Act of settlement 1707

[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]

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 If , hypothetically speaking, the Act of Settlement (and all associated legislation) were repealed retroactively, so as to reinstate the Roman Catholic lines that were removed from the succession in 1701, that would cause the Crown to pass today to the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.

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/forums/f61/the-almanach-de-gotha-and-ghda-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.

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]

The thread for the Almanach de Gotha may be found here:
https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f61/the-almanach-de-gotha-and-ghda-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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[An Ard Ri]

By the time the Act was passed,Queen Anne only had 2 half siblings living who were Roman Catholic and eligible

Prince James the Old Pretender +1766
Princess Louisa Maria +1712