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

[NGalitzine]

There is no intention to remove the requirement that the monarch be a member of the Church of England. The intention is only to allow those in the line of succession to marry Roman Catholics without losing their place in the line of succession.

 

[Daz_Voz]

As an Archduchess of Austria-Este she was bound to be a Catholic, so not in line.

Good catch.

There is no intention to remove the requirement that the monarch be a member of the Church of England.

The Prince of Wales has occasionally made noises in that direction.

But yes it's not going to happen any time soon.

 

[Artemisia]

Here's the fun part! Prince Joseph Wenzel is also in line to be the Jacobite pretender, also via his mother! I tracked that back: if I'm right, Joseph Wenzel's great great great grandmother Maria Theresa of Austria Este was the first Jacobite pretender to be descended from George I, and hence to notionally be part of the full line of succession to the throne of the United Kingdom.

Another fun, and much lesser known, fact - Joseph Wenzel will one day inherit claims to Armenian Throne (Cilician Armenia) as well though his mother.
Contrary to popular belief, the claims to the Throne of Armenian Cilicia do NOT rest with the House of Savoy but are now with the Bavarian House.

The Prince of Wales has occasionally made noises in that direction.
But yes it's not going to happen any time soon.

I think Prince Charles has expressed the wish to be "protector" of all Faiths in Britain - not just Anglican. However, I don't believe he has actually voiced an opinion that the Monarch should not belong to the Anglican Church.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Coronation Oath

I'm not sure HM has done all she can to uphold her Oath and many people I talk with think she has in fact broken it.
You can read the Oath here Coronation Oath, 2nd June 1953

The specific parts that concern me and other monarchists are where the Queen swears to govern the people of her realms "according to their respective laws and customs" - Signing the Treaty of Lisbon has given away the sovereignty of the United Kingdom to the Europeans

The other part is regarding the Protestant Reformed Religion. The Queen is the Supreme Governor of The Church of England, and she swears to the utmost of her power to maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel. HM swears to the utmost of her power to maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law. She swears to 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.

Over consecutive governments during her reign and General Synods of the CoE, drastic changes have been made to the Anglican Faith and secular laws that undermine the Oath HM took to defend the Faith.
In fact in 2012 she is still styled as 'Defender of the Faith'

As an Anglican, it is a difficult pill for me to swallow and I fear much worse under Charles.
In fact this was the very reason the Queen's family was brought to the UK many years ago, and the Act of Settlement is a manifestation of this fact

The Queen is not a politician and to take such a solemn Oath before the Archbishop of Canterbury carries a huge burden and IMO, I don't think the Queen has done all she can to honour her Oath.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I think she has done everything within her 'Queenly' powers that she can do to uphold her oath. We know what would have happened if she hadn't signed the Treaty of Lisbon, and exactly what could The Queen physically have done to stop her government and the church changing the faith over the years?

I don't believe it's the Queen's business to meddle, she'd just be put in the firing line for it.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Then why swear an oath if your're not going to put yourself in the firing line to honour it

 

[Iluvbertie]

We don't know how much she tried to stop any of the changes and was simply unsuccessful but I agree she hasn't kept her Coronation Oath at all.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

“Where is the power on earth to absolve me from the observance of every sentence of that Oath, particularly the one requiring me to maintain the Protestant Reformed Religion? Was not my family seated on the Throne for that express purpose, and shall I be the first to suffer it to be undermined, perhaps overturned? No, No, I had rather beg my bread from door to door throughout Europe, than consent to any such measure. I can give up my crown and retire from power. I can quit my palace and live in a cottage. I can lay my head on a block and lose my life, but I cannot break my Oath. If I violate that Oath, I am no longer legal Sovereign in this country”
--- His Late Majesty King George III to Parliament

It is a quote that makes many of us monarchists wonder about the present situation regarding the Act of Settlement and the Coronation Oath.

 

[NGalitzine]

The Queen reigns but she does not rule, that is the job of Parliament and the government of the day. Her reserve powers only kick in if a government acts unconstitutionally. There is no way she can stop a democratically elected government from entering into a treaty agreement, to do so would violate her role as constitutional monarch. She has reigned according to the laws of the UK.
She remains Supreme Governor of the Church of England but I am not sure what you expect of her in that role. The general public, at least those that are officially C of E have been attending the church in ever decreasing numbers to the point where church has become for many people only something to be called on for weddings, christenings and funerals and sometimes not even that. Islam is the fastest growing faith in this culturally diverse nation. Still the C of E remains the official state religion in England, but not in Scotland or Northern Ireland, so in that sense I would think she has kept her oath. Many today would not be upset of the C of E were to be disestablished.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Many today would not be upset of the C of E were to be disestablished.

Not any monarchist I know. That is the reason we have a Queen. Not for ribbon cuttings or Olympic galas but to honour her Oath. Disestablishment of the Church would be the end of the monarchy in Britain

 

[NGalitzine]

Not any monarchist I know. That is the reason we have a Queen. Not for ribbon cuttings or Olympic galas but to honour her Oath. Disestablishment of the Church would be the end of the monarchy in Britain

I can't see why disestablishing the Cof E would have any major impact on the monarchy. If anything it would remove the monarch and the government from any involvement with the controversies the CofE gets itself involved in (same sex marriage, female priests and bishops, relations with the Vatican, appointment of Bishops and Archbishops). It would also be an acceptance of the diminishing role the church plays in the lives of the citizens of England (and please note the CofE only has official status in one part of the UK). Disestablishing the church does not mean the monarch could not continue to be a member of it or even Supreme Governor should the synod wish to continue the link.
The Lutheran Church was disestablished in Norway, a much less culturally diverse nation, last year with no noticable shaking of King Harolds throne.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

It will alienate many monarchists, myself included and I can't see it attracting any new people to the royalist fold.

At least for now, the 'reform' of the House of Lords is on hold and consensus seems to be that a referendum is required to eject the Lords Spiritual from the House of Lords
( Lords Spiritual consist of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and 24 Bishops, by rotation but always including the Bishops of London, Durham and Winchester)

For now at least we have a reprieve and maybe the monarchy can survive this.

 

[NGalitzine]

I still don't believe that changes to the Church will have any great impact on the monarchy, except perhaps to make them more representative. I have never believed that the CofE or any faith community should have any official role, no matter how small, in the government of the nation. Its so 16th century and the 21st century UK is a pretty secular state. The Church of England pews are not exactly overflowing on Sunday mornings. A Catholic is more likely to show up in church than an Anglican. About half of the British people consider themselves non-religious or claim no church affiliation and about 1/3rd don't believe in God at all.

Religion in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

A lot of what you say is true but if gets to the point of disestablishing the Church and passing all sorts of laws that compromise the Church's position, and force her Bishops to perform acts against their good conscience then the monarchy should be abolished altogether.
If HM (or Charles) can't live up to and honour her Oath, no point having a Sovereign IMO and I'm a monarchist to my fingertips.
George III said it best in his words to the government. See my comment above.

 

[NGalitzine]

Then I would think the best hope for survival is to be disestablished and it then it can hold whatever views it wants, much like any other faith community. If however it wants to continue to be the state religion it should abide by the laws of a changing and more secular country and accept the equality of all people.

I also think it would be better for the monarchy not to be linked to what many consider to be an increasing controversial and divided church. The monarchy after all is supposed to represent all the British people not just dwindling members of one church.

 

[Furienna]

While our royal family also still are very much linked to Sweden's Lutheran Church (little princess Estelle has been described as "the only baby in Sweden without freedom of religion"), and I can see old how traditions like this still can be strong, I don't see what's to be so upset about. It's a much more secular world today than it was before, and even if you don't like it, I guess you just have to accept it.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

While our royal family also still are very much linked to Sweden's Lutheran Church (little princess Estelle has been described as "the only baby in Sweden without freedom of religion"), and I can see old how traditions like this still can be strong, I don't see what's to be so upset about. It's a much more secular world today than it was before, and even if you don't like it, I guess you just have to accept it.

I am not a religious zealot by any means and I know the world is increasing secular but for me, why take an oath and then not honour it?
Maybe the time for monarchy in Britain has passed if this is the state of affairs. Politicians break promises and oaths but I hope my Sovereign would be above that. JMO of course and I respect all views.

 

[NGalitzine]

I am still unclear why you feel HM has not honored her oath regarding the church as it is, but going forward should the elected government of the UK change the role of the established church I don't see how HM as a constitutional monarch could be held at fault. She is after all in the rather unenviable position of having to sign her own death warrant should she be so advised by her PM.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

I am still unclear why you feel HM has not honored her oath regarding the church as it is, but going forward should the elected government of the UK change the role of the established church I don't see how HM as a constitutional monarch could be held at fault. She is after all in the rather unenviable position of having to sign her own death warrant should she be so advised by her PM.

Religious considerations aside, signing the Treaty of Lisbon unequivocally broke her Coronation Oath

And

As King George III said to Parliament- was this not the express reason my family was put on the Throne in the first place, to uphold the Settlement of the Church of England and defend the Protestant Reformed Faith.

The Act of Settlement was all about having the Heir of body of the Electress Sophia of Hanover as Sovereign and for said Sovereign to swear an Oath at coronation and to honour that Oath.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Remember, HM is Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. She is Defender of the Faith

If not for that Grace and Faith there is no office to hold.

 

[NGalitzine]

That may be the official title but the reality is that she is Queen of the UK by the grace of Parliament and of the people. Should Parliament and the people decide otherwise I would not expect God to intervene.
She also swore an oath to govern by the laws of the UK, the treaty of Lisbon became part of those laws.
As far as I can tell she is still a Protestant, even Supreme Governor of the Church of England so nothing has changed there as far as the oath to be Protestant goes. She like every other congregant can defend the Protestant faith to her hearts content. Even the proposed changes to the succession laws would still require the monarch to be CofE. Even removal of the Bishops from the House of Lords would not change that. God, and Gods representatives on earth, should after all be more concerned with more spiritual than political issues and the House of Lords is now entirely political.
The only way QEII could bring about the end of the monarchy would be if she suddenly decided to act in a manner that was contrary to the wishes of Parliament, the laws of the UK and the people.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Well the signing away of the countrie's sovereignty to the Europeans is not "governing by the laws and customs of this land" but governing by the laws and customs of the EU.

You're probably right, not many people care about oaths and promises in this day and age and the breaking of her Oath won't bring down the monarchy but IMO this is bigger than 'constitutional monarchy' and the Queen being a rubber stamp.
IMO this goes to the very concept and reason we put the Heir of Body of the Electress Sophia of Hanover on the throne in the first place and the reason we have The Act of Settlement 1701.

BTW, maybe this whole mess with trying to change The Act of Settlement 1701 IS God's way of intervening (thought I missed that dig, didn't cha )

 

[NGalitzine]

Well the signing away of the countrie's sovereignty to the Europeans is not "governing by the laws and customs of this land" but governing by the laws and customs of the EU.

But those laws became part of the laws and customs of the UK, until such time as Parliament determines otherwise. I don't think an oath taken in 1953 meant that changes in laws and customs would not happen over the years. In 1953 it was the custom that divorced persons could not enter the Royal Enclosure or be received at court, and now divorced people are part of the court doing the receiving. Now the Cof E will bless the re-marriage of divorced people which not so many years ago was unthinkable. We have even appointed a British Roman Catholic to be Ambassador to the Vatican which seems like a no brainer but it was the custom that the British Ambassador was always CofE. Gee we even had a woman Prime Minister which was certainly not the custom in 1953. Laws and customs change with time but it doesn't means oaths have been broken. Monarchy survives because it is able to adapt to the times, if not it would have gone the way of the French and other continental monarchies.

 

[Iluvbertie]

1. No law is a law in the UK until it has received the Royal Assent.
2. She had to sign the Lisbon Treaty into law.
3. Her Coronation Oath required her to protect the sovreignty of the UK.
4. She failed to protect that sovreignty when she signed the laws handing that sovreignty over to the EU.
5. She broke her coronation oath.

 

[Nice Nofret]

Sorry - Point 4. is just NOT true - UK is STILL a sovereign country; in the EU everything has to be agreed on by all parts - so if the UK is against s.th.
they can stop the process OR decide, like they did with Schengen and EURO to NOT beeing part of it!!!

So you see your Point 5 is absolute hogwash

 

[Iluvbertie]

Actually that isn't the case at all as both those decisions pre-date Lisbon. Since Lisbon Britain is subject to EU laws first and foremost and the Queen signed that away.

She broke her oath.

The Lisbon Treaty was signed in 2007 and only came into force in 2009 well after the Shengen Treaty was agreed and more than 5 years after the Euro was introduced - so those weren't covered by the Lisbon Treaty as it only affects things since 2009.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Then why swear an oath if your're not going to put yourself in the firing line to honour it

Because she can't see the future? She's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. Poor woman.

 

[HRHThePrince]

As present, the position of Sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland is inheritable by males before females, right?


I know this may be a silly question but here it goes:

King George VI had two daughters. The current reigning monarch, Elizabeth II and the late Princess Margaret. How would the succession have played out if the Queen Mother had pre-deceased George VI & he later re-married and had a son with his new queen?

Would Elizabeth still have been 1st in line of succession before her half brother seeing as she was the King's legitimate daughter from his first marriage that produced no sons?

Or, would his son from his second marriage take precedence above her in the line of succession?

I'm under the assumption that Elizabeth would've still become Sovereign as she had no brothers from her father's first marriage, but acquired a brother due to his remarriage. I was thinking back to King William III whose heir apparent was Princess Anne of Denmark (later Queen Anne), his sister in law. If he had remarried, his offspring would've been further down the line of succession after Princess Anne & her descendents.

 

[wbenson]

The son would have been the heir apparent. The other parent isn't really relevant. Being the king's legitimate son is all that would have mattered.

The situation with Anne was a special case. The law placed her by name ahead of William III's hypothetical children with another wife. At the time, the line of succession was specified in an Act of Parliament (the Bill of Rights) as:

• The heirs of William and Mary together, then
• Anne and her heirs, then
• The heirs of William and another woman.

Since 1701, there's only been one set of heirs (Sophia of Hanover and her descendants).

 

[Kataryn]

A
I'm under the assumption that Elizabeth would've still become Sovereign as she had no brothers from her father's first marriage, but acquired a brother due to his remarriage. I was thinking back to King William III whose heir apparent was Princess Anne of Denmark (later Queen Anne), his sister in law. If he had remarried, his offspring would've been further down the line of succession after Princess Anne & her descendents.

No, her halfbrother would have become the heir of his father. It doesn't matter from which marriage a son is, important is that the marriage was valid. The case of king William was different as he became king due to the fact that he was married to queen Mary and was the next in (protestant) line after Mary and Anne, as he was their cousin, his mother was the sister of James II and Charles II (Mary, Princess Royal) and had married to the Netherlands, thus he was William of Orange. But he was next after Anne, so while his children with Mary would have taken precedence over Anne's, his own children would have been after Anne's children.