The finest daily football bulletin
Where am I?
The Act of Settlement 1701 is a central constitutional statute; it determines the succession to the Crown of England. As the historian Andrew Roberts has pointed out, it has been a success.
In the three centuries since it was enacted, the UK has led the global industrial and scientific revolution, emerged victorious from five world wars, built and liquidated an empire comparable to that of Ancient Rome, and retained the settled succession to the throne. Americans often point to 1776 as the foundation date of their democratic republic; 1701 is the foundation date of our modern monarchy, which evolved into a democratic monarchy.
However, the Act of Settlement is an unusual document. The Queen's title to the throne is derived from her descent from the Electress Sophia of Hanover. Sophia herself died in 1714, only six weeks before the last Stuart monarch, Queen Anne. The first monarch to succeed under the Act of Settlement was Sophia's son George I; Elizabeth II is his successor and direct heir.
In 1701 the King, William III, and Parliament were concerned to protect the Protestant succession to the throne against a threat of French and Catholic influence. The Tories had a majority in the 1701 Parliament, but few people were willing to go back to the old Pretender or the Roman Catholic Stuart dynasty. The Act of Settlement therefore provided that no future monarch should be a Roman Catholic or married to one. That created the discrimination against Catholics that causes offence.
There was no alteration in the 1701 Act to the existing rules governing the succession of women to the throne. In the absence of a direct male heir, a royal princess can succeed, but a younger brother has seniority over an elder sister.
There are therefore two discriminations, one in the Act of Settlement against Catholics and one that affects women. That tradition goes back at least as far as the accession of Edward VI in 1547. Edward was a younger brother with two elder sisters living, Mary and Elizabeth; he was also the champion of the Protestant cause.
The Prime Minister has recently discussed the removal of these anomalies with the Queen. There seems to be widespread agreement that they cannot logically be defended. It is doubtful whether they are compatible with European human rights legislation. It is inconceivable nowadays that any new Act should include either religious or sexual discrimination. The question is whether the Act of Settlement ought now to be amended to bring it into line with human rights law.
There is quite a strong practical case for leaving the Act alone. The whole of the Commonwealth would have to agree any amendment. In some major Commonwealth countries the Queen is still head of state. In Australia, any amendment of the Act would lead inevitably to a further vote to make Australia a republic - perhaps already an inevitable outcome. In Canada there might be calls for independence for Quebec. The Canadian Government can well do without a Quebec crisis.
The UK would be affected as well; any reform of the Act would lead to new Scottish nationalist demands for complete independence, and perhaps also to new demands for a united Ireland. All of these are issues that will eventually have to be settled, but practical politicians might prefer to defer them.
The delay was likely to happen anyway. Gordon Brown has already said that his Government will not introduce new legislation before the next election, though he agrees that the two discriminations are not defensible. David Cameron, if he wins the election, will inherit very difficult problems. I would not expect him to legislate on such a controversial subject in his first Parliament. That would take us down to 2014, which is beyond the political horizon. There is no pressure of time.
There are at present three male heirs to the throne, none of whom is Catholic. Their position would not be affected by any reform, except insofar as they might wish to marry a Catholic at some point in the future. The Princess Royal would move up into fourth place, going ahead of her two younger brothers and their children. It is rather unlikely that any change in the law would affect the actual succession to the throne until after 2050 at the earliest.
There are of course the two wider groups that are discriminated against and these, to some degree, may resent that.
I do not find that the Act of Settlement is a burning issue with most Catholics. The relationship between the Catholic and Anglican Churches has never been friendlier. Few Catholics want to see the Church of England disestablished; none want to take over the cost of restoring the great cathedrals. Anything that weakens the Church of England weakens Christianity in England. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor has said that the Act of Settlement is not high on his agenda.
I do not think that the sexual discrimination of the monarchy is high on the agenda of most women. I suppose the decisive factor is the Queen herself. It is true that she is more popular now than any monarch since, perhaps, the last years of Queen Victoria. The Queen's popularity might make it easier to amend the Act, and might minimise the unforeseen consequences of constitutional change. In that sense, it might be 100 years before there was again so favourable a period.
Yet the issues are complex; a reform of the Act would invite the introduction of new issues, and potential damage might be done to the monarchy. Why add to the Queen's burdens? Many people, including many Catholics, will reflect that the Act of Settlement has done a good job in preserving the British monarchy through historic dangers. They feel great loyalty to the Queen. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to leave the Act as it is until the 22nd century.
Error: Incorrect captcha
Error: "+errorString+"
Once you remove the prohibition of Catholics, then you open the door to the arguement that a "royal" should able to marry anyone he or she choses, irespective of their race, colour, creed or background. Has Mr Brown given due thought to the possibilities which that bucket of worms could engender?
William,expat, Malaga, Spain
If male primogeniture had been abolished during Victoria's reign, her eldest child, Princess Victoria, would have succeeded her. Victoria married the Crown Prince of Prussia and her eldest child would have succeeded her as King of the United Kingdom in 1901 - his name was Kaiser Wilhelm II.
Cameron, Cambridge,
What next? Driving on the right?
Mike, Macau,
Myles Bailey, London, UK
So? It would be nice to live in a full democracy rather than a part democracy. If we can't live in a real democracy let's have a monarchy which is non-discriminatory-- or are we meant love sexist, anti-catholic prejudices?
David, Bishop Stortford, UK
There's another agenda here and I don't like it. With the current state of the nation, why would Calamity & Co. care about it? Mr & Mrs Blair turned me, a republican agnostic, to pro-monarchy and against Catholicism etc.. Protestantism has worked well in the UK and much of Europe; leave it alone!
Ray, Dartmouth,
This Act should be abolished. In this day and age it is an affront to all UK citizens. We give rights and protections to all sorts of dangerous groups in this country but disbar a large number of our own citizens from equal rights concerning the monarchy. A disgrace.
paul, cockermouth, cumbria
Can one of you Brits PLEASE explain to the rest of us why you even still have a monarchy? What purpose does it serve?
Michael E, Washington D.C., US
James, The most important aspect of the 1701 act should be regarded as the clear statement that it was Parliament which decided who would be the Royal House and could bar a claimant from the throne. The Queen therefore has the strongest claim of all - Parliament says she is Queen, therefore she is
Mike, Newport, Wales
The Stuart claim is still very much alive through Francis of Albany who is our rightful monarch by bloodline. Liz Windsor's ancestor George of Hanover was 47Th in line for the throne and therefore not very royal at all really. LONG LIVE THE KING OVER THE WATER
paul holden, Brighton, East Sussex
Here, here. I couldn't agree more. SWC in the USA is quite right too: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. We are too often these days victims of this quite nonsensical desire to 'modernise' things just for the sake of modernising them. Well, this time let's defer to the considerable wisdom of history.
Chris , Beijing, China
Just maybe, it is time to end all discrimination in relation to the job of Head of State in the UK. In this diverse multi-cultural, multi-faith and multi-ethnic society, surely every British child should be able to aspire to this particular position whatever their origin, creed or background.
SUSAN, ASCOT, UK
An outside view. The comfort of the familiar and the undoubted achievements of the British system make change difficult. Look at the other side of the scale - the stultifying and corrosive effect of the class system, much diluted but still working. This is a high price to pay for mere stability
Liam, Dublin, Ireland
No one seems to understand that a change to the Act of Succession should logically apply solely to future generations, not retrospectively to men and women already born. If Prince William's first child is a girl, then she should be the heir. Why is that so difficult to grasp?
Lili, Chicago, USA
This is effectively another spin operation by Gordon Browm's merchants to divert attention away from the economy and the continual bad press he is (rightly) receiving.
Ralph, London, England
I fail to see how how damaging the Crown is in anyway a priori an important consideration - only if it's useful to the people and thus the state does it matter. So what if the Queen has to work harder - she's really our Queen, not us her people. And I say all this as a pragmatic monarchist.
Michael Nash, Chelmsford, UK
if its not broken don't fix it. doesn't parliament have better things to do these days without getting into this foolishness.
swc, norwell, usa
Changing from male to absolute primogeniture is long overdue. Sweden (1980), the Netherlands (1983), Norway (1990) and Belgium (1991) have already done so; Denmark probably will do so by referundum in July. The current British succession the same by either rule, so the time is ripe for this change.
Laurence Tenney, San Francisco,
I don't know why it's taken for granted that consent of all Commonwealth countries where the Queen is Head of State would be needed. Up to them to have their own Acts of Succession if they want them. Remember that the British and Hanoverian successions diverged in 1837 over the Salic law.
Paul, Sydney, Australia
As the Act of Settlement is enshrined in the subsequent Act of Union of 1707 which formed the United Kingdom-if it is repealed then it raises a serious constitutional question re the Act of Union. Not unique to UK -Spain & Belgium require their monarch's to be RC, Scandinavian states Lutheran.
Ian, Edinburgh, Scotland
Given the political chaos now where politicians of every party are not "fit for purpose" and the party system leads to minority unrepresentative governments, the monarchy gives us one other level of insurance against instability and missing leadership. Not the time to change boats in a rough sea.
Brian Lewis, Manila, Philippines
Read Full Article »