The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession 1: Ending 2022

[Stefan]

I think the point that Stefan made is that because Lord Nicholas Windsor married a Catholic he is no longer in the line of succession and his children don't come into it at all. But the webpage obviously still list him...

Yes exactly. Should have made my point clear.

 

[Osipi]

I think the point that Stefan made is that because Lord Nicholas Windsor married a Catholic he is no longer in the line of succession and his children don't come into it at all. But the webpage obviously still list him...

Ahhh.. that makes perfect sense to me now. I made that post early in the morning and its obvious that I didn't have enough coffee in me yet.

 

[purple_Lulu]

Were the sons baptized Catholic? If not, they would still be in the line of succession even though Nicolas is not because of his marriage.

Lord Nicholas Windsor was excluded from the succession even before his marriage on account of his own conversion to Roman Catholicism.

The Hon. Albert Windsor was initially excluded following his RC baptism, however there followed some debate as to whether infant baptism actually constituted the individual concerned "professing the popish religion" (which is what the Act of Succession excludes.)

It appears that the wisdom is that it doesn't and Albert & Leopold maintain their places in the succession, until such a time as they receive RC confirmation (like their cousins Baron Downpatrick & Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor.)

 

[Kataryn]

Depending on family traditions this can be very early: I was only nine when I received the confirmation which is meant for much older kids, so couldn't really follow the teachings that are before the ceremony. On reaching the religious maturity age in Germany (that's 14) I left the RC church because of the gender discrimination.

So I personally would prefer to wait for the age of religious maturity in Britain and see if the Royal child then decides to change to the CoE.

 

[purple_Lulu]

If a person hasn't the maturity to profess a faith as their own, then they shouldn't receive the sacrament of confirmation in that faith.

Baron Downpatrick was 15 and Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor was 16 when they were confirmed into their mother's faith. Lady Amelia Windsor is presently 15 and apparently hasn't been confirmed as a Roman Catholic (as she is still listed in the order of succession.)

As both Albert & Leopold's parents are RCs, then it makes a certain amount of sense that they will in time be confirmed in that faith. But as that will be their choice when they have the necessary maturity, it's good to see that they have the "benefit of the doubt" of remaining in the order of succession in the meantime.

 

[Duke of Leaside]

At the risk of re-hashing ground already covered above (I just joined today), I think it will be virtually impossible to change the rules of succession and keep the crown linked with all 16 realms.

While the U.K. with an unwritten constitution can (relatively) easily pass a new law that updates the succession rules for the U.K., all other realms have to update their laws/constitutions in the same way if (under the Statute of Westminster), the crown is to stay linked.

I don't know about all the realms, but in Canada, constitutional change is virtually impossible. The institution of the monarchy is entrenched and can only be altered by Act of Parliament and ratification by all 10 provinces. They haven't even been able to change some (minor) things when (all) they needed was 7 provinces' support.

We could end up with a different monarch (or even a republic) in Britain while Canada still follows the Act of Settlement.

Imagine King William V of Canada meeting President Tony Blair of the United States of Britain!

 

[jemagre]

Thanks for bringing up those ideas. I never thought about that. That would certainly create a unique situation in regards to equal inheritance rights especially if a new monarch came down to a sister/brother combination.

 

[Duke of Leaside]

Thanks for bringing up those ideas. I never thought about that. That would certainly create a unique situation in regards to equal inheritance rights especially if a new monarch came down to a sister/brother combination.

Indeed. If William and Kate have a girl followed by a boy and the U.K. changes the succession so the crown goes to the first born, regardless of gender, then we'd have an in interesting scenario. Would the Queen of U.K.'s little brother, the King of Canada, move his court to Ottawa?

Intriguing stuff.

 

[wbenson]

I don't know about all the realms, but in Canada, constitutional change is virtually impossible. The institution of the monarchy is entrenched and can only be altered by Act of Parliament and ratification by all 10 provinces. They haven't even been able to change some (minor) things when (all) they needed was 7 provinces' support.

It's never been formally established that changing succession would have to go through the constitutional amendment process in Canada. It's certainly a possibility, but it's not a certainty (the only case establishing that the succession laws are a part of the constitution was a provincial case that's not binding on higher courts), and unless the federal government submitted a reference question to the Supreme Court, it's not likely that there's anybody with the standing to challenge such a change in court (except perhaps for a younger brother of a future Queen regnant).

 

[jemagre]

Indeed. If William and Kate have a girl followed by a boy and the U.K. changes the succession so the crown goes to the first born, regardless of gender, then we'd have an in interesting scenario. Would the Queen of U.K.'s little brother, the King of Canada, move his court to Ottawa?

Intriguing stuff.

I know that is exactly what I was thinking when I read the posts regarding constitutional changes in other countries. I wonder if the constitutions of other countries are taken into account when making these decisions. I know that officially the Queen rules all of her countries equally but in regards of succession is it primarily a British issue? Does anyone know if the British government would consult other countries when bringing up this topic?

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Queen doesn't 'rule' any country. She 'reigns'. A person who 'rules' is one who actually has power and can make decisions. The Queen has no power.
From my understanding it is essentially a British issue but the other countries will be consulted, and if necessary will even vote on the decision as well.

 

[jemagre]

The Queen doesn't 'rule' any country. She 'reigns'. A person who 'rules' is one who actually has power and can make decisions. The Queen has no power.

From my understanding it is essentially a British issue but the other countries will be consulted, and if necessary will even vote on the decision as well.

My apology reigns is the correct term.

Thanks for the clarification on the other countries participation. It would quite weird if the decision was taken unilaterally.

 

[Duke of Leaside]

From my understanding it is essentially a British issue but the other countries will be consulted, and if necessary will even vote on the decision as well.

From what I understand, the 1931 Statute of Westminster (which gave the Dominions of the Empire their independence) serves basically like a treaty between independent nations now.

In terms of the crown, the nations agree to consult with one another and act in concert when changing the rules for succession. But if one or more does not agree and changes (or does not change) the rules so that they are diffferent in different realms, then that's legal. It's just that the crown would longer be unified. There would be separate crowns with separate rules of succession (and thus quite possibly different monarchs) in the different realms.

I don't know much of international law so I don't know the ramifications of breaking a treaty or if the Statute is more of an informal agreement of understanding.

As far as individual realms are concerned, they are independent countries and so can make their own laws regarding the succession of their sovereign; I just don't know how the international law plays into this.

I'm happy to be enlightened as always.

 

[jemagre]

From what I understand, the 1931 Statute of Westminster (which gave the Dominions of the Empire their independence) serves basically like a treaty between independent nations now.

In terms of the crown, the nations agree to consult with one another and act in concert when changing the rules for succession. But if one or more does not agree and changes (or does not change) the rules so that they are diffferent in different realms, then that's legal. It's just that the crown would longer be unified. There would be separate crowns with separate rules of succession (and thus quite possibly different monarchs) in the different realms.

I don't know much of international law so I don't know the ramifications of breaking a treaty or if the Statute is more of an informal agreement of understanding.

As far as individual realms are concerned, they are independent countries and so can make their own laws regarding the succession of their sovereign; I just don't know how the international law plays into this.

I'm happy to be enlightened as always.

Thanks for all the continuing information. I can't imagine seeing the royal family break apart over a succession issue if another country doesn't change the laws but I could be wrong. Then again I could see a country decide that changing the laws is too lengthy of a process and avoid it all together. After all some countries may not believe that they should take time to consider the issue.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Church blocks reforms over royal marriages - Telegraph

The Church of England has told the government that reforming the Act of Settlement over the issue of Roman Catholics is not on.

 

[Furienna]

I still don't see the problem with a heir to the British thrown marrying a Catholic. And since it's the only faith, that's targeted by the law, I can really understand how people can be upset by it.

 

[Esmerelda]

I still don't see the problem with a heir to the British thrown marrying a Catholic. And since it's the only faith, that's targeted by the law, I can really understand how people can be upset by it.

It says in the article that Canon Law (which I presume is Catholic law) requires the children to be brought up as Catholic, which could lead to a conflict of interest. Although in Orthodox Judaism, for example, the children of a Jewish mother are automatically Jewish and there isn't a rule against an heir marrying a Jew.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I still don't see the problem with a heir to the British thrown marrying a Catholic. And since it's the only faith, that's targeted by the law, I can really understand how people can be upset by it.

Remember that that heir is not only heir to throne but also to the position of Supreme Governor of the Church of England and thus their spouse being a Roman Catholic and insisting on the children being raised as Roman Catholics would then see the Supreme Governor of the Church of England owing allegiance to the Pope.

 

[Esmerelda]

I guess it depends how strictly the Catholic parent adheres to Canon Law. Princess Maxima is a Catholic and wasn't required to convert when she married. The little Princesses are being raised as Protestants. However, I'm not sure if the monarch is head of the church in the Netherlands. Anyone know?

 

[branchg]

Church blocks reforms over royal marriages - Telegraph

The Church of England has told the government that reforming the Act of Settlement over the issue of Roman Catholics is not on.

In my opinion, The Sovereign should represent all faiths as a monarch of a diverse society and the Church should be destablished from the Crown altogether, with the Archbishop of Canterbury being Supreme Governor of the Anglican faith.

There is no reason today for a British monarch to be the Head of the Chruch of England. It was done thousands of years ago to satisfy one monarch's desire to remarry and makes no sense today.

 

[Lenora]

In my opinion, The Sovereign should represent all faiths as a monarch of a diverse society and the Church should be destablished from the Crown altogether, with the Archbishop of Canterbury being Supreme Governor of the Anglican faith.

There is no reason today for a British monarch to be the Head of the Chruch of England. It was done thousands of years ago to satisfy one monarch's desire to remarry and makes no sense today.

Strange situation,they talk a lot about democracy and innovations,equal primogeniture etc.,but avoid Catholic reformation like something to be evil,it's outrageous!
If it's so,then let's keep traditional male primogeniture as well in order not to harm anybody's traditional views and theories about royals in Britain

 

[Furienna]

Remember that that heir is not only heir to throne but also to the position of Supreme Governor of the Church of England and thus their spouse being a Roman Catholic and insisting on the children being raised as Roman Catholics would then see the Supreme Governor of the Church of England owing allegiance to the Pope.

But why is Catholicism the only religion, that's targeted like this? Just like Esmeralda said, a child of a Jewish mother is often automatically seen as a Jew. But there aren't any laws against an heir to the thrown to marry a Jew. The answer to this is: There was a power struggle three hundred years ago, when this was a convenient way to keep Catholic relatives of queen Mary from claiming the English thrown, and for some reason, it hasn't been changed since. If the law had just said "the heir of the thrown can only marry a member of the Church of England", it would have been archaic enough, but still a little bit understandable. However, to still specifically target Catholics in the 21rst century, because they won't change a law from the 17th century, is just weird.

 

[Diarist]

In my opinion, The Sovereign should represent all faiths as a monarch of a diverse society and the Church should be destablished from the Crown altogether, with the Archbishop of Canterbury being Supreme Governor of the Anglican faith.

There is no reason today for a British monarch to be the Head of the Chruch of England. It was done thousands of years ago to satisfy one monarch's desire to remarry and makes no sense today.

I understand your point of view entirely, but I think that so far as the present Queen is concerned, she views her position as both a monarch and also as head of the Church of England as indivisible [and also that her position as a monarch is in the nature of an appointment by God]

The problem about attempts to 'democratise' [horrid word] the British Royal Family is that it in effect 'opens a can of worms'. Whilst in the 21st Century is seems unsympathetic and out of line to forbid a Catholic to remain in the line of succession, and it seems out of step to insist on primogeniture, the next logical step is surely to question whether in the 21st Century it is acceptable to have a monarchy at all; the current thinking is that we live in an meritocracy and your birth should not determine your future........... in other words, by trying to make a more 'democratic monarchy' it would appear more logical to abolish it all together...so perhaps better to leave well alone....?

Alex

 

[PrincessKaimi]

In my opinion, The Sovereign should represent all faiths as a monarch of a diverse society and the Church should be destablished from the Crown altogether, with the Archbishop of Canterbury being Supreme Governor of the Anglican faith.

There is no reason today for a British monarch to be the Head of the Chruch of England. It was done thousands of years ago to satisfy one monarch's desire to remarry and makes no sense today.

It was slightly less than 500 years ago, and then many bitter events happened afterwards, with Catholicism at the center of some violent controversy for more than 50 years. Things tend to change slowly in monarchic traditions.

I believe that to remove that component from the monarchy would denature it tremendously, as Catholic monarchs often have the blessing of the pope and have served as de facto heads of their national churches (appointing all bishops and sometimes cardinals, etc.)

The Church of England is all a slow-changing entity that made its own choices over the years - but it's been less than 500 years that it has existed - I think it has its 500th anniversary in 2033 or thereabouts. Unlikely they'll want to change anything before then.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The reason why only Roman Catholics are banned is that in 1701 it wasn't seen as plausible that a Christian would marry a Jew or a Muslim or someone from another religion.

 

[Furienna]

I understand your point of view entirely, but I think that so far as the present Queen is concerned, she views her position as both a monarch and also as head of the Church of England as indivisible [and also that her position as a monarch is in the nature of an appointment by God]

The problem about attempts to 'democratise' [horrid word] the British Royal Family is that it in effect 'opens a can of worms'. Whilst in the 21st Century is seems unsympathetic and out of line to forbid a Catholic to remain in the line of succession, and it seems out of step to insist on primogeniture, the next logical step is surely to question whether in the 21st Century it is acceptable to have a monarchy at all; the current thinking is that we live in an meritocracy and your birth should not determine your future........... in other words, by trying to make a more 'democratic monarchy' it would appear more logical to abolish it all together...so perhaps better to leave well alone....?

Alex

I see what you mean, but I think this is a thing, that should be changed. Or really, it should already have been changed a long time ago.

 

[Furienna]

But still, specifically discriminating Catholics today because of events hundreds of years ago is ridiculous.

The reason why only Roman Catholics are banned is that in 1701 it wasn't seen as plausible that a Christian would marry a Jew or a Muslim or someone from another religion.

I understand that. But this isn't 1701, but 2011. It's just as possible, that an heir falls in love with a Jew or a Muslim.

 

[pacomartin]

Anti Catholicism laws

But still, specifically discriminating Catholics today because of events hundreds of years ago is ridiculous.

I understand that. But this isn't 1701, but 2011. It's just as possible, that an heir falls in love with a Jew or a Muslim.

I believe that there was an act of parliament in the early 19th century that blanket removed any previous laws covering commoners in the UK that discriminated against Catholicism. The UK is probably the only country in the world that has not updated it's Act of Succession.

The standard argument is that they will update the law of succession if events warrant the effort. Cases like if William's first born is a girl, if Harry falls in love with a Catholic, if William and Catherine prove infertile and decide to adopt. It's perceived as not worth the trouble as long as it is abstract.

My own personal feeling is parliament doesn't want to open a larger can of worms. The complex relationship between public property and property of the Anglican church; the bishops who are entitled to seats in the House of Lords; the gender biased laws governing peerages. The list goes on and on. Although updating the law of succession seems trivial, then people will want updates in a government that is built largely on medieval institutions.

An update to the law of succession will be open season for republicans.

 

[NGalitzine]

But still, specifically discriminating Catholics today because of events hundreds of years ago is ridiculous.

I understand that. But this isn't 1701, but 2011. It's just as possible, that an heir falls in love with a Jew or a Muslim.

It may be descriminatory but really it only impacts on a very very very small fraction of a percent of the population....those in line of succession to the throne and even then probably really only of you are in the top 5 to 10 in line. If Autumn had not become an Anglican but had remained RC would Peter Phillips life be any different? Doubt it. Would the monarchy have been hurt? No. Would people in the UK care if Peter had been dropped from the line of succession? No, most probably don't know who he is.

I seem to recall that Pope Paul VI refused to allow Prince Michael of Kent to marry in a RC Church because he could not sign a document promising to raise his children as Roman Catholics. Seems like "descrimination" can be found in more places that just the Act of Settlement.

Basically it comes down to choices made by the individuals involved. They know the rules of the game and decide to play by those rules or not, but it doesnt impact on the lives of the general population. Peter & Autumn decided to play by the rules, Michael & MC decided not to.

 

[Lenora]

The author of that article considers that any changements to the actual monarchy laws,either breaking the Catholic law or changement to equal primogeniture will gradually weaken the monarchy
Politicians, not republicans, are a threat to the monarchy - Telegraph