Orthodox/Muslim/atheist/etc. Protestant in regards to succession to the British throne.

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

I'm not sure what question you are referring to, and I was not discussing the likelihood of Catholics converting to Protestantism versus people of other religions converting to Protestantism. As for the Act of Settlement, I stand by what I said: There is no reasonable justification for treating a formerly-Catholic Protestant differently than a formerly-Orthodox/Muslim/atheist/etc. Protestant in regards to succession to the British throne.

Majority of the people in the succession are Protestant, there’s no one who was Muslim but converted to Anglicanism in the succession, the Orthodox people in the succession don’t have to convert if they seriously care about their succession rights unless they have a high chance of being on the throne and that’s highly unlikely scenario. The point of Act of Settlement that YOU so kindly showed me answered your question. The Act of Settlement gives more leeway to other religions because the main point was that the person should not have been have Catholic and the Act has always been against Catholics. It might give more of a chance to other religions, but some of those scenarios are highly unlikely of former Muslim/ Orthodox/atheist. Maybe the wording should be updated.