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

[Emeralds and Opals]

NIGEL JONES: What if? Henry VIII's sister had taken the throne...or Kaiser Bill had become our king | Mail Online

 

[wbenson]

I'll be interested to see, should this ever be done, how it will be handled in Canada. There's one school of thought that says it would be considered a Constitutional Amendment affecting the office of monarch, and would thus require all ten provinces to consent. Even if they all agreed in principle, I could see one or more holding out just to be contrary.

 

[zembla]

The only thing that should be changed is the marrying a Catholic, the line of succession is better off staying as it is. Changing that may bring too many problems...

 

[Iluvbertie]

I'll be interested to see, should this ever be done, how it will be handled in Canada. There's one school of thought that says it would be considered a Constitutional Amendment affecting the office of monarch, and would thus require all ten provinces to consent. Even if they all agreed in principle, I could see one or more holding out just to be contrary.

In Australia, if seen as a Constitutional Amendment, it would require a referendum of the people and would need a majority of the population AND a majority of the states (it is possible to have a majority of the public support an amendment but have it fail because a majority of the states don't support it e.g. if the vast majority of NSW and Victoria voted Yes but the majority in the other states voted no then it would be lost even though the overall vote was a yes.)

Of course many in Australia would simply say - let's not bother about the cost of this referendum and simply have one for a republic and be done with Britain.

Personally I don't think it does need a referendum as I understand that our constitution simply accepts the monarch of Great Britain as our own but I am not a constitutional expert and am only doing s simple reading of the constitution and other experts may have a different interpretation.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I believe that the line of sucession should change, but not marrying a catholic.
x

 

[Sir_knight]

I am reading a lot of posts here saying that marrying a catholic would be fine? Again I feel that only adds to the problem. Put simply why should the head of the Church of England have the ability to marry a Roman Catholic? The idea to use the language of the Roman Church is an Anathema of an idea. For all those that think it will be fine I ask you to look at history.

As an Anglican I do not want the head of my church to be a Roman dictator who lives on the Vatican Hill.

 

[MAfan]

I am reading a lot of posts here saying that marrying a catholic would be fine? Again I feel that only adds to the problem. Put simply why should the head of the Church of England have the ability to marry a Roman Catholic? The idea to use the language of the Roman Church is an Anathema of an idea. For all those that think it will be fine I ask you to look at history.

As an Anglican I do not want the head of my church to be a Roman dictator who lives on the Vatican Hill.

Leaving your ideas about the Pope out (since I myself am Catholic), I agree with you; a Catholic who become Head of the Church of England (because this is the real matter, not his consort) can only adds problems...

 

[Sir_knight]

Leaving your ideas about the Pope out (since I myself am Catholic), I agree with you; a Catholic who become Head of the Church of England (because this is the real matter, not his consort) can only adds problems...

Indeed it will. It will also finally split theChurch of England and cause a whole host of other problems.

 

[Kotroman]

Elise, I haven't said anything about marrying Roman Catholics yet.

I do not have an opinion about allowing royals to marry Roman Catholics. I don't have anything against those marriages, but I don't think there will ever be a Roman Catholic royal consort in the UK again (just like there will never be a Protestant royal consort of Spain or Roman Catholic royal consort of Norway) even if they allow those marriages.
How do I know? Well, British princes and princesses were never forbidden to marry Muslims or Jews, yet none of them married a Jew or a Muslim. Why do you think they'll marry Roman Catholics now when they were forbidden to do so for 300 years?

Keeping that in mind, I think nothing will be achieved by a new Act of Succession. In fact, it could only make matters worse, because the Act of Settlement is what put Elizabeth II on the throne.

 

[Elise27]

I dont know enough about the dutch monarchy, but Princess Maxima is catholic and her children are not catholic. I think this is just a storm in a teapot and boy some people sound really bigotted when they start talking about these things. Lets see for starters any catholic willing to marry a non-catholic is likely not a conservative catholic, I might be willing to say that most catholics dont agree with everything the pope says. The notion of a catholic king taking orders from Rome sounds so out of touch with reality. Also, there is the possiblity that at some point the church of england might slplit from the monarchy regardless of whether this law is changed. But since sensibilities are not likely to change, particularly in the upper classes, it is unlikely that a future king of england will marry a catholic or be catholic himself or allow for his children to be catholic. Just my opinion, I just think its embarrasing for a country like the UK to have this law in their books. It only adds fodder to republican views of how absurd the monarchy is. This should be put to rest once and for all bc it will come up again.

 

[Elise27]

Elise, I haven't said anything about marrying Roman Catholics yet.

I do not have an opinion about allowing royals to marry Roman Catholics. I don't have anything against those marriages, but I don't think there will ever be a Roman Catholic royal consort in the UK again (just like there will never be a Protestant royal consort of Spain or Roman Catholic royal consort of Norway) even if they allow those marriages.
How do I know? Well, British princes and princesses were never forbidden to marry Muslims or Jews, yet none of them married a Jew or a Muslim. Why do you think they'll marry Roman Catholics now when they were forbidden to do so for 300 years?

Keeping that in mind, I think nothing will be achieved by a new Act of Succession. In fact, it could only make matters worse, because the Act of Settlement is what put Elizabeth II on the throne.

I absolute agree as to your opinion about whether there will ever be a Roman Catholic Consort. I just think that this should be changed although in practice i think it wont really have any effect, except that if william's first child is a girl she will be queen instead of a younger brother she might have.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Personally I wouldn't like to see an RC consort but then I don't really like the whole Church of England thing either. By it's very nature Christianity is discriminatory and my concern is that the Royal Family should be able to represent ALL their subjects and in the case of the RC Church, that becomes impossible because of it's sudden return to extreme right dogma.

 

[Skydragon]

But since sensibilities are not likely to change, particularly in the upper classes, it is unlikely that a future king of england will marry a catholic or be catholic himself or allow for his children to be catholic.

It might be worth mentioning that many members of the aristocracy are Catholic.

 

[RoyalProtocol]

While many in the UK are no longer CofE I for one wouldn't like to see the link between the Crown and Church broken, I don't think a RC consort would be desirable either- the whole two masters thing jumps to mind.

 

[Elise27]

While many in the UK are no longer CofE I for one wouldn't like to see the link between the Crown and Church broken, I don't think a RC consort would be desirable either- the whole two masters thing jumps to mind.

I suppose I would never be able to understand, 1 because I am american and because this whole thing is kind of alien to us, in fact the first amendment to our constitution prohibits establishing a religion and discriminating against any religion, 2 because I am catholic, 3 because i am one of those catholics who disagrees with the pope on a lot of things, do not take orders from rome as some here have seemed to say catholics do. But i guess it would be too much to expect something similar in a country that has an established religion and in the 21st century openly has a law on its books that is probably insulting to the 4 million catholics that live there.
And as to my point about sensibilities, I know that there are many in the aristocracy that are catholic but I doubt bc the royal family has to worry about public relations that in a country like the UK given its history and the still existing feelings among a large part of the public that the head of state would marry a catholic.

 

[windsorbrides1]

I have several Catholic friends, and they have said that since Vatican II, a Catholic can marry a Protestant and still remain in the church whether or not their children are raised Catholic.

 

[RoyalProtocol]

I have several Catholic friends, and they have said that since Vatican II, a Catholic can marry a Protestant and still remain in the church whether or not their children are raised Catholic.

I know that marrying a catholic no longer means the children must be raised catholic but I just don't like the idea.

I think that the act of settlement is "outdated" but I think we have got so used to the idea the thought of a Catholic consort doesn't ring true. Though I have to say I see no problem with The Catholic Church and realise that the aristocracy have considerable numbers of Catholics among them.

 

[Skydragon]

And as to my point about sensibilities, I know that there are many in the aristocracy that are catholic but I doubt bc the royal family has to worry about public relations that in a country like the UK given its history and the still existing feelings among a large part of the public that the head of state would marry a catholic.

The major problems between the Catholics and Protestants is really confined to some parts of Scotland (Glasgow) and of course Northern Ireland. I think it should be changed but I also believe the church should be disestablished. That leaves the monarch free to be a defender of all and any faith.

 

[RoyalProtocol]

The major problems between the Catholics and Protestants is really confined to some parts of Scotland (Glasgow) and of course Northern Ireland. I think it should be changed but I also believe the church should be disestablished. That leaves the monarch free to be a defender of all and any faith.

To this one I must plead guilty- As a British Citizen in Northern Ireland the Catholic thing does play a big part, while not being sectarian there are certain ideas which we do have which may not be shared by the rest of the UK.

The Church of Ireland was disestabilshed in th 1870s, however I am a firm supporter of the establishment of the CofE and would term myself as Anti-disestablishmentarian.

 

[Jacknch]

Any changes to the laws of succession (and any other laws for that matter) should be made only on the basis that the existing law/laws are fundamentally wrong and/or do not work. As such, any change should be made retrospectively to as far back as the law came in to being, otherwise the whole reasoning behind a change would be inconstistent and weak (as in, change just for the sake of change).

There is no point in promoting equality and anti-discrimination laws within the Monarchy unless it is done fully and completely to take into account those directly affected by it and/or those who have lost their rights through it already.

If there is a grave concern amongst Catholics themselves that the British monarch can only be CofE, then the issue should be looked into on that basis. Otherwise, disestablish the CofE. If female members of the royal family are concerned for their rights in the succession, again, the issue should be looked at from that perspective.

Provided that the British Monarch always strives to carry out her/his duties for the ultimate benefit of everyone regardless of religion or belief, and is of sound mind and is reasonably presentable and doesn't do anything offensive then I'll be quite happy!

 

[RoyalProtocol]

Any changes to the laws of succession (and any other laws for that matter) should be made only on the basis that the existing law/laws are fundamentally wrong and/or do not work. As such, any change should be made retrospectively to as far back as the law came in to being, otherwise the whole reasoning behind a change would be inconstistent and weak (as in, change just for the sake of change).

There is no point in promoting equality and anti-discrimination laws within the Monarchy unless it is done fully and completely to take into account those directly affected by it and/or those who have lost their rights through it already.

If there is a grave concern amongst Catholics themselves that the British monarch can only be CofE, then the issue should be looked into on that basis. Otherwise, disestablish the CofE. If female members of the royal family are concerned for their rights in the succession, again, the issue should be looked at from that perspective.

Provided that the British Monarch always strives to carry out her/his duties for the ultimate benefit of everyone regardless of religion or belief, and is of sound mind and is reasonably presentable and doesn't do anything offensive then I'll be quite happy!

I can see where you're coming from but it would be an halarity to try and back track to sophia of hanover anr restore those who have been removed from the Succession and move women to poll position. The Monarchy could not withstand such a change and would call into question the laws etc. passed by sovereigns since the Act.

 

[Skydragon]

Any changes to the laws of succession (and any other laws for that matter) should be made only on the basis that the existing law/laws are fundamentally wrong and/or do not work. As such, any change should be made retrospectively to as far back as the law came in to being, otherwise the whole reasoning behind a change would be inconstistent and weak (as in, change just for the sake of change).

Laws are normally only changed from the date they are then voted in, it is rare under British law to backdate them. Laws are made or modified to accommodate the now.

 

[RoyalProtocol]

Laws are normally only changed from the date they are then voted in, it is rare under British law to backdate them. Laws are made or modified to accommodate the now.

Thanks, you summariesed what I wanted to say in your usual proper and meaningful manner!

 

[Jacknch]

I absolutely agree with you both Royal Protocol and Skydragon! I wanted to make the point (probably rather clumsily!) that changing laws such as the succession laws is a very complex thing to do when considering how best to do and what the eventual reasoning should be behind it. Yes, I went abit over the top suggesting that if the law were changed it should be retrospective and go way back to when the original law was put in place! But again it just goes to show that the well established mechanics of the monarchy ought not be changed without much thought.

 

[Skydragon]

It certainly does and as you say, it is something that needs to be well thought out. IMO, there is no point in change for the sake of it.

 

[Sir_knight]

I dont know enough about the dutch monarchy, but Princess Maxima is catholic and her children are not catholic. I think this is just a storm in a teapot and boy some people sound really bigotted when they start talking about these things. Lets see for starters any catholic willing to marry a non-catholic is likely not a conservative catholic, I might be willing to say that most catholics dont agree with everything the pope says. The notion of a But since sensibilities are not likely to change, particularly in the upper classes, it is unlikely that a future king of england will marry a catholic or be catholic himself or allow for his children to be catholic. Just my opinion, I just think its embarrasing for a country like the UK to have this law in their books. It only adds fodder to republican views of how absurd the monarchy is. This should be put to rest once and for all bc it will come up again.

Indeed you may think I am bigoted (Terrible that one cannot express ones own ideas without being called bigoted) with my views but I speak for quite a lot of concerned people.

The King or Queen taking orders from? That was not what I meant. I meant that the head of my church would become the dictator on the Vatican Hill. He that is so conservative and so tight on Catholic Theology that is no room for a developement of thought on theological issues lest he give it his blessing.

The Roman Catholic monarch would be subservient to the Holy Father is according to his Cardinal Deacon during his Corination.

Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns and know that thou art Father of Princes and Kings, Ruler of the World, Vicar of our Savior Jesus Christ in earth, to Whom is honor and glory in the ages of ages.


Sort of suggests that all monarchs are below the Holy Father. Just my reading of it.

The Church of England will only split if people keep wanting it to split people such as the Labourites in Westminister.

 

[zembla]

I didn't realize there was so much drama over one of the princes marrying a Catholic girl. It's odd that any other religion is perfectly fine...although if one of them married a Jewish or Muslim girl, I'm sure there would be outrage too. Just because someone is Catholic doesn't mean they have to take orders from the Pope, most people are just raised with a religion and rarely go to church or keep up with it. Even the royal family only goes on rare occasions...I don't recall seeing pics of any of them going every week to a church.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I didn't realize there was so much drama over one of the princes marrying a Catholic girl. It's odd that any other religion is perfectly fine...although if one of them married a Jewish or Muslim girl, I'm sure there would be outrage too. Just because someone is Catholic doesn't mean they have to take orders from the Pope, most people are just raised with a religion and rarely go to church or keep up with it. Even the royal family only goes on rare occasions...I don't recall seeing pics of any of them going every week to a church.

The Queen most definitely goes every week but they do have private chapels in most of their homes so photos aren't available every week.

We do see photos of them every Sunday at Sandringham and often at Balmoral because at these places there aren't private chapels within the main house (of which I am aware). Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle do have private chapels where the royals worship unless there is a public reason to attend a public church service.

Charles and Camilla are reported as regularly attending the parish church near Highbury. They also have access to the private chapels at BP and Windsor and are also see regularly attending church at Balmoral and Sandringham.

Just because we don't see photos of them attending every week doesn't mean they don't - just that weekly attendance isn't newsworthy.

 

[Kotroman]

Wouldn't coronation of a Roman Catholic queen consort be an odd ceremony? A Roman Catholic spouse of the head of the Church of England being crowned by an Anglican archbishop in an Anglican service?

 

[Skydragon]

The King or Queen taking orders from? That was not what I meant. I meant that the head of my church would become the dictator on the Vatican Hill. He that is so conservative and so tight on Catholic Theology that is no room for a developement of thought on theological issues lest he give it his blessing.

The Roman Catholic monarch would be subservient to the Holy Father is according to his Cardinal Deacon during his Corination.

So far there is only talk of allowing those in the line of succession to marry a Catholic and even if one did, they are unlikely to convert without a great deal of talk and thought. Nor would you have to change your religious affiliation, there is unlikely to be a law passed that says everyone in the UK must follow the same religion as HM. If they decide to alter this law, they will have to rewrite the words of the Coronation as well.