Act of settlement 1707

[Stuart royalty]

https://www.change.org/p/snp-abolish-act-of-settlement-1707?recruiter=660360077&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink

 

[Stuart royalty]

UK gov act of settlement 1707

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/176818/sponsors/ixRgN3N0xvQeVPz8SO3 settlement act 1707 for British royal family

Due to act of settlement 1707 anyone who is Catholic cannot inherit the throne of British royal family this is to exclude the Scottish Stuart's to inherit the British throne

P the act of settlement 1707 is an age old rule that today would be viewed as anti religious that wouldn't be tolerated at any other work place or society

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Was not the Act of Settlement passed in 1701 and not in 1707?
The Succession to the Crown Act 1707 replaced the Regency Act 1705.

 

[Iluvbertie]

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/176818/sponsors/ixRgN3N0xvQeVPz8SO3 settlement act 1707 for British royal family

Due to act of settlement 1707 anyone who is Catholic cannot inherit the throne of British royal family this is to exclude the Scottish Stuart's to inherit the British throne

P the act of settlement 1707 is an age old rule that today would be viewed as anti religious that wouldn't be tolerated at any other work place or society

Yes it would be - e.g. would anyone really expect the Pope to not be Roman Catholic or the Head of the Orthodox churches to not be Orthodox etc etc???

Why then would anyone expect the Supreme Governor of the Church of England to be anything other than CoE? That is why there is an insistence of the monarch of the UK being in communion with the CoE because they are also the Supreme Governor of the CoE.

 

[Pranter]

Seems like I remember the King or Queen of Sweden has to be of the Protestant faith and a few more countries have a similar rule as well.


LaRae

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Queen of Denmark is also the Head of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Denmark and as such she and her heir and their spouses have to be Lutheran. I remember when Mary married Frederick she had to convert from Presbyterianism to Lutheranism.

Amazingly it is only the BRF who are condemned for having this rule - whereas it applies in most monarchies in Europe one way or another. Sweden removed the position of 'state church' from the Lutheran church in 2000 which probably makes it easier for a non-Lutheran to marry into the SRF.

 

[Countessmeout]

Seems like I remember the King or Queen of Sweden has to be of the Protestant faith and a few more countries have a similar rule as well.


LaRae

Yes, the Swedish throne requires you to be a member of the Lutheran church (even though they don't have a state church)

Denmark has a state church like the UK, requiring the same of monarch and heir.

The Dutch pretty much require a protestant. Maxima didn't have to convert but her kids are raised protestant. Princess Irene caused a huge issue when she married a Catholic. Technically no law stating that they cant marry a Catholic, as seen with Maxima, but an expectation for a protestant monarch.

I don't think anyone would find it too odd either if very catholic monarchies like Spain, Luxembourg and Lichtenstein required at least their heir to remain catholic and raise the kids as such.

P the act of settlement 1707 is an age old rule that today would be viewed as anti religious that wouldn't be tolerated at any other work place or society

Actually religion can be a deciding factor in a job if you can show why it is necessary. Having a Jewish person apply for a job as a catholic priest? Catholic schools usually require their teachers to be catholic. I guess Muslims should be allowed to be nominated for Pope, or it would be discrimination?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Amazingly it is only the BRF who are condemned for having this rule - whereas it applies in most monarchies in Europe one way or another.

The constitutions of Sweden, Denmark and Norway (which are the only other monarchies in Europe which legally impose a religious rule on the throne) are not appropriate comparisons with the Act of Settlement as:

1. The Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian religious laws do not use dated and now offensive terms to describe other denominations.

The Act of Settlement refers to Catholicism as "the Popish Religion".

2. The Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian religious laws only establish a difference in treatment between members of the officially established church and all other groups. In the Protestant Scandinavian monarchies, a Catholic, an Orthodox, a Muslim, and an atheist are equal before the law.

In the Protestant British monarchy, a converted Protestant who until their conversion was Orthodox, Muslim, or atheist is eligible to be monarch (and supreme governor of the Church of England). The only Protestant converts to be banned are those who have converted from Catholicism.

Likewise, until 2015, the Act of Settlement insisted that the monarch not be married to a Catholic. But a monarch married to a Muslim was acceptable, even though both Catholic and Muslim teachings require children to be raised in the same faith.

Was not the Act of Settlement passed in 1701 and not in 1707?
The Succession to the Crown Act 1707 replaced the Regency Act 1705.

You are right and the thread heading is wrong. The Act of Settlement was passed in 1701 (counted as 1700 under the calendar which was in use).

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3/12-13/2

 

[SirGyamfi1]

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/176818/sponsors/ixRgN3N0xvQeVPz8SO3 settlement act 1707 for British royal family

Due to act of settlement 1707 anyone who is Catholic cannot inherit the throne of British royal family this is to exclude the Scottish Stuart's to inherit the British throne

P the act of settlement 1707 is an age old rule that today would be viewed as anti religious that wouldn't be tolerated at any other work place or society

Why would they change from that? They can alter the wordings of the settlement, but it won’t make a difference, a Catholic will never be on the British throne.

 

[Kataryn]

I guess Muslims should be allowed to be nominated for Pope, or it would be discrimination?

The Pope is always a Catholic priest first who rose through the ranks within the church before he was a cardinal (normally, a bishop would do, too) and able to vote. Not sure they could vote for a simply priest but uis that a realistic question? But the pope could never be a muslim, because you can't be both and the being Catholic is the bases requirement for becoming pope. LOL, the idea is so preposterous. And in religion, everything can change. We're not talking "race" here but about something people might not choose to be but choose to stay.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

We're not talking "race" here but about something people might not choose to be but choose to stay.

People do not choose to be baptized and raised Catholic as infants and children. Even if they choose not to stay Catholic, and convert to the Church of England the moment they come of age, they are "for ever uncapeable to inherit" (in the words of the Act of Settlement) the British throne. This "forever" ban is not legislated for any other non-Protestant groups. A lifelong atheist, Muslim, or Orthodox who converts to Protestantism the day before the previous monarch dies is perfectly allowed to succeed as monarch and supreme governor of the Church of England.

 

[Mbruno]

Why would they change from that? They can alter the wordings of the settlement, but it won’t make a difference, a Catholic will never be on the British throne.

The United Kingdom, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden are the only kingdoms in Europe that still require that the monarch and/or, more broadly, people in the line of succession profess a certain faith or be a member of a particular church. There are no religious tests to ascend the throne in Belgium and the Netherlands, and the requirement that the King be Catholic was dropped in Spain in 1978. Neverthless, the absence of religious criteria for the succession has not so far produced a change in the traditional religion professed by the monarchs of the latter countries. The Spanish royal family, for example, remains Catholic and the Dutch royal family still professes the Reformed/Calvinist faith, even though the present King of the Netherlands is married to a Roman Catholic.



In recent times, there have been members of the British royal family who converted to Catholicism or baptized their children in the Catholic Church, but those cases have been way down the line of succession. It is difficult to tell to what extent the law barring Catholics (and, as Tatiana Maria said, also former Catholics) from the succession was a deterrent to people closer to the throne converting to Catholicism and, likewise, if it is impossible to say if there would be more Catholics in the family today if that particular provision in the law had been repealed, but it may well be the case that the disestablishment of the official church and the elimination of religious tests for the succession would have no meaningful impact in the short term on the religious beliefs of the British royal family, who would remain members of the Church of England. In the long run, that could change though and we might see a King who is Catholic, or even a non-Christian or openly atheist.

People do not choose to be baptized and raised Catholic as infants and children. Even if they choose not to stay Catholic, and convert to the Church of England the moment they come of age, they are "for ever uncapeable to inherit" (in the words of the Act of Settlement) the British throne. This "forever" ban is not legislated for any other non-Protestant groups. A lifelong atheist, Muslim, or Orthodox who converts to Protestantism the day before the previous monarch dies is perfectly allowed to succeed as monarch and supreme governor of the Church of England.

There is currently some confusion, I think, about when the ban of Catholics succeeding to the Crown kicks in.

For example, as far as I understand, Lord Nicholas Windsor's sons were baptized in the Catholic Church, but at least Albert and Leopold Windsor were still listed on the official website of the British monarchy as being in the line of succession in 2012 (Louis Windsor had not been born yet at that time).

The explanation given by some commentators for that inconsistency at the time was that the boys had not been confirmed yet in the Catholic Church and, therefore, could not be considered "in communion" with the Church of Rome. I suppose that is wrong as far as Catholic doctrine is concerned, but, if that interpretation is accurate, it seems to be addressing some of the concerns you raised, i.e that children should not be penalized for choices that their parents made for them as infants if, later in life, they reverse those choices on their own free will.

 

[Kataryn]

People do not choose to be baptized and raised Catholic as infants and children. Even if they choose not to stay Catholic, and convert to the Church of England the moment they come of age, they are "for ever uncapeable to inherit" (in the words of the Act of Settlement) the British throne. This "forever" ban is not legislated for any other non-Protestant groups. A lifelong atheist, Muslim, or Orthodox who converts to Protestantism the day before the previous monarch dies is perfectly allowed to succeed as monarch and supreme governor of the Church of England.

Then the British government, parliament and the British citizens (if asked to vote) should decide if they want to keep that rule or change it to "being Catholic at the moment of a potential ascension" or something like that. I understand the historic background which can be seen when we just go through Princess Elizabeth, queen of Bohemia's offspring's religious faith (won't say beliefs here, ha ha!) and when and why they changed it so that in fact the Electress Sophia ended up as England's and Scotland's heiress, though she was the youngest child.

Just like I know that the Catholic church still believes me to be one of them even though i left it, but after I entered communition and was confirmed in my faith as a child. But it's their (IMHO "weird") belief and nothing my husband (same situation) and I care about. Just like that the British government should not care if the heir apparent or presumptive is no longer a Catholic but the Catholic Chruch does not agree.

 

[Alison H]

Autumn Kelly converted from Catholicism to Anglicanism when she married Peter, who consequently was able to keep his place in the line of succession, under the rules in place at the time. OK, that's a spouse, not a potential monarch, but I don't think anyone would be blocked from succeeding if they had been baptised a Catholic but then converted.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The way the law is being baptised a Roman Catholic (please note that CoE is a catholic and apostolic church - just not Roman Catholic) does mean a person is barred.

What many people forget is that the monarch makes a declaration and an oath to protect the status of both the CoE and the Church of Scotland. Any attempt to thus change that law could easily see a major constitutional crisis with the monarch abdicating so as not to break their oath ... taken at their accession council and then reiterated at their coronation.

It is therefore probable that the only way to change the law is for the UK to become a republic and then it is irrelevant anyway.

What seems to be happening with Lord Nicholas' children is that they are using common sense - and not excluding his children until they are confirmed, even though the law is that they are barred from baptism. That way it will be the children's own decision, knowing the consequence is forever barred from the line of succession to the throne, but not to the Dukedom of Kent.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

What many people forget is that the monarch makes a declaration and an oath to protect the status of both the CoE and the Church of Scotland. Any attempt to thus change that law could easily see a major constitutional crisis with the monarch abdicating so as not to break their oath ... taken at their accession council and then reiterated at their coronation.

It is therefore probable that the only way to change the law is for the UK to become a republic and then it is irrelevant anyway.

I have not forgotten that. I simply fail to see how a Protestant monarch who used to be Catholic would be any less capable of swearing or upholding the oaths than a Protestant monarch who used to be Orthodox, Muslim, or atheist.

Nor do I see why the monarch would abdicate or the UK would become a republic if the law were changed to abolish this differential in treatment. The Act of Settlement was changed in 2015 to equalize the treatment between Protestant spouses of Catholics and Protestant spouses of Muslims, Orthodox Christians, atheists, Jews, etc.. The very devout Anglican Elizabeth II did not abdicate in 2015, and the UK remains a monarchy to this day.

Autumn Kelly converted from Catholicism to Anglicanism when she married Peter, who consequently was able to keep his place in the line of succession, under the rules in place at the time. OK, that's a spouse, not a potential monarch [...]

That is not comparable because, unlike the explicit "forever incapable" ban on former Catholics ascending the throne, the Act of Settlement never included language that would affect Protestants whose spouses were former Catholics at the time of the marriage. The spouse clause, which was removed in 2015, was simply "marrying a papist".

The way the law is being baptised a Roman Catholic (please note that CoE is a catholic and apostolic church - just not Roman Catholic) does mean a person is barred. [...] What seems to be happening with Lord Nicholas' children is that they are using common sense - and not excluding his children until they are confirmed, even though the law is that they are barred from baptism. That way it will be the children's own decision, knowing the consequence is forever barred from the line of succession to the throne, but not to the Dukedom of Kent.

There is currently some confusion, I think, about when the ban of Catholics succeeding to the Crown kicks in.

For example, as far as I understand, Lord Nicholas Windsor's sons were baptized in the Catholic Church, but at least Albert and Leopold Windsor were still listed on the official website of the British monarchy as being in the line of succession in 2012 (Louis Windsor had not been born yet at that time).

The explanation given by some commentators for that inconsistency at the time was that the boys had not been confirmed yet in the Catholic Church and, therefore, could not be considered "in communion" with the Church of Rome. I suppose that is wrong as far as Catholic doctrine is concerned, but, if that interpretation is accurate, it seems to be addressing some of the concerns you raised, i.e that children should not be penalized for choices that their parents made for them as infants if, later in life, they reverse those choices on their own free will.

I do not think the website's listing in 2012 had any support in the text of the law or in the legislative history, and I do not think it would hold up in court.

The Act of Settlement states that "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 shall be excluded and be for ever uncapeable to inherit". There is nothing stated about age or confirmation.

Furthermore, the Act of Settlement itself contains a clause which settles the succession on Sophia of Hanover, by name, bypassing Catholic infants with a better claim by virtue of primogeniture.

The United Kingdom, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden are the only kingdoms in Europe that still require that the monarch and/or, more broadly, people in the line of succession profess a certain faith or be a member of a particular church.

There are also no religious tests to succeed to the thrones of the grand duchy of Luxembourg or the principalities of Monaco and Liechtenstein.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I have not forgotten that. I simply fail to see how a Protestant monarch who used to be Catholic would be any less capable of swearing or upholding the oaths than a Protestant monarch who used to be Orthodox, Muslim, or atheist.

Nor do I see why the monarch would abdicate or the UK would become a republic if the law were changed to abolish this differential in treatment. The Act of Settlement was changed in 2015 to equalize the treatment between Protestant spouses of Catholics and Protestant spouses of Muslims, Orthodox Christians, atheists, Jews, etc.. The very devout Anglican Elizabeth II did not abdicate in 2015, and the UK remains a monarchy to this day.

You are missing the point. They actually can't sign such legislation without breaking their accession oaths/declaration as well as the ones they take at the coronation.

That means the only way that legislation can come into effect is to have someone other than the monarch - or monarch's official representative - sign it and that can only happen when there is no monarch i.e. the country has become a republic.

The changes made in 2015 didn't apply to the monarch - only the spouse of the monarch so no issue for Elizabeth to sign. Charles, William, George will be in communion with the CoE. What faith their spouse is is irrelevant. For many years the spouses were Lutheran and the Queen's spouse was baptised Greek Orthodox. Even when he decided to be received into the CoE it was made clear that it wasn't necessary as Orthodox spouses had no effect on the position of the monarch.

It should be noted that the term is IN COMMUNION with the CoE and many non-Roman Catholic denominations are that, especially Lutheran as at least two monarchs, after the 1701 Act of Settlement were Lutheran (George I and George II).

The law is clear as are the oaths/declarations a monarch makes. To change the law means the monarch must break their oath - no way around it.

 

[Kataryn]

Furthermore, the Act of Settlement itself contains a clause which settles the succession on Sophia of Hanover, by name, bypassing Catholic infants with a better claim by virtue of primogeniture.

The whole "Act" is about making sure "the" Protestant claimant to the throne that queen and parliament agreed upon, Electress Sophia, would be queen and her successors would be the next in line. It was all to make sure that the rightful claimant by blood and primogeniture was not to be king, because he was Catholic. But once they got rid of all others higher up in the line of succession and Catholic, they were left with Sophia of Hanover.
They got rid of all the Orléans-children, because both wifes of Philippe d'Orléans had a claim to the British thrones. Henrietta Ann, the first wife was the daughter of Charles I and a British princess, Elisabeth Charlotte, the second wife, was the only offspring left of Charles I.`s sister Elizabeth Stuart, queen of of Bohemia's firstborn son, the Elector of the Palatinate. But the Orléans-girls were married to reigning Catholic Princes: two kings, one duke. And their brother was a French duke who reigned as Prince Regent for his nephew Louis XV. of France. Hardly the family the British parliament wanted to see as successors to their protestant queen Anne. As the other children of Elizabeth of Bohemia (who was the only granddaughter of Mary Queen of Scots and Lord Henry Darnley) fell foul of the relifious requirement as well or did not have legitimate issue, only Sophie of Hanover née princess of the Palatinate, was left.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

You are missing the point. They actually can't sign such legislation without breaking their accession oaths/declaration as well as the ones they take at the coronation.

That means the only way that legislation can come into effect is to have someone other than the monarch - or monarch's official representative - sign it and that can only happen when there is no monarch i.e. the country has become a republic.

The law is clear as are the oaths/declarations a monarch makes. To change the law means the monarch must break their oath - no way around it.

Please point out the clear language in the text of the oath which you say is blocking monarchs from signing legislation equalizing the position of Protestants who used to be Catholic versus Protestants who used to be Orthodox, Muslim, or atheist.

Here is the text of the segment of the oath sworn by Elizabeth II at her coronation in 1953 which deals with the established church. (If you are referring to another oath or declaration, please do not hesitate to post it.)

Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

Queen. All this I promise to do.​

The changes made in 2015 didn't apply to the monarch - only the spouse of the monarch so no issue for Elizabeth to sign. Charles, William, George will be in communion with the CoE. What faith their spouse is is irrelevant.

Following the same logic: A Protestant monarch who is a former Catholic would be in communion in the Church of England (just like a Protestant monarch who is a former Muslim, who is already permitted to ascend the throne). What faith they were formerly a member of is irrelevant. No issue for Elizabeth to sign.

 

[Mbruno]

I have not forgotten that. I simply fail to see how a Protestant monarch who used to be Catholic would be any less capable of swearing or upholding the oaths than a Protestant monarch who used to be Orthodox, Muslim, or atheist.

Nor do I see why the monarch would abdicate or the UK would become a republic if the law were changed to abolish this differential in treatment. The Act of Settlement was changed in 2015 to equalize the treatment between Protestant spouses of Catholics and Protestant spouses of Muslims, Orthodox Christians, atheists, Jews, etc.. The very devout Anglican Elizabeth II did not abdicate in 2015, and the UK remains a monarchy to this day.




That is not comparable because, unlike the explicit "forever incapable" ban on former Catholics ascending the throne, the Act of Settlement never included language that would affect Protestants whose spouses were former Catholics at the time of the marriage. The spouse clause, which was removed in 2015, was simply "marrying a papist".






I do not think the website's listing in 2012 had any support in the text of the law or in the legislative history, and I do not think it would hold up in court.

The Act of Settlement states that "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 shall be excluded and be for ever uncapeable to inherit". There is nothing stated about age or confirmation.

Furthermore, the Act of Settlement itself contains a clause which settles the succession on Sophia of Hanover, by name, bypassing Catholic infants with a better claim by virtue of primogeniture.




There are also no religious tests to succeed to the thrones of the grand duchy of Luxembourg or the principalities of Monaco and Liechtenstein.

But Luxembourg, Liechtenstein and Monaco are not kingdoms. I was commenting only on kingdoms not principalities or grand duchies as Indicated in text.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

People do not choose to be baptized and raised Catholic as infants and children. Even if they choose not to stay Catholic, and convert to the Church of England the moment they come of age, they are "for ever uncapeable to inherit" (in the words of the Act of Settlement) the British throne. This "forever" ban is not legislated for any other non-Protestant groups. A lifelong atheist, Muslim, or Orthodox who converts to Protestantism the day before the previous monarch dies is perfectly allowed to succeed as monarch and supreme governor of the Church of England.

Of course that part of other religions can be seen as a loophole in a way, but the point at the time was that Catholics were barred was the main point. I don’t believe those who made the settlement ever considered beyond that.

 

[Mbruno]

Of course that part of other religions can be seen as a loophole in a way, but the point at the time was that Catholics were barred was the main point. I don’t believe those who made the settlement ever considered beyond that.

That is correct. Back in 1700, it was assumed that a European monarch would be either Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox , and the latter at the time only applied to the Russian Tsar really. The possibility that a British monarch could be a Jew, or a Muslim , or a Buddhist , or anything else other than a Catholic or a Protestant didn’t cross anybody’s mind in Parliament, hence the probable reason why no other religion besides Roman Catholicism was singled out in the Act.

That doesn’t mean the law cannot be modernized or even entirely repealed today. Right now, it doesn’t seem to be a pressing issue for the British politicians.

 

[Somebody]

Autumn Kelly converted from Catholicism to Anglicanism when she married Peter, who consequently was able to keep his place in the line of succession, under the rules in place at the time. OK, that's a spouse, not a potential monarch, but I don't think anyone would be blocked from succeeding if they had been baptised a Catholic but then converted.

Both Catherine and Meghan were confirmed in the Anglican Church (Church of England) just before their marriage - although Catherine was baptized as a child. So, it seems that it is rather common for spouses to become confirmed members of the Anglican Church to be more acceptable as future brides for the BRF.

 

[Prinsara]

People do not choose to be baptized and raised Catholic as infants and children. Even if they choose not to stay Catholic, and convert to the Church of England the moment they come of age, they are "for ever uncapeable to inherit" (in the words of the Act of Settlement) the British throne. This "forever" ban is not legislated for any other non-Protestant groups. A lifelong atheist, Muslim, or Orthodox who converts to Protestantism the day before the previous monarch dies is perfectly allowed to succeed as monarch and supreme governor of the Church of England.

I'm not entirely certain of that — to my knowledge, the children of parents who have been barred from the line of succession for being, marrying or converting to Catholicism have been kept in the line while they are young and have not chosen to be confirmed as Catholics (like at least one of the Kent descendants). But I could be wrong.

In an amazing workaround, there is also the Duchess of Kent converting to Catholicism with her husband remaining in line with the remote chance to succeed, simply because the Act didn't cover spouses becoming Catholic later. And even the Queen was fine with this.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

That is correct. Back in 1700, it was assumed that an European monarch would be either Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox , and the latter at the time only applied to the Russian Tsar really. The possibility that a British monarch could be a Jew, or a Muslim , or a Buddhist , or anything else other than a Catholic or a Protestant didn’t cross anybody’s mind in Parliament, hence the probable reason why no other religion besides Roman Catholicism was singled out in the Act.

That doesn’t mean the law cannot be modernized or even entirely repealed today. Right now, it doesn’t seem to be a pressing issue for the British politician's.

Yes it isn’t an important thing for politicians right now. For me, I don’t think it is a priority or that it should be changed. It wouldn’t change anything IMO. If you’ve seen how some Catholic monarchs have behaved or reacted to certain legislations that go against the beliefs of the Catholic Church is why it shouldn’t be changed. Good examples are King Baudoin and Grand Duke Henri when legislations regarding things like euthanasia and abortions came up, it would make it very difficult.

I'm not entirely certain of that — to my knowledge, the children of parents who have been barred from the line of succession for being, marrying or converting to Catholicism have been kept in the line while they are young and have not chosen to be confirmed as Catholics (like at least one of the Kent descendants). But I could be wrong.

In an amazing workaround, there is also the Duchess of Kent converting to Catholicism with her husband remaining in line with the remote chance to succeed, simply because the Act didn't cover spouses becoming Catholic later. And even the Queen was fine with this.

Well Katherine, Duchess of Kent isn’t in line for the throne and she converted long after she got married and as you mentioned she informed the Queen so that was fine. I don’t think the Queen had anything against her conversion or at least has nothing against Catholics perse, she’s just following the Act and her faith that she was born into.

 

[Prinsara]

Well Katherine, Duchess of Kent isn’t in line for the throne and she converted long after she got married and as you mentioned she informed the Queen so that was fine. I don’t think the Queen had anything against her conversion or at least has nothing against Catholics perse, she’s just following the Act and her faith that she was born into.

At the time the Duchess converted the law excluded people who had married Catholics from succeeding to the throne — like her brother-in-law Michael — so it was rather a big deal indeed, and not simply a matter of informing the Queen.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

At the time the Duchess converted the law excluded people who had married Catholics from succeeding to the throne — like her brother-in-law Michael — so it was rather a big deal indeed, and not simply a matter of informing the Queen.

Yeah, but Katherine was already Protestant and converted after she married unlike Prince Michael who married Marie-Christine who was born catholic. Plus they are much further down in the succession so it was easier for the elder Kents. I think that if it was any of the Queen’s children, it would be much more difficult for their spouses to do that.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Yes it isn’t an important thing for politicians right now. For me, I don’t think it is a priority or that it should be changed. It wouldn’t change anything IMO. If you’ve seen how some Catholic monarchs have behaved or reacted to certain legislations that go against the beliefs of the Catholic Church is why it shouldn’t be changed. Good examples are King Baudoin and Grand Duke Henri when legislations regarding things like euthanasia and abortions came up, it would make it very difficult.

First, our discussion did not involve Catholic monarchs, only Protestant monarchs who were formerly regarded as members of the Catholic church (not necessarily by choice).

Second, you first claim that "it wouldn't change anything" but then go on to talk about "why it shouldn’t be changed".

Third, I do not know the reason for your belief that no Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or atheist monarch would ever choose to remove themselves from the legislative process rather than be forced to sign laws which will/which they believe will inflict harm. Many non-Catholics, myself included, would also desire that reform to the legislative procedure (which, if I remember correctly, was at least partly completed in Luxembourg).

I'm not entirely certain of that — to my knowledge, the children of parents who have been barred from the line of succession for being, marrying or converting to Catholicism have been kept in the line while they are young and have not chosen to be confirmed as Catholics (like at least one of the Kent descendants). But I could be wrong.

I'm not clear on what scenario you are referring to - the post which you quoted was about individuals who were raised Catholic but have converted to Protestantism. Such persons remain barred from the succession to the British throne.

Children of a Catholic parent who were raised as Protestants from birth (like the children of Princess Michael of Kent) have never been barred by the Act of Settlement.

Of course that part of other religions can be seen as a loophole in a way, but the point at the time was that Catholics were barred was the main point. I don’t believe those who made the settlement ever considered beyond that.

That is correct. Back in 1700, it was assumed that a European monarch would be either Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox , and the latter at the time only applied to the Russian Tsar really. The possibility that a British monarch could be a Jew, or a Muslim , or a Buddhist , or anything else other than a Catholic or a Protestant didn’t cross anybody’s mind in Parliament, hence the probable reason why no other religion besides Roman Catholicism was singled out in the Act.

That doesn’t mean the law cannot be modernized or even entirely repealed today. Right now, it doesn’t seem to be a pressing issue for the British politician's.

Certainly, but back in 2013, the government which decided to lift the discrimination between spouses of Catholics and spouses of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. were certainly cognizant of the possibility that a descendant of Sophia of Hannover or their spouse might be affiliated with a religion other than Protestant or Catholic, or no religion at all. There is no reason they could not have also equalized the differential treatment between ex-Catholics and ex-Jews, ex-Muslims, etc. (actually, the parliamentary record causes me to suspect that it simply never occurred to them).

 

[SirGyamfi1]

First, our discussion did not involve Catholic monarchs, only Protestant monarchs who were formerly regarded as members of the Catholic church (not necessarily by choice).

Second, you first claim that "it wouldn't change anything" but then go on to talk about "why it shouldn’t be changed".

Third, I do not know the reason for your belief that no Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or atheist monarch would ever choose to remove themselves from the legislative process rather than be forced to sign laws which will/which they believe will inflict harm. Many non-Catholics, myself included, would also desire that reform to the legislative procedure (which, if I remember correctly, was at least partly completed in Luxembourg).




I'm not clear on what scenario you are referring to - the post which you quoted was about individuals who were raised Catholic but have converted to Protestantism. Such persons remain barred from the succession to the British throne.

Children of a Catholic parent who were raised as Protestants from birth (like the children of Princess Michael of Kent) have never been barred by the Act of Settlement.






Certainly, but back in 2013, the government which decided to lift the discrimination between spouses of Catholics and spouses of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. were certainly cognizant of the possibility that a descendant of Sophia of Hannover or their spouse might be affiliated with a religion other than Protestant or Catholic, or no religion at all. There is no reason they could not have also equalized the differential treatment between ex-Catholics and ex-Jews, ex-Muslims, etc. (actually, the parliamentary record causes me to suspect that it simply never occurred to them).

I mentioned Catholics because they are key denomination affected by the settlement. The original line of succession had Catholics in it until the deposition of Charles the II and some of the other Stuart monarchs. Why I stated that changing the settlement wouldn’t do anything is because currently the main branch of the royal family are Protestant and won’t just change denominations for the sake of it. Maybe some of them aren’t super religious or believe in God even, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they will change faiths. I never mentioned other faiths that you stated because the chances of a future heir being “Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish or atheist” is just likely as the Habsburgs converting to Islam or the Spanish Bourbons converting to Islam. I gave Baudoin and Henri as examples of what possible problems people will encounter with this particularly with the Catholicism. My point is that each of those respective faiths and denominations have their own beliefs, values etc some of which will conflict with certain pieces of legislation and will raise questions about suitability of certain future monarchs.

 

[Mbruno]

I mentioned Catholics because they are key denomination affected by the settlement. The original line of succession had Catholics in it until the deposition of Charles the II and some of the other Stuart monarchs. Why I stated that changing the settlement wouldn’t do anything is because currently the main branch of the royal family are Protestant and won’t just change denominations for the sake of it. Maybe some of them aren’t super religious or believe in God even, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they will change faiths. I never mentioned other faiths that you stated because the chances of a future heir being “Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish or atheist” is just likely as the Habsburgs converting to Islam or the Spanish Bourbons converting to Islam. I gave Baudoin and Henri as examples of what possible problems people will encounter with this particularly with the Catholicism. My point is that each of those respective faiths and denominations have their own beliefs, values etc some of which will conflict with certain pieces of legislation and will raise questions about suitability of certain future monarchs.

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.