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

[Emeralds and Opals]

Gordon Brown pledges to end 'discrimination' in Royal succession - Telegraph

Succession law change would have made Kaiser Wilhelm King of England - Telegraph

Comment Central - Times Online - WBLG: 10 eligible Catholics for the royal family

 

[Skydragon]

Gordon Brown has been accused of making an empty promise to tackle religious and sex discrimination in royal succession rules after his Government blocked an MP's bid to change the law.

PM criticised over royal law change - Yahoo! News UK

 

[Iluvbertie]

In line with PM Brown's proposed changes to the Line of Succession, how great would these changes be.
Would they involve female heiresses such as Beatrice inherit their fathers dukedoms, additionally would members excluded by the Catholic ban, such as Prince Michael and Lord St. Andrews be entitled to reclaim their claim on the throne.

It is quite an interesting topic.

There is no suggestion of passing the required laws to change the current peerages with their remainders (and my understanding is that each one would require a new LP to be issued or a law passed to change the existing LPs).

What this would mean is that the highest title in the land has gender blind succession but that most, if not all, other peerages would remain male primogeniture or in most cases male only. Therefore Beatrice would NOT be able to inherit the York dukedom but a younger brother would. But Beatrice can be top dog so to speak.

 

[Skydragon]

This could be where the government will have problems, if the law is changed with regard to the royal family, they leave themselves open to legal challenges by first born daughters of peers.
---------------------------------
Gordon Brown's assault on the traditions of the monarchy is preposterous

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...aditions-of-the-monarchy-is-preposterous.html

 

[Sir_knight]

Queen is not amused by Brown's Royal succession plan

The Queen sounded a note of caution yesterday over Gordon Brown's revolutionary plans to bring equality to the monarchy. Buckingham Palace said no changes to the laws and traditions of the Crown could be made until every country where the Queen is head of state had given its approval. That means years of delay while 15 legislatures – including those of Australia, New Zealand and Canada – quibble over the Prime Minister's proposals.


Behind the Queen's insistence on cast-iron support from the Commonwealth is thought to lie her deep concern about the role of Christianity in Britain and the unforeseen impact of any reforms.


Mr Brown aims to remove the 308- year-old legal barriers that prevent a Roman Catholic or anyone married to a Catholic from becoming King. He also intends to sweep away primogeniture, the ancient principle that says a man must always take precedence over a woman in line to the throne. The surprise announcement that Downing Street and the Palace were in talks over reforms was made by Mr Brown's aides during a visit to Brasilia on Thursday.

Yesterday the Prime Minister accepted that Commonwealth countries must have a say, but added: 'I think in the 21st century people do expect discrimination to be removed and they do expect us to be looking at these issues.'

spokesman for Buckingham Palace, however, said: 'This entire issue for us depends on obtaining agreement from each of the 15 realms of which the Queen is head of state. If an agreement were to be reached, then we would assess the situation. But not until then.'

It was underlined yesterday that the Queen is deeply committed to her overseas dominions and wants to be seen as taking her lead from them, not from the British Government.

And while Buckingham Palace was neutral over Mr Brown's reforms and the equality agenda that informs them, the Queen is known to be concerned over their impact on Christian belief and practice in Britain.

She is a serious Anglican and is aware of the possibility that Christianity may be sidelined if reforms to the monarchy culminate in the severance of the historic constitutional links between the Church of England and the state. Mr Brown's reforms would mean the repeal of the Act of Settlement, the 1701 law designed to prevent the return of the Catholic Stuarts.

The abolition of primogeniture would open up the succession to women – for example Princess Anne would become fourth in line after Charles, William and Harry, and would overtake her brothers, Princes Andrew and Edward. In the Commons, few MPs attended a debate on Liberal Democrat Dr Evan Harris's private members Bill calling for the same reforms.

It was effectively scuppered as Justice Secretary Jack Straw said Dr Harris's Bill was 'not the appropriate vehicle' for reform. Tories meanwhile accused the Government of trying to divert attention from economic troubles. Former minister Nicholas Soames said: 'This is an extraordinary thing to be talking about when the G20 summit is starting next week. It is a very, very odd time to raise it.'

 

[Kotroman]

This could be where the government will have problems, if the law is changed with regard to the royal family, they leave themselves open to legal challenges by first born daughters of peers.
---------------------------------
Gordon Brown's assault on the traditions of the monarchy is preposterous

Gordon Brown's assault on the traditions of the monarchy is preposterous - Telegraph

That's right. Once they start changing 1000-year old laws, they won't stop at succession to the crown. If the succession to the throne becomes gender-blind, I'm 100% sure they'll say: if women and men have the same right to succeed to the throne, why can't women succeed to peerages Are they less capable to hold the Dukedom of Norfolk? That means we'll see Beatrice as 2nd Duchess of York and Louise as 2nd Countess of Wessex, and suo jure Duchesses of Norfolk... The whole system of peerage will break down.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I certainly hope that this is the case, Sir_knight.

Behind the Queen's insistence on cast-iron support from the Commonwealth is thought to lie her deep concern about the role of Christianity in Britain and the unforeseen impact of any reforms.

 

[MAfan]

That's right. Once they start changing 1000-year old laws, they won't stop at succession to the crown. If the succession to the throne becomes gender-blind, I'm 100% sure they'll say: if women and men have the same right to succeed to the throne, why can't women succeed to peerages Are they less capable to hold the Dukedom of Norfolk? That means we'll see Beatrice as 2nd Duchess of York and Louise as 2nd Countess of Wessex, and suo jure Duchesses of Norfolk... The whole system of peerage will break down.

This is exactly the first thing I have thought...together with the fact that a Catholic King or Queen is a contradiction, because the King is the Head of the Anglican Church...
But make me understand: is this reform only an idea and a possibility, or is sure that the laws will change?

 

[Mermaid1962]

Exactly, Kotroman. What affects the monarch eventually effects everyone else.

That's right. Once they start changing 1000-year old laws, they won't stop at succession to the crown. If the succession to the throne becomes gender-blind, I'm 100% sure they'll say: if women and men have the same right to succeed to the throne, why can't women succeed to peerages Are they less capable to hold the Dukedom of Norfolk? That means we'll see Beatrice as 2nd Duchess of York and Louise as 2nd Countess of Wessex, and suo jure Duchesses of Norfolk... The whole system of peerage will break down.

 

[Kotroman]

That's what I fear Mermaid! And then, when women have the same rights as men to succeed to any peerage or throne, people will start wondering: "Isn't it discriminating that they [royals] can become monarchs and we can't? Let's overthrow them and make everyone equal so that anyone can become a monarch!"

But make me understand: is this reform only an idea and a possibility, or is sure that the laws will change?

Well, since people seem to care more and more about "gender-equality" than about traditions of the monarchy, I believe it's only a matter of time when we see equal primogeniture in the UK. Then we'll see Tim Laurence as The Prince Anne, since Sophie Rhys-Jones became The Princess Edward, and The Duke of Edinburgh as king, since his mother-in-law was queen - they want gender equality, don't they?! Even if the changes are not retroactive, they would still have to style Princess Beatrice's husband as Prince Beatrice of York since there will be Princess William of Wales - husbands and wives should also be treated equally, shouldn't they?! Or will they change everything that characterizes British monarchy in order to make place for equal primogeniture?

It's strange that nobody asks the Queen, her daughter and granddaughters how they feel about the proposed changes. Perhaps they are traditional enough to be satisfied with their current places in the line of succession.

Anyway, how is equal primogeniture going to help British women in their everyday life? Is it going to help them get jobs that are usually reserved for men? Is it going to make men cook, clean and wash as much as their wives do or what?

 

[Sir_knight]

I certainly hope that this is the case, Sir_knight.

Well I think the Queen is a true woman of faith and certainly I have read about her strong convictions in relation to Christianity. Lord Carey for example said that the Queen was not adversed to correcting her Archbishops.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Julie Burchill | David Starkey | Is Beatrix of Holland our real Queen? | The Sun |Features

Queen Beatrix, the real Queen of the Uk.
x

 

[Kotroman]

Ummm, no. No country allows monarch's step-children to succeed. Sophie of Württemberg would've been succeed by her nephew, King William II of Württemberg, not by the daughter born by her husband's second wife. And even if Beatrix somehow ascended the throne, she still wouldn't be "the REAL queen of England" since there is no Kingdom of England since 1707.

 

[Al_bina]

World View: A Shakeup in the British Royal Household?

Buckingham Palace is in talks with Prime Minister Gordon Brown about rewriting the royal laws when it comes to marriage and succession to the throne.

 

[Sir_knight]

Julie Burchill | David Starkey | Is Beatrix of Holland our real Queen? | The Sun |Features

Queen Beatrix, the real Queen of the Uk.
x

I always did like Prof David Starkey-

"Which is the more discriminatory institution – the monarchy or the Catholic Church?"


I don't agree with Julie Burchill when she says-

"Look at the region with the highest proportion of monarchs on earth, the Muslim Arab world, with all its repression, ignorance and vile flaunting of wealth by the super-rich. "

She fails to point out the differnce between an absolute monarchy and a constitutional monarchy. A comment like that is enough to make any left wing reader of the Sun gran the red flag and storm Buck Palace.

 

[Emeralds and Opals]

Queen is not amused by Brown's Royal succession plan | Mail Online

 

[Sir_knight]

Queen is not amused by Brown's Royal succession plan | Mail Online

OOps I did not get a link in the Email that was sent to me I had a feeling it would be from the mail.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Does it really matter? To be honest I'm far more interested in not being able to get a doctor's appointment when I need one, the regular stabbings in my local area and the rising price of almost everything. Whether Princess Anne is fourth or tenth in the Royal race really doesn't bother me one bit.

 

[Royal Fan]

I Think its fine as is ...but also im agaist Discrimanation so I Just hope The UK Doesnt lose the Monarchy

 

[Kotroman]

im agaist Discrimanation so I Just hope The UK Doesnt lose the Monarchy

Isn't that a bit contradicting? I mean, monarchy is based on discrimination. However you put it, it discriminates someone. It discriminates me, for example, because I can't be head of state of the UK, but I don't mind. I don't cry for absolute equality

 

[Skydragon]

This is exactly the first thing I have thought...together with the fact that a Catholic King or Queen is a contradiction, because the King is the Head of the Anglican Church...
But make me understand: is this reform only an idea and a possibility, or is sure that the laws will change?

It is only a possibility, at the moment the private members bill was blocked but the government has 'promised' it will look at changing the law. One minister has said that even if ALL the commonwealth countries agree to a change, it could take years. Labour is in power at the moment, with elections due next year, so unless the Tories take it up, it will once again be put to one side.

 

[PrincessofEurope]

I woudnt mind a change in the law to allow for equal succession as out greatest monatchs have actually tended to be strong woman (Elizabeth I etc) but would object to any change to allow a catholic having a place in a line of succession as the UK is a Protestant country and the monarch and successors should be Protestant.

 

[MAfan]

It is only a possibility, at the moment the private members bill was blocked but the government has 'promised' it will look at changing the law. One minister has said that even if ALL the commonwealth countries agree to a change, it could take years. Labour is in power at the moment, with elections due next year, so unless the Tories take it up, it will once again be put to one side.

Thank you, Skydragon; Italian medias reported the news as a cerainty...

 

[Elise27]

As an american I can say that it is to me not comprehensible how the UK can have discrimination against catholics written into its laws this way. Its silly to worry about the place of christianity in regards to removing the ban against catholics, but my understanding is that its legally alright if a member of the royal family were to marry a muslim. Anti-catholic attitudes are written into law in the united kingdom. One has to remember that there are millions of catholics in the UK and the queen is their queen too. I understand the argument that some would make that the monarchy discriminates based on birth, fine, but that is different than writing into law that a person can't marry a catholic. The two things are different. Also all these people who oppose this change, I dont see how its going to affect them anyway it will only affect those born into the royal family and those who marry in, to me it shows bigotry that's all. If the monarchy is to survive, granted there are things that cannot change because that defeats the whole purpose of monarchy, but in other respects it has to adapt to the times. If this doesnt happen now it will happen eventually under the reign of charles and I doubt he would oppose it or william.

And for goodness sake this has nothing to do with which institution is more discriminatory. Polls show overwhelming support for this change. And as has been expressed if any member of the royal family wanted to want wreak havoc and challenge this on a human rights based argument, if say prince william wanted to marry a catholic, this law would not stand. Would a member of the royal family do this? probably not because it would turn the institution on its head but frankly bigotry should not be written into law in this way.

 

[sophie25]

The U.K. is officially a Protestant Christian country and yet there is no law stopping Royals married to non-Christians such as Jews or Muslims from inheriting the Throne. That is why Her Majesty's Catholic subjects feel so offended.

 

[Elise27]

Isn't that a bit contradicting? I mean, monarchy is based on discrimination. However you put it, it discriminates someone. It discriminates me, for example, because I can't be head of state of the UK, but I don't mind. I don't cry for absolute equality

Legally two different things, its one thing to say the heir to the throne shall be the first-born child of the sovereign and quite another to say the heir or sovereign cant marry a catholic, when he can marry a muslim or atheist. Im a lawyer and the distinction to me is important.

I actually agree with Beatrixfan's comment about these changes, but it bothers me that people should be so concerned about removing this law because its would remove discrimination against catholics or who fail to see what is wrong with it. Its going to happen at some point whether it is now or in 20yrs. It has been commented that prince charles wants to be defender of the faiths as well. And were prince william's first child to be a daughter and then to have a son this would come to the forefront. Also the talk about princess ann is absurd because this would only effect the current line of succession if its made retroactive which should not be done.

 

[Russophile]

Does it really matter? To be honest I'm far more interested in not being able to get a doctor's appointment when I need one, the regular stabbings in my local area and the rising price of almost everything. Whether Princess Anne is fourth or tenth in the Royal race really doesn't bother me one bit.

Actually, I care about both of those things as Anne would make a HELL of a monarch! And if you have a strong monarch who's tough on crime, then those stabbings will stave off. . . no pun intended. . . .

 

[Lumutqueen]

Actually, I care about both of those things as Anne would make a HELL of a monarch! And if you have a strong monarch who's tough on crime, then those stabbings will stave off. . . no pun intended. . . .

Yes I agree that Anne would make a hell of a monarch but even if this law changes it wouldn't make her queen, she would be behind Charles, Will and Harry correct me if i'm wrong.

Also i believe this law will matter for the descendents of william and harry not the present queens chidlren am i right? Like Norway, the chnage in succesion applied to Ingrid Alexandra and her desecendents, not to Martha-Louise.
x

 

[Russophile]

Yes I agree that Anne would make a hell of a monarch but even if this law changes it wouldn't make her queen, she would be behind Charles, Will and Harry correct me if i'm wrong.

I believe you're correct, which is why I like her (Anne) in 4th and not 10th. But whatever I like is irrelavant. She may not be comfortable in 4th with her children in a higher bracket.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't think there was a suggestion that the monarch could be a Roman Catholic - only that they could be married to one.

My reading of the articles is that the monarch will still have to be a communicant member of the Anglican Church.

That is where a problem may lie - as a spouse being anything other than protestant could influence any offspring to turn away from protestantism leaving the line insecure if say William married a RC and then their children were baptised Anglican but the heir decided at say age 15 to convert to Roman Catholicism to follow his mother's version of Christianity.

Personally I think they should change it to be the same as elsewhere in Europe - the spouse has to be Anglican.