Talk:Act of Settlement 1701

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Catholicism

As a result of the Act of Settlement, several members of the British Royal Family who have converted to Roman Catholicism or married Catholics have been barred from their place in the line of succession. These cases are a major part of the potential interest for non-historians. Wetman 20:50, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I suggest you look at Line of succession to the British throne to see those living people (Roman Catholics) who have been "skipped". Peter Clarke (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anglican

Such decisions are made by the Prime Minister, whose own religion (if any) may be in conflict with the Church of England. This situation is rendered possible because, on the one hand, religious tests have never applied to public offices such as the Prime Minister (and under contemporary anti-discrimination laws it would be illegal to do so), while on the other hand, such a religious test not only is but must be applied to the monarch.

I was under the impression that the Appointments Secretary who advises the Prime Minister on appointments of bishops and the like must be an Anglican, and that the Catholic Relief Act specifically forbids a Catholic from advising the monarch as to appointments within the CofE. Also the Queen is immune from prosecution and the appointment of a prime minister is one of the royal prerogatives which the courts historically have held to be outside the scope of judicial revieq. The Queen could refuse (in theory) to appoint a non-anglican as Prime Minister and there's nothing anyone could do about it in the courts. - Chrism 18:22, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

The Queen could in theory refuse to to appoint anyone for any reason. But to do so would be a revolutionary act and cause a crisis. James II and Edward VIII learnt the consequences of such behaviour. Iain Duncan-Smith and Charles Kennedy are Roman Catholics; Michael Howard is Jewish; Neville Chamberlain was Unitarian; Ramsey MacDonald and Alec Douglas-Hume were Scottish, while David Lloyd George was Welsh and disestablished the Church in Wales. There has been no suggestion that any of them would be unable to be Prime Minister on religious grounds; the usual practice is to finger a convenient CofE cabinet minister to be responsible for bishops. --Henrygb 16:00, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Does this mean that if the duke of Bavaria and his wife converts to protestantism, the duke will be the rightfull heir to the British throne??

No. Three reasons at least:
  1. the Jacobites lost
  2. he is not the heir of Sophia Electress of Hanover
  3. the spouse's religion at accession doesn't matter - it is the religion at marriage which counts --Henrygb 16:00, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Marriage to non-Protestants

only Protestant descendants of Sophia, dowager Electress and dowager Duchess of Hanover, who have not married a Roman Catholic, can succeed to the English Crown.

So can such a Protestant descendant who marries a Muslim or a Jew succeed to the crown? Or a Protestant married to a Greek Orthodox priest? Michael Hardy 02:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, so long as the descendant remains in communion with the Church of England. --Henrygb 11:48, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Not so. Prince Philip, who was raised in the Greek Orthodox Church, was required to become an Anglican in order to marry Princess Elizabeth. Carolynparrishfan 16:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
This was not required by the Act of Settlement. More likely to be a reaction to Edward VIII's abdication crisis. His cousin Queen Sofia of Spain also converted (to Roman Catholicism), so such things were not uncommon in international royal marriages. --Henrygb 00:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "the losers"

I have been looking for a list of the cousins of George I who were 'passed over' because they were catholic - does anyone know who they were? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.201.83.26 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 26 November 2005.

User:Tamfang/Stuart – list of descendants of James VI&I who were born before George inherited the British crown and died after James II went into exile. –Tamfang 17:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I was always under the impression that there were 57 Stuart rejects but the list provided above lists over one hundred. Obviously some of these were born after the appropriate date but which are the rejects and am I correct that there were 57? The article doesn't appear to answer this question. (Elephant53 12:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC))

Of those on the list ahead of Sophia/George, I count 27 alive in 1688; 49 alive in 1701; and 57 alive in 1714. —Tamfang 05:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What if?

If the Queen and all her descendants die leaving no heirs the succession goes 'back up the tree' as it were, and this allows us to come up with an order of succession in which we list descendants in order and then go back up the tree when we run out. According to the general rules of succession as we all understand them this is an open-ended process, and provided we know the genealogy we can keep going and come up with a very long list of people, getting ever more distantly related to the present Queen as we go. But the Act of Settlement restricts all this to the descendants of one historical figure. Hypothetically speaking, if I was to wipe out all living descendants of Sophia, and I know there must be an enormous number by now, am I right in saying that no one would be entitled to succeed to the throne? We wouldn't be able to find a descendant of, let's say, Sophia's uncle, and give them the throne, because the Act means that she is the cut-off point. (I'm aware that all this is very poorly worded, but hopefully you'll get the gist of what I'm talking about.) What would happen in such a situation? — Trilobite (Talk) 12:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Looking around I've found this list which lists 4583 people, and appears to be a comprehensive list of all Sophia's descendants as of 2001. It says nothing about what happens if the end of the line is reached, however. — Trilobite (Talk) 12:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Even in the incredibly unlikely event of them all dying there is no problem, as the title to the Crown is not entirely dependent upon statute; we could fall back on the common law (see my article at [[1]]).Ncox 02:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Except that the (overriding) statute law seems fairly explicit - the heir must be a descendant of Sophia... 136.2.1.101 17:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
What would happen is that Parliament would simply pass a new law regarding succession (it would probably do this even if all 5,000 were not wiped out, as many of that 5,000 would probably be considered unsuitable), the problem would be, how could Royal Assent to the law be given if there is no Monarch. An ex post facto law could be past - Parliament can do anything - yet the Monarch is part of that Parliament, and a circular reasoning situation could develop, with a law being valid because it was Assented to by the Monarch, but the Monarch, and the Assent, only being valid because of that law. A similar situation arose after King James's 'abdication'. See Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689. - Matthew238 08:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The UK parliament couldn't "simply pass a new law regarding succession" - the line of succession is under the shared control of 16 different countries, some of which have the Act of Settlement as an inherited part of their own constitution. By the convention laid out in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, 1931 (also a part of each Commonwealth Realm's constitution) no one country can alter the line of succession without the approval of the 15 others - and that includes the UK. In Canada alone such a change would require the consent of all ten provincial legislatures, plus the federal parliament. Not impossible, but clearly more than simply passing new legislation. --gbambino 14:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Obviously it would take agreement by all Commonwealth states to change the head of the Commonwealth, but is there a constitutional rule that each member must have the same monarch? A few years back I heard of a proposal in Australia to change the succession as to Australia alone (in favor of Anne). —Tamfang 03:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The Queen's position as Head of the Commonwealth is ceremonial only, and has nothing to do with her roles as Head of State of sixteen independent Commonwealth Realms. For these sixteen countries the Statute of Westminster requires that they all be in agreement over any changes to the line of succession. However, it's only a convention, and not legally binding. So, technically Australia (or Canada, or the UK, or Jamaica, etc.) could break symmetry and create its own different line of succession, but this would breach convention - a convention which an Ontario judge said was strong enough to be one reason the court couldn't overturn the Act of Settlemnt within the Canadian constitution. --gbambino 15:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There are several Republics in the Commonwealth, so I see no theoretical reason that there couldn't be a monarchy with its own king/queen. The interesting question is what would happen if, say, Australia passed a different succession law and therefore ended up with a different monarch than the rest of the Commonwealth. Would that new King (or Queen) of Australia move to Australia? If so, would Australia retain their Governor-General, or would the position now be moot, since their monarch would be in Australia, hence no need for a viceregal office? Nik42 06:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Also within the Commonwealth are a few kingdoms under different dynasties. So, yes, Australia, or Jamaica, or St. Kitts could alter their line of succession, thereby making them a kingdom with a separate monarch to the other 15 Commonwealth Realms, but still under the same House of Windsor. It actually happened for one day in 1936, when all the Realm parliaments passed their respective acts allowing Edward VIII to abdicate, save for the Irish parliament, which didn't get around to it until a day later. So, for one day each Realm had George VI as king, while Ireland still had Edward VIII.
I've heard that this was proposed in Australia some time ago: the Earl of Wessex, or some other junior Royal, would be selected as King of Australia. However, it never went through - most likely due to the questions you raise: Where would the sovereign live? What would become of the Governor General? Etc. Not to mention the fact that it still breaches the convention laid out in the Statute of Westminster, and the approval of the other 15 Realms would most likely still need to be sought, if only at least out of courtesy. --gbambino 16:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
"By the convention laid out in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, 1931 (also a part of each Commonwealth Realm's constitution) no one country can alter the line of succession without the approval of the 15 others - and that includes the UK"
The statute of Westminster does not prevent the UK parliament, and probably a number of other parliaments, from changing the line of succession, with or without the approval of the other countries. Parliament cannot bind itself. An old law, like the Statute of Westminster, cannot prevent Parliament from passing a new law. - Matthew238 07:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about EU legislation? There is a UK - EU law contradiction.

I wonder if this Act would stand or fail in the EU supreme court?

It could probably justified on the grounds that its a legitimate restriction under the Equal Treatment Framework Directive (article 4 clause 2) - a religious body (in this case the CofE) can require its officers (in this case the Supreme Governor) to be an adherent of that religion. - Chrism 12:19, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

That is no good excuse, because it would be very easy to separate the role of head of CofE and that of the monarch, so there be no reason to argue for one via the other. But the point is rather moot, since monarchy and established church are concepts that are against human nature and thus must be struck down and the islands made into a secular republican democracy. - User:195.70.32.136 17:55, Dec 30, 2005 (UTC)
Against human nature? Who established the monarchy and established church then? Aliens? IMHO a constitutional monarchy is vastly preferable to the American system of more politicians! Owain 17:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
It may be easy to seperate the two positions. But the point is that in law they are combined and until they aren't, legally the prohibition stands. - Chrism 19:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
And who is 195.80.32.136 to judge what is or is not against human nature? I don't think he or she is anymore qualified to judge that then those conservatives who judge certain sexual acts as being against human nature? Maybe whoever this person is, they should keep in mind the tenant of judge not lest ye be judged.
JesseG 03:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I can see the arguement about having the CoE head being a CoE, requiring the head of state to be a certain religion is more shakey. The requirement that they can marry anyone except catholics is the hardest to justify, though. As it stands, the monarch can marry a jew, a muslim, a athetist, a jedi, or even a follower of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but not a Catholic. Mad. MartinRe 22:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
What I've heard in the past is that if William really had his head set on marrying a Catholic that Parliment would probably change the rules to accomodate him.
In 1980 the Cabinet set up a committee to investigate the implications of Prince Charles marrying a Roman Catholic, as there was the possibility of him marrying a Luxembourg princess. The Royal family personally have never had any problems marry whoever they want, it is Parliament which has left them in the present position.Ncox 02:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
JesseG 03:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two Part Debate

The Act seems to have two parts.

  1. The head of state must be a Protestant descendant of Sophia
  2. The Monarch/heir cannot marry a Catholic.

Unfortunately, they seem to get entangled in the article. For example, in the paragraph trying to show both sides of removing the part 2 clause, it shows the proponent arguements for removing part 2, but the opponents' response seems to be defending part 1. It would be nicer if it were possible to break down the pros and cons into for/againt whole act, and for/against removing just that clause.

[edit] Tony Blair's views

Tony Blair has stated that he would amend or repeal the Act of Settlement 1701 and does not agree with it - indeed he was quoted in a newspaper interview before the election as saying that it was 'plainly discriminatory' but that the burden of work involved in changing this law, and the limited real-world effect meant that it was not a priority. 136.2.1.101 11:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adrian Hilton

The situation regarding Adrian Hilton was not directly related to the pronouncements of Michael Howard, but largely a reaction to a Catholic Herald article during the election. I do not believe that this statement should be included without a citation to back it up. 136.2.1.101 11:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic endorsement

Also, the Catholic church does not (at least formally) endorse any political parties, but instead issues guidance on the position they hold. 136.2.1.101 11:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commonwealth Realms

The situation is more complex than presented in the article. There are two configurations:

1. Countries that have cut legal and constitutional ties with Britain, e.g. Canada (Canada Act) and Australia (Australia Act). In these realms any changes to the Act of Settlement 1701 (Imperial) would not affect the Act of Settlement 1701 (Canada) etc. However, in these countries the Crowns are de jure divorced from the British Crown already, and exist as entirely seperate legal and constitutional entities - even if the currently happen to be held by the same person (e.g. Queen of Barbados, Queen of Jamaica, etc.). The succession according to the existing Act of Settlement 1701 is a constitutional clause in New Zealand at least. Repeal or amendment of the Act of Settlement in these situations would not cause any legal problems in the UK, but could cause real-world difficulties in other countries (potentially breaking the 'personal union' relationship between the Commonwealth Realms).

2. Countries that still have tied-legal systems, including the right of the Imperial Parliament (Westminster) to legislate for them (overriding local law). The Statute of Westminster 1931 tempers this right by requiring Westminster to have consent before doing so (c.f. Abdication Act 1936), and this is very specific in the case of any change to the succession requiring approval of all 16 Commonwealth Realms - including those that now in legal practice have a distinct Crown. Even with agreement on a change this is still logistically difficult, and the course most commonly suggested by constitutional lawyers in the UK is to nullify this requirementin any legislation to make the amendment - earlier Acts do not bind Parliament against taking a different course later. To quote Geoffrey Robertson QC "The statute of Westminster is not a bar to progressive reform of the monarchy. Just like any other statute, it can be amended by a later act of parliament. There is no legal reason why a Commonwealth country can veto a UK government enactment."

Overall though, any unilateral change to the religious or any other succession requirement (such as male-preference primogeniture) could potentially break the union and symmetry of the Commonwealth Realm crowns. 136.2.1.101 11:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello user 136 in configeration 1. above you mention that repeal or ammendment of the Act of Settlement in countries that have no constitutional ties to the UK could cause real world difficulties in other countries - potentialy breaking the personal union relationship between the Commonwealth Realms . Could you elaborate on what those difficulties would be ? ( considering that they have no constitutional ties ) Lejon 10:20 19 Mar 06

[edit] Act of Settlement 1700?

References to the Act being from 1700 (such as the ACT register of legislation in the link) are due to the change in New Year's Day from 25th March to 1st January in England that occured in 1752. There is no fixed convention on whether to quote in Old Style (OS), New Style (NS), or the combined form that would read 1700/1.

The UK Parliament always refers to legislation by the OS year, and refers to this Act as the 'Act of Settlement 1700' in formal documents, although common usage (as recorded in Hansard in debates) is to use the modern form of 1701.

136.2.1.101 11:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason is that before 1793, Acts came into force on the first day of the session that parliament sat. See Acts of Parliament (Commencement) Act 1793. Kurando | ^_^ 09:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely this reason and the old style/new style reason because the act was passed in June 1701. Kurando | ^_^ 09:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The official short title of the Act is set by a later Act of Parliament as just "Act of Settlement" without the year. The Bill of Rights also has no year after it.Richard75 21:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restoring factually accurate Introduction

The original introduction was recently removed:

I have restored it, because any reader arriving at this page could reasonably be expecting to find out what this thing is. The key, vital, answer is that it is an Act of the Parliament of England, followed by a bit of very brief background.--Mais oui! 14:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The key thing is that it is the main Act of Parliament that governs the line of succession to the British and Commonwealth Realm thrones. I have rewritten it again to restore this fact. Astrotrain 15:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Patriation of laws - whether there has been a specific statement that it applies in Commonwealth Realms isn't important, it applies either way. They could of course repeal this Act within their country, although I don't believe this has ever been done (as noted above, the Statute of Westminster is not a bar to unilateral action, as any of the Commonwealth Realms can also repeal that Act's effect on them too!) 136.2.1.101 17:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:British laws

Given this is a key piece of legislation in the British constitution, it is listed in British laws category. Astrotrain 22:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It is plain bad practice to double-enter articles in categories: if an article is in a subcategory it should not also be entered in the parent category. For good measure it is also listed in Category:United Kingdom constitution, as it should be. --Mais oui! 00:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
It is not in a sub cat of British laws. Astrotrain 23:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is. --Mais oui! 08:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] foreign monarchs

The clause about making war for foreign monarchs is not "obsolete", merely inactive. Although the first foreigner in the line of succession to the British Throne is No.60 (the king of Norway), the provision would become acutely relevant if, say, Prince William of Wales were to marry Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden. —Tamfang 06:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rendundant parts

Some of the aspects of the law listed would seem to no longer apply. If this is so, it should be stated - as is the case with "no monarch can leave the British Isles without the consent of Parliament". The section I'm talking about (althought I don't know for sure they no longer apply) are -

  • That no foreigner—even if naturalized (unless they were born of English parents)—shall be allowed to be a Privy Councillor or a member of both Houses of Parliament, or hold "any office or place of trust, either civil or military, or to have any grant of lands, tenements or hereditaments from the Crown, to himself or to any other or others in trust for him".
  • That no person who has an office under the monarch or receives a pension from the Crown can be an MP. This provision was inserted to avoid unwelcome royal influence over the Commons.

-Matthew238 07:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The second point certainly still applies- as this is how an MP resigns from office before an election. I am not sure about the first one- but I think it still applies as well. Astrotrain 09:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The first part in theory applies, but remember that citizens of the Commonwealth of Nations or the Republic of Ireland have never been treated as foreigners - they can certainly be MPs etc. - and for some but not all purposes European Union citizens are given the same rights as British citizens (e.g. most civil service posts are open to them). --Henrygb 21:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I would have thought that naturalized citizens could run for parliament and serve in the military and government. And the second applies, it is even a part of the Australian written constitution - there have been court cases about it (see Phil Cleary). But how does it apply to ministers etc., who are members of parliament and hold office under the crown (eg. PM is First Lord of the Treasury).
In the past, when an MP became a minister, they had to resign from parliament and face a ministerial by-election. There were 667 such elections from the Reform Act to it being stopped by the Re-Election of Ministers Acts 1919 and 1926.[2]--Henrygb 09:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
So the second one doesn't completely apply anymore. But what of the first? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matthew238 (talk • contribs).
See paragraphs 19 to 28 of [3] to see the current position --Henrygb 22:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
So I'm guessing naturalized citizens are now considered full citizens for all intents and purposes - they can run for parliament, etc. And of course citizens of Commonwealth countries have always been able to run for parliament and hold most public offices, even if they were no naturalized. - Matthew238 23:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That no monarch may leave the British Isles without the consent of Parliament.

Act says "That no monarch may leave the British Isles without the consent of Parliament." Charmingly anachronistic. Can someone add to the article at that point the reason why this was originally included? Tempshill 04:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps to legitimize the theory that James II abdicated de facto when he fled. —Tamfang 05:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Where in the act does it say this? I can't find any reference to it. Bardcom (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Pretty much confirms that the "British Isles" was a political entity. Hence the name is a political, not geographical, term. Sarah777 (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
And perhaps so that no monarch may negotiate with a foreign power. Just a thought. Interesting tho.--Gazzster (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move and the de facto naming standard argues very strongly against any move of this page in isolation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Should this page be moved to Act of Settlement, 1701? Please discuss below. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 18:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nearly all English+UK Acts of Parliament articles I've seen on Wikipedia have not used the comma before the year. In my view it should be left as it is.--Johnbull (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Support, but should be part of more general change to the rest of the articles on Act of Settlement disambiguation page at least. Not necessarily the specific format, but the disambiguating year should either be separated by a comma as proposed here, by parentheses, by using the word "of" which appears in many references to such statutes when the year is included (including the reference on the Act of Settlement disambiguation page to "a partial reversal of the Act of Settlement of 1652" and the like), or something along those lines. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. The content of Category:Acts of the Parliament of England suggests that the existing standard follows the StatuteLaw.gov.uk site, with no comma. Unless there's been prior consensus for a new naming format for all such articles among a wide group of interested editors (and if there is, can you point me to their conversations?) then I can't see a reason to support. --DeLarge (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with both of the comments above. If there is a change to be made, the same change should be made to all of the articles in the category. As such, this would benefit from a more centralized discussion. Dekimasuよ! 02:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.