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

[Lakshmi]

I am confused: is succession law changed in UK already or it's just a project? I went though entire thread and I still not sure...

 

[tinkerbell1948]

Be aware however, that this enactment may not happen for months, even years - only because even if Westminster passes this law, all the other governments in which Her Majesty is sovereign will have to debate this law also and decide whether or not they also agree. I think every country can have their own independent views on the situation but if one country dis-agrees with any of the proposals then it's back to the drawing board as the Act of Settlement is a law in all the countries the Queen is Head of State. Therefore, all countries must agree on the change.

What are your thoughts?

I doubt very much whether our Australian Constitution requires Australia to vote on any of these matters ...........it would go to a referendum in that case to change the Constitution. Must go googling to find out though LOL

We have already had a failed referendum on a Republic. It wasn't the Republic that was rejected per se but it's model..............that the Australian people would not elect the President but that the President would be chosen from within "the ranks" after an election

I do see Australia evetually becoming a Republic I just hope not in my lifetime

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

I doubt very much whether our Australian Constitution requires Australia to vote on any of these matters

It may not require a constitutional amendment, but per the Statute of Westminster 1931, to which Australia is subject, it would require Australian agreement.

 

[serenissima]

It may not require a constitutional amendment, but per the Statute of Westminster 1931, to which Australia is subject, it would require Australian agreement.

Yes, I think I have read or heard this before that all the governments of the Commonwealth Realms have to be cosnsulted and come to an agreement etc. For no terribly serious crisis has happened since the abdication of Edward VIII, this sort of terribly out-dated sort of law is long forgotten by many.

 

[NGalitzine]

I am confused: is succession law changed in UK already or it's just a project? I went though entire thread and I still not sure...

It was just some loose talk by one of the Ministers, the government later announced that they had no plans to change the laws of succession or the Royal Marriage Act ban on marriages to Roman Catholics.

 

[Lakshmi]

Thank you for clarifying. I don't think succession law should be changed, monarchy is about tradition not equality anyway. I think not everything should be modernized in monarchy, maybe I'm too sentimental...Of course there were a lot of great queens (Elizabeth I, one of my favorites)...
But they should change law prohibiting marrying Catholics. A few hundred years ago it was political issue, but now I don't think so.

 

[tinkerbell1948]

I remember when Princess Caroline of Monaco was touted as being a possible bride for Prince Charles but of course the thought couldn't even be entertained because she is Catholic

 

[Warren]

There's not a single link in this thread to a news source showing that the Government is discussing changes to the Act of Settlement.
If there is nothing new, this thread may as well be merged into the existing Act of Settlement thread so we don't have needless duplication.

Warren
British Forums moderator

+ + + + + + + + + + + + +

ETA.. threads merged 28 April.

 

[Warren]

I remember when Princess Caroline of Monaco was touted as being a possible bride for Prince Charles but of course the thought couldn't even be entertained because she is Catholic

It didn't help that when this speculation was being floated by the London tabloids the two had never met!

 

[magnik]

About Briish succsession and links:
The Order of Succession to the British Throne

 

[Nazma FOURRE]

Monarchy should not rule love!!!!!

Well dear lady, the principle is still the same. Whether it is a catholic or another religion, monarchy rules state that the royal member of the family cannot marry a non anglican. Everyone can interprete rules as it seems to his or her eyes. The magna carta law has always been in existence since monarchy exists. Regarding Kate, I have no idea whether she could be anglican or catholic and my article is related in case she might not be anglican, religion should not be a barrier to love as men and women are free to love and make a family. No monarchy law should in the name of human rights forbids the private freedom of anyone wishing to make his or her life with whom he or she loves, let alone does he or she belong in the royalty.

Regarding Camilla's relationship with william, things have not been so bright as they seems to be as she has been against her choice and this is not surprising. She remains a step mother that has hated Diana and broke her marriage. She has been awful too with Harry when he was running on tough times. She is only good at eating icecream and becoming bulky.All these informations have been on international press. Please do some reading this might help you whilst discussing any topic.
Nazma FOURRE

 

[Mermaid1962]

A member of the Royal Family can marry anyone except a Roman Catholic and remain in the line of succession. He/she doesn't have to marry an Anglican/Member of the Church of England.

Well dear lady, the principle is still the same. Whether it is a catholic or another religion, monarchy rules state that the royal member of the family cannot marry a non anglican. Everyone can interprete rules as it seems to his or her eyes. The magna carta law has always been in existence since monarchy exists. Regarding Kate, I have no idea whether she could be anglican or catholic and my article is related in case she might not be anglican, religion should not be a barrier to love as men and women are free to love and make a family. No monarchy law should in the name of human rights forbids the private freedom of anyone wishing to make his or her life with whom he or she loves, let alone does he or she belong in the royalty.

 

[Ella Kay]

Well dear lady, the principle is still the same. Whether it is a catholic or another religion, monarchy rules state that the royal member of the family cannot marry a non anglican. Everyone can interprete rules as it seems to his or her eyes. The magna carta law has always been in existence since monarchy exists. Regarding Kate, I have no idea whether she could be anglican or catholic and my article is related in case she might not be anglican, religion should not be a barrier to love as men and women are free to love and make a family. No monarchy law should in the name of human rights forbids the private freedom of anyone wishing to make his or her life with whom he or she loves, let alone does he or she belong in the royalty.

Nazma, you're off base here -- I've already made this point specifically in response to one of your posts in this thread, but I'll do it again, since I guess you missed that reply. As Mermaid said above, British monarchs can marry someone of any religion -- except Catholics. It's from the Act of Settlement 1701. Here's the actual text:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]That all and every person and persons, who shall or may take or inherit the said Crown, by virtue of the limitation of this present act, and is, are or shall be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with, the See or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be subject to such incapacities.

The popish religion is Catholicism; papists are Catholics. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that all non-Anglicans and those who marry them are barred from the line of succession, but that's not true. It's only Catholics.

 

[ysbel]

I'm still waiting with bated breath to find out what the Magna Carta has to do with the religion of the girl that William marries!

If it does, its not the Magna Carta that I learned in school.

 

[Nazma FOURRE]

Sorry: act of settlement not the magnacarta law

The act of settlement and not the magna carta law is the law that prevents a member of the royal family to marry a non anglican.According to the act of settlement of 1701 which includes many important constitutional provisions especially the succession of the throne. For exemple: it made illegal the succession of illegitimate adopted or catholic persons. The monarch has to remain protestant.

So here the debate is still the same save an error has been made regarding the nomination of magnacarta law instead of act of settlement(I appologize). So monarchy rules as the act of settlement cannot rule and fence human rights.

On the other hand the magna carta law describes the rights and liberties of sovereigns, noblemen along with ordinary men and women.
So in the name of human rights, and love , the magna carta law which is a law of liberties meaning freedom should bypass the act of settlement . By this I mean there is no reason, why should Prince william not be free to marry Kate,let alone her religious values, should she be anglican or catholics?
Nazma FOURRE

 

[Ella Kay]

On the other hand the magna carta law describes the rights and liberties of sovereigns, noblemen along with ordinary men and women. So in the name of human rights, and love , the magna carta law which is a law of liberties meaning freedom should bypass the act of settlement . By this I mean there is no reason, why should Prince william not be free to marry Kate,let alone her religious values, should she be anglican or catholics?

He is free to marry Kate. She is not Catholic. As long as his grandmother approves of the marriage (because the monarch has the ultimate say on consent to marriages of those in the line of succession), they can get married. He can (theoretically) marry any woman, so long as she is not a Catholic. She could be Jewish, Muslim, purple, or from another planet, just as long as she isn't Catholic. The monarch has to be a Protestant, you're right, but his spouse doesn't have to be -- she just has to be non-Catholic.

I think you're misunderstanding to some extent what the Magna Carta is. I won't claim to be a scholar of British constitutional law, but I do know that the Magna Carta never guaranteed freedom and liberty to everyone in Britain, even way back in 1215. It was a first step in establishing documents that would later guarantee things like human rights, but it's most significant for imposing restrictions on the power of the king at the time. And, as wbenson helpfully noted upthread, not all of the document is even in force anymore.

The British Constitution is a collection of laws and acts from various points in British history, and to my knowledge, no document outweighs any other in that collection. So the Magna Carta can't overrule the Act of Settlement 1701 -- and, to my knowledge, there isn't a part of any of the versions of the Magna Carta that would cancel out the ban on Catholic monarchs anyway (especially because the king who signed it was, well, Catholic.)

 

[sophie25]

I think the resolution of the "Catholic question" with regards to the Royals is long overdue. I am a British Catholic and although I enjoy the frivolous side of Royal watching I have no loyalty to the Crown because my religion is the only one that is barred as far as members of the family retaining their right to the Throne is concerned. It makes me feel alien in this country to the extent that, for example, I would never allow my son to fight in the armed forces in the name of a Queen who is prejudiced against him and his family. I thought that such attitudes were dying out until Autumn Kelly renounced her Catholicism upon marrying Peter Phillips. It was a stark reminder that nothing has really changed at all.

 

[Odette]

I can understand how you feel and appreciate your point of view.
The Duchess of Kent converted to Catholicism after her marriage and I do not believe her husband lost his rights, also her son married a Catholic but I do not know if he lost his rights.
When there were whispers of Marie Astrid of Luxenbourg and Prince Charles the one issue that would never be resolved was her religion. (Probably it was all speculation but still...........)She is very happy but I still believe she would have made a lovely wife for Prince Charles.

 

[Elspeth]

I can understand how you feel and appreciate your point of view.
The Duchess of Kent converted to Catholicism after her marriage and I do not believe her husband lost his rights, also her son married a Catholic but I do not know if he lost his rights.

The Earl of St Andrews lost his position in the line of succession on his marriage to a Catholic; his younger brother Lord Nicholas lost his position when he converted to Catholicism.

I totally agree that this piece of religious discrimination is well past its sell-by date. I'd love to see it reversed.

 

[Odette]

The Earl of St Andrews lost his position in the line of succession on his marriage to a Catholic; his younger brother Lord Nicholas lost his position when he converted to Catholicism.

I totally agree that this piece of religious discrimination is well past its sell-by date. I'd love to see it reversed.

Thank you Elspeth. Besides the Duke of Kent's sons and Prince Michael are there any other close to the Queen who lost their rights to succesion because of marriages to Catholics?

 

[Ella Kay]

Thank you Elspeth. Besides the Duke of Kent's sons and Prince Michael are there any other close to the Queen who lost their rights to succesion because of marriages to Catholics?

Two of the Earl of St Andrews's children have lost their rights to succession, but through conversion, not marriage. Baron Downpatrick and Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor both converted and have lost their spots. Their sister, Lady Amelia Windsor, has remained a Protestant and so gets to stay.

That, to me, has always been a weird quirk of this system -- that a person who marries a Catholic loses his/her spot, but their children, so long as they aren't raised as Catholics, get to stay. Case in point: Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella Windsor, children of Prince Michael of Kent.

I agree with angela and Elspeth: it's long past time to repeal that part of the Act of Settlement. It was relevant in 1701, with the constant struggle between Catholics and Protestants that started with Henry VIII and came to a head with James II, but today, it's really not. The provision for the monarch to be Anglican is still quite relevant, as he/she is the head of the church, but tensions between Catholics and Protestants in England are really a non-issue anymore, IMO.

 

[Elspeth]

Two of the Earl of St Andrews's children have lost their rights to succession, but through conversion, not marriage. Baron Downpatrick and Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor both converted and have lost their spots. Their sister, Lady Amelia Windsor, has remained a Protestant and so gets to stay.

Considering that both her elder siblings have converted and she's still a pre-teen (if I remember right), I have a feeling her conversion is just a matter of time. But we'll see in a few years whether she chooses to remain Protestant or converts like her brother and sister.

 

[Ella Kay]

I think it's pretty probable. Lady Amelia turns 13 later this month, and she currently goes to the same Roman Catholic boarding school that her sister attends.

 

[Royal Fan]

What will be the number of this Prince Sven lets say or Princess Sarah of Denmark

 

[Iluvbertie]

What will be the number of this Prince Sven lets say or Princess Sarah of Denmark

According to Wikipedia the new child will come in at 226 (assuming that no other baby higher in order is born first or that someone else higher in order dies or converts to Catholicism or marries a Roman Catholic).

Line of succession to the British throne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[OakwoodRose]

Line of Succession

If Charles were to die before ascending the throne, would Prince William inherit or would one of Charles' brothers?

 

[madeleine victoria]

It will be William who will inherit the throne. After all, he is the next in line after his father. If Charles dies without a child then that's the only time his brother (Prince Andrew) will inherit the throne and if ANdrew dies, the throne will pass to her daughter, Beatriz. This will only happen IF Charles does not have any sons but he does have 2 sons so the throne will continue to his line.

 

[Kotroman]

When it comes to exclusion of Catholics, I agree with all of you to some point. However, you have to agree that a Catholic couldn't be head of the Church of England, just like a descendant of the Sun goddess (i.e. The Emperor of Japan; legendary) couldn't publicly worship any divinity other than kami.

Besides, most of the other royal families have unwritten rules of discrimination. An infante of Spain would never marry a non-Catholic, even though there is no law which would prevent him from doing so. The Duke of Edinburgh and Princess Marie of Denmark both converted to Protestantism even though their conversion was not required by law. Let alone the fact that the sovereign of a Protestant country could never be Catholic or vice versa. When I think of a Protestant ascending the Spanish throne, the next which comes to my mind is another Spanish revolution.

In the end, I feel that British princes will be de facto barred from marrying Catholics even if the Act is changed and therefore I see no point in changing the act which, today, gives Elizabeth II the right to reign (if Catholics and those married to Catholics weren't barred from succession, the UK's current monarch would be called Francis).

 

[Harold]

However, you have to agree that a Catholic couldn't be head of the Church of England ...

Well, the Catholic Kings of Saxony were head of the Saxon Evangelic Church, if I recall correctly. Besides, the Queen doesn't really run the CofE.

 

[Kotroman]

The Kings of Saxony reigned in 19th century and I believe they were de facto absolute monarchs. Therefore they cannot be compared to 21st century constitutional monarchs who actually reign by the grace of people. Besides, if The Prince of Wales is superstitious enough to consider reigning as George VII because of Charles I and Charles II, then we can only imagine what he thinks about a Roman Catholic head of the Church of England (remember James II & VII, the last Roman Catholic Supreme Governor of the Church of England). I know that James lived 300 years ago, but so did his father and brother.

I have nothing against allowing Roman Catholics and those married to Roman Catholics to succeed. However, I doubt that any future British monarch will be Roman Catholic, just like I doubt that any future Spanish monarch will be Protestant. Religion is a very sensitive matter and there will be some sort of religious discrimination (whether de jure or de facto) for as long as religion exists.